Does God have eyes?

Please be mindful that all the Greek that you know is useless without the understanding that God gives.
Just so you know, he doesn’t know Greek, but he likes to pretend like he does. I can only suppose that he enjoys misleading people and/or the authority he imagines it gives him. You have correctly pointed out that his claim that “o theos” is an exclusive title for God is erroneous.
 
I think we would do well to pause here and acknowledge the fact that Spirits, as we generally conceive of them, do not have gender, yet we don’t consider this language deceptive. Also, there are some reasons to think that God’s nature may been partially revealed or, perhaps, unclear from the start. Gen 1:26; 3:22, etc. You might enjoy this link along those lines.
https://dustoffthebible.com/Blog-archive/2021/11/25/why-is-the-name-elohim-אֱל%D6%B9ה%D6%B4ים-plural/
I read the beginning and then the conclusion of the article. The author is unable to link Elohim with the Trinity which was good to read but if he/she had stated otherwise, I still believe the Hebrews/Jews had a correct understanding of YHWH as one "person" because of the singular personal pronouns ascribed to him and in which he speaks of himself.
I agree with you that spirits do not have gender. It would be strange to speak of spirits as "it or its".
Maybe the "let us" is unclear because it doesn't state who the "us" is, but through further descriptions of heaven it would seem most likely be referring to angels.
I especially agree with your last sentence. That’s the reason I remain on the fence. However, I can’t rule out the possibility of a trinity either.
I can and have ruled the possibility of a trinity out by revelation of God. That is why I have had to find another explanation of what I read about in the NT that fits with the OT revelation of YHWH given to the Jews.
I do think that Jesus could’ve sinned. I believe the evidence suggests that he was 100% man exactly as we are during his incarnation and that he resumed his divinity after his resurrection. However, it would still be just to refer to him as “God” during his incarnation because his identity is independent of his form and the creative acts that he accomplished before still warranted the veneration. This fact didn’t become apparent, however, until after his resurrection and may have been consciously suppressed in a manner similar to his silencing of the demons who would’ve revealed his identity.
Can you explain this more in depth? It sounds like a complete kenosis or maybe something extremely different. This explanation of Kenosis by Greg Boyd is something akin to what I believe.


My point was simply that what the things that we think are the attributes of God, such as the things you’ve listed, might not be what makes one God.
What would those divine attributes be?

This is Boyd's follow-up post in which he gives his answer to that question.

 
I must admit that I don’t harbor the expectation that God will reveal anything beyond what he has already given in his word, though I believe him certainly capable. While this makes me inherently skeptical of your claim, I’m not denying the possibility that I might be wrong, and I hope that you don’t think this is my polite way of implying that you are mistaken.
My expectation is that you would be skeptical. I look for answers in the Bible, but I also look for understanding of his word through prayer.
Also, I apologize for the delayed response. I have been ill and/or convalescing this entire week.
No apology is needed whether you answer or not. I'm glad you are on the mend.
 
And I have demanded that you pray to God for understanding. Which do you suppose is more important?

And I have shown you that Theos can refer to anyone as God
Wrong

That is not a reason to not debate since you ignore everything I say. You want others to accept everything you say while you reject everything they say.
Socinianism rests for its validity on opposition to Catholicism. However such is not a legitimizer of any faith. The dictum "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not axiomatic in Christianity. There are 1000 heresies, and socinianism is just another born out of nothing else but fanaticism. It has no legitimizer except hatred of Catholicism and high Trinitarianism/Sabellianism.

But, I can assure you that it is not necessary to be a Socinian dupe to be in conflict with high Trinitarianism/Sabellianism.

Socinianism and high Trinitarianism/Sabellianism are both extremist positions and equally unscriptural.

Then go speak to a brick wall, a brick wall should understand another brick wall?

I did not write this, did I?


Who do you suppose this in red is referring to?
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.
The ascended Christ, who is in the same position as the Logos in Jn 1:1c.

What you are saying is that the noun Theos is not the same as the noun Theos. Here is your problem.
No, I am saying that theos as a title is not the same as theos as a noun. You need to learn to distinguish title from noun. They could be referring to completely different things, where the context is differentiated, or they could be referring to a principal/agency distinction where the context is the same.

e.g.. "The King" versus "The King of rock and roll" have completely different meanings. One is a title usage, and the other a noun usage. However there is also a very marked contextual differentiation. This is not applicable to Jn 1:1c. Rather:

e.g. "The King is dead" versus "Mr. X has become king" denotes a distinction between noun and title usage where there is far less pronounced contextual differentiation, which is largely confined to the distinction between titular "king" as subject in "The king is dead", and non-titular king as predicate in "Mr. X has become king."

Now take the example futher: suppose Mr. X has a father who is "titular king" ("the King" has not died). But the King has delegated his powers to Mr. X, his son and makes him de facto king over a certain territory X under his control.

