Does God have eyes?

[cjab]

You are confused once more. I never said "John was making a statement of equivalence between o theos and o logos" so your comment here doesn't pertain to anything.

You said above #155 "It is clear that Jesus/the word is referred to as "o theos" while in heaven and while on earth. You have no justification for the distinction you are making here."

Thus you are making a "statement of equivalence between o theos and o logos". Now here you are contradicting yourself.

There's little point in holding any conversation with you.

 

[John Milton]

Edit: Didn't intend to post.

 

[John Milton]

You said above #155 "It is clear that Jesus/the word is referred to as "o theos" while in heaven and while on earth. You have no justification for the distinction you are making here."

Thus you are making a "statement of equivalence between o theos and o logos". Now here you are contradicting yourself.

I didn't say that "o theos" is the equivalent of "o logos," and nothing like that can be inferred from what I wrote in that post. You have misstated my position once more.

There's little point in holding any conversation with you.

Apparently by this you can only mean that you lack the requisite ability.

 

[John Milton]

That is false, none of your examples are irrefutable, all lend themselves to more than one reading. For instance at John 20:28 ὁ Θεός easily could refer to the Father. There is nothing grammatically or contextually preventing this understanding. Infact to equate ὁ Θεός here with Jesus is highly dubious.

It's not dubious. Only the ignorant or the overly indulgent would claim otherwise.

What precisely is that supposed to mean ?

It means that all you ever do is make statements. You have no arguments only opinions.

 

[The Real John Milton]

It's not dubious. Only the ignorant or the overly indulgent would claim otherwise.

It means that all you ever do is make statements. You have no arguments only opinions.

Unfortunately it is dubious, and I can give a few arguments why, not just rant about it like you are doing.

For starters, the TSKTS construction castes serious doubt on the notion that one person is in view with the following words -- Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου. You basically have to argue from the grammatical fringes to sustain your position.

 

[John Milton]

Unfortunately it is dubious, and I can give a few arguments why, not just rant about it like you are doing.

For starters, the TSKTS construction castes serious doubt on the notion that one person is in view with the following words -- Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου. You basically have to argue from the grammatical fringes to sustain your position.

The TSKTS construction poses no difficulty whatsoever. John already used a TSKTS construction in reference to a single person in Jn. 13:13. "ὑμεῖς φωνεῖτέ με· ὁ διδάσκαλος, καί· ὁ κύριος, καὶ καλῶς λέγετε· εἰμὶ γάρ." You'll need a much better argument than that.

 

[The Real John Milton]

The TSKTS construction poses no difficulty whatsoever. John already used a TSKTS construction in reference to a single person in Jn. 13:13. "ὑμεῖς φωνεῖτέ με· ὁ διδάσκαλος, καί· ὁ κύριος, καὶ καλῶς λέγετε· εἰμὶ γάρ." You'll need a much better argument than that.

As I predicted, you are arguing from the grammatical fringes . The terms ὁ διδάσκαλος and ὁ κύριος are the functional equivalents of proper names in this verse, so the TSKTS rule does not apply . False analogy.

Fact of the matter is that ὁ Θεός μου in John 20:28 can easily be taken to denote the Father. So this is a dubious example of the “ Deity of Christ.”

 

[cjab]

As I predicted, you are arguing from the grammatical fringes . The terms ὁ διδάσκαλος and ὁ κύριος are the functional equivalents of proper names in this verse, so the TSKTS rule does not apply . False analogy.

Fact of the matter is that ὁ Θεός μου in John 20:28 can easily be taken to denote the Father. So this is a dubious example of the “ Deity of Christ.”

I think the best argument against Jn 20:28 testifying to Jesus being "the God" is that Thomas's phrase includes "of me." "The God of me" is not equivalent to "The God" where the reference is to Christ denoting the immediate divine authority over Thomas himself (but not so as to exclude the Father).

The "God of me" bears an equivalent meaning to "Son of God" per John 10:34-36.

This can also be seen by contrasting Jesus's analogous words in Jn 20:17, with Jn 20:28. Jn 20:17 contains no TSKTS construction.

I find the obsession of JM with Jn 20:28, which is to the exclusion of many other passages in scripture, to be deranged.

 

[John Milton]

As I predicted, you are arguing from the grammatical fringes . The terms ὁ διδάσκαλος and ὁ κύριος are the functional equivalents of proper names in this verse, so the TSKTS rule does not apply . False analogy.

