No. It "neatly demonstrates" that you don't understand the conclusions that can be drawn from your statements. Perhaps you care about some scripture but per your own statement you don't care about all of it.
You will draw any defamatory conclusion you desire even from what is innocuous. In similar manner the pharisees sought to convict Jesus on the basis of his statements. You appear to be unaware that satan is the accuser par excellence. In so far as you are
always attacking my integrity, just as the pharisees always attacked Jesus, you should see the parallel and draw conclusions as to what or who may be influencing your behavior.
It's part of the same gospel, cjab; the two can't help but be linked.
They are linked, but they are uncontextual. One is referring to the doctrine of who possesses and exercises the divine power, which is the subject of gospel revelation: the other concerns the nature of a spiritual relationship between two men based on faith, where neither man wielded the divine power, although one had the ability to wield it by
asking God Matthew: 26:53.
And in respect of this power the same gospel makes it very clear that Jesus "is the power & wisdom of God." 1 Cor 1:24. It does not say that "Jesus is God" which is your doctrine. Thus you
misrepresent the gospel because you cannot and will not make the necessary distinctions.
One should expect the provocative and challenging statement made at the beginning of the gospel to be explained in the remainder, and it was.
I see nothing provocative or challenging about Jn 1:1.
What I do with Jn. 20:28 is no different than your attempt to explain Jn. 1:1 by Jn. 17:5, except that I take into consideration that Jn. 17:5 was about Jesus's ministry before his death and, therefore, may not apply in the same manner to his circumstances before his incarnation. What I am certain of is that whether or not "theos" has the article makes no difference as to whether it applies to the Father or to some other "god".
That is hardly a grammatical point, because who theos
relates to is a contextual question, not one of grammar. Once the context is clear, a grammatical point is often made in the NT by the use or non-use of the article, and in denying it you are fighting against grammarians that are world famous and who have stood the test of time. Who do you think you are?
Such will always depend on how the word is used (Php. 3:19 "ὧν τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια, ὧν ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία καὶ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ αἰσχύνῃ αὐτῶν, οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες."). I am equally certain that since John had no trouble calling Jesus "o theos" while he was on earth in Jn. 20:28, he would certainly have no problem using the phrase to describe him before his incarnation.
John did not call Jesus ὁ θεὸς in Jn 20:28.
You can't even relate the facts coherently.
You just said you don't care about some parts of scripture. Why are you acting as though you didn't?
I said "I don't
care what Thomas said" in the context of assessing Jn 1:1. That you can't work out what John 1:1 says without deferring to John 20:28 suggests you have serious intellectual difficulty with the Greek grammar of Jn 1:1.
Why would John expect anyone refer to John 20:28 when working out what he meant in Jn 1:1? I think you're unhinged.
Let me ask you this question: did C. C. Caragounis refer or not refer to Jn 20:28 is his discourse on Jn 1:1? What other scholars do you know who make their interpretation of Jn 1:1 depend on what Thomas says to Jesus in John 20:28?
You haven't accounted for it. You have tried to deny that the words were spoken to Jesus and you have also tried to claim that the verse is an exception because "the God" is modified by "my". I reject both because neither is true. (While the claim that "the God" is modified by "my" is true, that's not the idea I refer to here. The grammar does not change because of a modifier, but the sense may. In this case it makes no difference because "o theos" remains a reference to someone who is not "the Father".)
I referenced John 20:28 to prove beyond doubt that "o theos" is not used exclusively for the Father as you have claimed. You deny the obvious truth when you refuse to acknowledge it. I haven't accused anyone of being a "liar" for not agreeing with me. I have called people that when they repeat things that they know are untrue. You have done this many times.
I didn't agree with Barry (Gryllus), and I didn't call him a liar. I didn't agree with Jameson, and I didn't call him a liar. I don't agree with Caroljeen, and I haven't called her a liar. They all make a sincere effort tell the truth and understand correctly understand what others are saying, as do I. However, even though I have called you a liar in the past, I've been nothing but civil to you in this thread. You are the one who has resorted to name calling and personal attacks.
I haven't seen Fred post enough to know what he does, but your inaccurate statements about me and my positions in this post alone are enough to justify my skepticism about the claims you've made about him.
You have accused me of being dishonest. You said in post #74:
"In John's gospel, Jesus was called, as you say "anarthrous theos" (Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.) and "o theos" (ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.). I don't know why you keep making a statement that you should know isn't true. The idea that God is "greater (or higher) than the Logos" is given in John's Gospel, but it isn't fleshed out. Such a hierarchy could temporarily arise during his incarnation while he was not in the form of God or simply be a matter of roles where they remain ontologically one. It's not clear exactly what John thinks."
I said in my previous post:
In John's gospel the idea that there is one greater (or higher) than the Logos appears, who as John states "was (anarthrous) theos" but not "o theos" (Jn 1:1c).
The teaching of Jesus is that the one greater (or higher) than the Logos cannot be known except through the Logos (Jn 1:18, 8:27 etc). This is where the Greek tradition becomes usurped by Christianity. Since I have not yet finished reading the Martin Heidegger lectures on Heraclitus, I reserve my right to amend my opinion on this, but it is likely that the clarity brought by Christianity over the Greek tradition, as least as it is based on Heraclitus, is partly that relating to the distinction between "o logos" and "o theos", as reflected in the relation between Jesus and his Father, and as Paul summarizes in 1 Cor 8:6 etc.
The Greeks likely confounded o logos and o theos, just as Trinitarians do today. However Heraclitus also invokes Zeus - i.e. light or luminosity - alongside his Logos arguments, so this matter requires further investigation.
My earlier complaint was that not enough attention has been given by Trinitarians to (a) translating John 1:1b, (b) paying attention to what John 1:1b means in Greek. IMO "the Word was with God" is hardly an apt portrayal of the relation between spiritual entities. It may suffice for relations between physical entities however, e.g. human beings, as scholars have argued with undoubted merit.
So it is likely that our English bibles give only a high Trinitarian paraphrase of Jn 1:1; and which is scarcely intelligible as rendered in English.
Would you like to clarify to the universe, what statement "I made that I knew wasn't true"?