Hence you get, contextual to territory X, "Mr. X was with the King", and "Mr. X. was king."

You need to be able to understand these distinctions. If you can't, you won't understand Jn 1:1.

For some reason, you seem to think that people spit out written words when they speak...How do you know the difference between "god" and "God" when a person is speaking? Both are title nouns. God/god is not a type of entity or a race of beings, God/ god is a title given to those who are esteemed supernatural or have great power... It is the same with the word Elohim. Greek Gods/ gods have human features as depicted in the drawings and statues. The Hebrew God has no shape or form since no one has seen him to draw him or make a statue of him. Greeks have many Gods while the Hebrews have only one.

Given that the Hebrews have only one god it follows that YHWH God cannot have another God with him.

the identification is his son. Jesus is praying and says that he was with the father, in the beginning, he is not saying that someone else was there... You seem to be saying that the Logos was someone else in the beginning with God.

Greek is a pagan language, you seem holden to it.

How so? I grasp when it refers to the Hebrew God it is referring to one entity YHWH.

The Greek conception of Theos is rooted in idolatry and paganism. You hold to the Greek understanding. What could be more heretical than that?

a conclusion like that would make God a liar...
Matthew 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Jesus said God is his father so based on what Jesus said it follows that the voice must be the voice of God. You admitted that the Logos is Jesus. Jn1 says the Logos was made flesh. Based on what scripture are you saying that the Logos was not made flesh/ Jesus therefore not strictly the son of God?
The nonsense about three Gods fall at your feet...since you believe the word was God, and the Word was with God
You're are talking into the air. I do not believe in three Gods.

Semantics. Made / Became it changes nothing. In fact, it proves that the translation of "the word was God ' is not the best.

You are straying from the argument...If you are saying the Logos is not Jesus and God is not a father without Jesus then God saying that Israel is his son makes him a liar. It also begs the question who is Adam's father if not God?

The word father not being mentioned does not make God not a father...

God knew Jeremiah before he was born...The Logos is Jesus before he was born. Your argument is silly. God is the father of the Logos
Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
God is the father of the Logos...
John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

It is the same, Jesus. You seem to be saying that Jesus the man died and a different Jesus was resurrected, and a different Jesus ascended.The same Jesus came out from God...
John 8:42
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
John 16:27
For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

Your comments above suggest you believe there are different Jesus. You spoke of a Jesus the man and an ascended Jesus... There is only one Jesus...
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
You are blatantly misrepresenting me. The distinction between the man Jesus and the ascended Jesus, is that the ascended Jesus is able to be imparted with God-like attributes, such as form and glory and a throne of judgement (Phil 2:6 and Titus 2:13 etc). The man Jesus could not be imparted with such divine attributes, as "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" 1 Cor 15:50.

Please be mindful that all the Greek that you know is useless without the understanding that God gives.

Go and pray to God for understanding.

So why do you keep posting it
Socinianism is heresy - always was, always will be. Until you renounce it, you will always be a false teacher. Stop defaming me.
 
cjab said:
I think you know perfectly well that I maintain that Jesus is the Logos made flesh: no more, and no less.
A negative is invalid without saying what scripture does say. Hence your assertion has no validity of any kind, and you would also have to prove scholarly credentials to maintain such a thing, which you have yet to adduce. (We don't take BS here.)
Where is what the scripture says to validate your negative?

Socinianism rests for its validity on opposition to Catholicism. However such is not a legitimizer of any faith. The dictum "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not axiomatic in Christianity. There are 1000 heresies, and socinianism is just another born out of nothing else but fanaticism. It has no legitimizer except hatred of Catholicism and high Trinitarianism/Sabellianism.
You are trying to derail the discussion
But, I can assure you that it is not necessary to be a Socinian dupe to be in conflict with high Trinitarianism/Sabellianism.

Socinianism and high Trinitarianism/Sabellianism are both extremist positions and equally unscriptural.
Stop the nonsense and deal with the issue.
The ascended Christ, who is in the same position as the Logos in Jn 1:1c.
cjab said:
I think you know perfectly well that I maintain that Jesus is the Logos made flesh: no more, and no less.