Fact of the matter is that ὁ Θεός μου in John 20:28 can easily be taken to denote the Father. So this is a dubious example of the “ Deity of Christ.”

This is what sometimes happens when two different titles (which, by the way, aren't functional equivalents for proper names) are used in reference to a single person. This is what occurs in John 13:13 and John 20:28. Your analysis is inaccurate, and your assertions are false.

 

[John Milton]

I think the best argument against Jn 20:28 testifying to Jesus being "the God" is that Thomas's phrase includes "of me." "The God of me" is not equivalent to "The God" where the reference is to Christ denoting the immediate divine authority over Thomas (but not so as to exclude the Father).

This can easily be seen by contrasting Jesus's analogous words in Jn 20:17, with Jn 20:28. Jn 20:17 contains no TSKTS construction.

Thus I find the obsession of JM with Jn 20:28 to be deranged. JM seems to think that doubting Thomas is a greater authority than Christ himself, which reflects his humanist approach to religion.

"Of me" doesn't change anything here. Ps. 34:23 (LXX) "ἐξεγέρθητι, κύριε, καὶ πρόσχες τῇ κρίσει μου, ὁ θεός μου καὶ ὁ κύριός μου, εἰς τὴν δίκην μου." The two of you are displaying you ignorance of Greek again.

 

[cjab]

"Of me" doesn't change anything here. Ps. 34:23 (LXX) "ἐξεγέρθητι, κύριε, καὶ πρόσχες τῇ κρίσει μου, ὁ θεός μου καὶ ὁ κύριός μου, εἰς τὴν δίκην μου." The two of you are displaying you ignorance of Greek again.

"Of me" changes everything cf. Jn 20:17. Really this is nothing to do with Greek, but with you being a theological retard.

 

[John Milton]

"Of me" changes everything cf. Jn 20:17. Really this is nothing to do with Greek, but with you being a theological retard.

Thank you for finally admitting that you know that your remarks on "of me" have nothing to do with this passage. But I'm still waiting for the two of you to produce an argument.

 

[cjab]

Thank you for finally admitting that you know that your remarks on "of me" have nothing to do with this passage. But I'm still waiting for the two of you to produce an argument.

I admitted no such thing. I said "Of me" changes everything cf. Jn 20:17."

I have previously alluded to your inability to understand English.

Plainly the "God of Thomas" was Jesus, in Thomas's view, but the true God of Jesus and Thomas was the Father, per Jesus.

You don't understand this because you are incapable of grasping spiritual issues.

 

[John Milton]

I admitted no such thing. I said "Of me" changes everything cf. Jn 20:17."

Okay. So you’re still wrong. Sorry for giving you too much credit.

I have previously alluded to your inability to understand English.

I have no such difficulty.

Plainly the "God of Thomas" was Jesus, in Thomas's view, but the true God of Jesus and Thomas was the Father, per Jesus.

If you don’t think Thomas remarks were correct why didn’t anyone correct him?

You don't understand this because you are incapable of grasping spiritual issues.

Whatever you say, cjab.

 

[cjab]

If you don’t think Thomas remarks were correct why didn’t anyone correct him?

I have already alluded to why Thomas did not make a mistake countless times, but you still cannot grasp it. Really I am sick to death of repeating myself. John 10:34-36. Son of God/sons of God is equivalent to "God"/"my God" in OT language where Elohim is used of human beings (Ps 82:6). In the Old Testament Elohim was used of men as well as of God to indicate the divine-like authority of rulers. In fact this was a frequent origin of polytheism amongst the pagans who went in for this kind of thing in an idolatrous way.

 

[John Milton]

I have already alluded to why Thomas did not make a mistake countless times, but you still cannot grasp it.

How could one be expected to understand an allusion when they don’t have any idea what you think?

Really I am sick to death of repeating myself. John 10:34-36. Son of God/sons of God is equivalent to "God"/"my God" in OT language where Elohim is used of human beings (Ps 82:6). In the Old Testament Elohim was used of men as well as of God to indicate the divine-like authority of rulers. In fact this was a frequent origin of polytheism amongst the pagans who went in for this kind of thing in an idolatrous way.

If this is your explanation, it is woefully inadequate. The word/Jesus is said to have performed deeds that no human could in John 1. Your proposed “ye are gods” explanation does not account for the information given there at all where he is involved in creation and exists prior to his incarnation as no other human. Your position has you bizarrely affirming that Jesus is divine while simultaneously denying that he is God. This latter mistake arising because you mistakenly believe that “God” can only refer to “the Father” seemingly because of your foundational assumption that God can not exist as a human. In a vain attempt to avoid your errors on these matters, you’ve attempted to shoehorn a legitimate “agent of God” definition into the context of John 1 where it clearly does not fit. The translation “God” fits the context of John 1 and is clearly what is meant.

Also, you have still given no plausible distinction between “deity” and “God”. I pointed out the flaws in your definitions in earlier posts which you entirely avoided as you most commonly do.

I think that about sums it up. Ball’s in your court.

 

[cjab]

How could one be expected to understand an allusion when they don’t have any idea what you think?

If this is your explanation, it is woefully inadequate. The word/Jesus is said to have performed deeds that no human could in John 1. Your proposed “ye are gods” explanation does not account for the information given there at all where he is involved in creation and exists prior to his incarnation as no other human. Your position has you bizarrely affirming that Jesus is divine while simultaneously denying that he is God. This latter mistake arising because you mistakenly believe that “God” can only refer to “the Father” seemingly because of your foundational assumption that God can not exist as a human. In a vain attempt to avoid your errors on these matters, you’ve attempted to shoehorn a legitimate “agent of God” definition into the context of John 1 where it clearly does not fit. The translation “God” fits the context of John 1 and is clearly what is meant.

Also, you have still given no plausible distinction between “deity” and “God”. I pointed out the flaws in your definitions in earlier posts which you entirely avoided as you most commonly do.

I think that about sums it up. Ball’s in your court.

The distinction between "sons of God" and Jesus as the "Son of God" was made by Jesus himself in John 10:34ff. It doesn't invalidate the similarity of the language. I am not relegating Jesus to being one of the "sons of God" in Ps 82:6. He has special status as the "son of God" originated from heaven, but it doesn't invalidate the comparability of the terminology, nor does it lead to any usurpation of the Father's status as "o theos" in his own right to the exclusion of the Logos (cf. Jn 1:1b).

 

[John Milton]

The distinction between "sons of God" and Jesus as the "Son of God" was made by Jesus himself in John 10:34ff. It doesn't invalidate the similarity of the language.

In John 1:1 the word/Jesus is called "θεός" not " υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ". In John 10 the Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be "θεός". I've dealt with this claim before, and you haven't added anything new here. You've just given more assertions that don't address what I've said.

I am not relegating Jesus to being one of the "sons of God" in Ps 82:6.

Ok. I never claimed you have.

He has special status as the "son of God" originated from heaven, but it doesn't invalidate the comparability of the terminology,

The terminology doesn't fit for the reasons I've already given.

nor does it lead to any usurpation of the Father's status as "o theos" in his own right to the exclusion of the Logos (cf. Jn 1:1b).

"o theos" is not an exclusive reference to "the Father", so no "usurpation" is involved. John called the word/Jesus "theos" and "o theos" in his Gospel. You just don't like the implications.

You are still simply making assertions, so I'll point you in the right direction. You've claimed that a particular definition is what the text requires, but it doesn't seem to fit the context of John 1:1 and John 20:28. Why do you think this definition fits the context in these passages better than "God"? Also, you have not did not cleared up your problem with the terms "deity" and "God".

 

[Newbirth]

jesus is God and he has eyes.

Is Jesus his father?

 

[Newbirth]

Genesis 6:8
KJV But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD (ונח מצא חן בעיני יהוה)
LXX But Noe found grace before the Lord God (Νωε δὲ εὗρεν χάριν ἐναντίον κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ)

Genesis 30:27
KJV I have found favour in thine eyes (מצאתי חן בעיניך)
LXX I have found grace before thy (εὗρον χάριν ἐναντίον σου)

Genesis 34:11
KJV Let me find grace in your eyes (אמצא־חן בעיניכם)
LXX I would find grace before you (εὕροιμι χάριν ἐναντίον ὑμῶν)

Deuteronomy 13:18
KJV right in the eyes of the LORD thy God (הישר בעיני יהוה אלהיך)
LXX pleasing before the Lord thy God (τὸ ἀρεστὸν ἐναντίον κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου)

2 Chronicles 21:6
KJV evil in the eyes of the LORD (הרע בעיני יהוה)
LXX evil before the Lord (πονηρὸν ἐναντίον κυρίου)

Are you assuming that God cannot see?