Jesus is the ascended Christ, you maintain he is the Logos. No more no less. Saying Christ is in the same position as the Logos means they are two different persons in the same position.
No, I am saying that theos as a title is not the same as theos as a noun.
which is nonsense since they are both nouns...
You need to learn to distinguish title from noun.
A title is a noun.
They could be referring to completely different things, where the context is differentiated, or they could be referring to a principal/agency distinction where the context is the same.
Of course, they are since they are different
e.g.. "The King" versus "The King of rock and roll" have completely different meanings.
The meaning of king does not change...The King is no less a King than the King of Rock and Roll. They are both kings.
One is a title usage, and the other a noun usage.
Both are nouns ... a distinction applied to one does not make the other more or less a noun, neither does it make the king more or less a king. You are playing smart with foolishness.
However there is also a very marked contextual differentiation. This is not applicable to Jn 1:1c. Rather:

e.g. "The King is dead" versus "Mr. X has become king" denotes a distinction between noun and title usage where there is far less pronounced contextual differentiation, which is largely confined to the distinction between titular "king" as subject in "The king is dead", and non-titular king as predicate in "Mr. X has become king."
That is more foolishness... in both cases, the king is a title. You played smart with foolishness by not correctly writing Mr. X has become the king.
Now take the example futher: suppose Mr. X has a father who is "titular king" ("the King" has not died). But the King has delegated his powers to Mr. X, his son and makes him de facto king over a certain territory X under his control.
More foolishness...If a king delegates his powers as a King to another person then he is no longer the King. Even if you argue that they are both Kings it means that you have two kings. If you argue that The first king gave the second king control over a certain territory they are both presently kings therefore one cannot say the second king was king. In which case you still have two kings.
Hence you get, contextual to territory X, "Mr. X was with the King", and "Mr. X. was king."
Two kings sir if you equate the kings to Gods you have two Gods and the son of the first God is a God.
The son of the king is the logos...
cjab said:
I think you know perfectly well that I maintain that Jesus is the Logos made flesh: no more, and no less.

Therefore you are saying Jesus the Logos made flesh is another God.
You need to be able to understand these distinctions. If you can't, you won't understand Jn 1:1.
You need to understand the scripture if you can't you won't stop writing rubbish.
You're are talking into the air. I do not believe in three Gods.
You just proved that you believe in two it is only a matter of time before you grow another one.
You are blatantly misrepresenting me. The distinction between the man Jesus and the ascended Jesus, is that the ascended Jesus is able to be imparted with God-like attributes, such as form and glory and a throne of judgement (Phil 2:6 and Titus 2:13 etc). The man Jesus could not be imparted with such divine attributes, as "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" 1 Cor 15:50.
How am I misrepresenting you? You have a man Jesus and an ascended Jesus who you think are different persons.
Socinianism is heresy - always was, always will be. Until you renounce it, you will always be a false teacher. Stop defaming me.
You are defaming yourself. by teaching rubbish.
 
cjab said:
I think you know perfectly well that I maintain that Jesus is the Logos made flesh: no more, and no less.

Where is what the scripture says to validate your negative?
As there is only one God, so theos cannot "refer to anyone as God."

You are trying to derail the discussion

Stop the nonsense and deal with the issue.

cjab said:
I think you know perfectly well that I maintain that Jesus is the Logos made flesh: no more, and no less.

Jesus is the ascended Christ, you maintain he is the Logos. No more no less. Saying Christ is in the same position as the Logos means they are two different persons in the same position.
No. That's your comprehension issue. Christ "ascended to where he was before" John 6:63.

which is nonsense since they are both nouns...

A title is a noun.

Of course, they are since they are different

The meaning of king does not change...The King is no less a King than the King of Rock and Roll. They are both kings.

Both are nouns ... a distinction applied to one does not make the other more or less a noun, neither does it make the king more or less a king. You are playing smart with foolishness.

That is more foolishness... in both cases, the king is a title. You played smart with foolishness by not correctly writing Mr. X has become the king.

More foolishness...If a king delegates his powers as a King to another person then he is no longer the King.
This isn't true, because the true King is the titular king, and the regent the de facto king. So you don't understand the different between de jure and de facto? May be you need to become educated. What are your educational qualifications? I have two first degrees and also higher degrees.

Moreover by virtue of the Jn 1:1b relation, which I don't think has yet been properly translated, the Father remains true God, as Jesus said.

God remains God, even if the Logos functions as God. How that can be so is due to the unique spiritual relation between the Logos and the Father defined in Jn 1:1b; also see "I and my Father are one." John 10:30.


Even if you argue that they are both Kings it means that you have two kings. If you argue that The first king gave the second king control over a certain territory they are both presently kings therefore one cannot say the second king was king. In which case you still have two kings.

Two kings sir if you equate the kings to Gods you have two Gods and the son of the first God is a God.
The son of the king is the logos...
Kings is just an illustrative example. Clearly you are determined to learn nothing. But this is to be expected: if you won't listen to Christ, you won't listen to me.

cjab said:
I think you know perfectly well that I maintain that Jesus is the Logos made flesh: no more, and no less.

Therefore you are saying Jesus the Logos made flesh is another God.
You are saying it not me. I constantly emphasize that flesh cannot be God in the way we understand "God." Why do you controvert what I say? Jesus was the Son of God, not "God."

You need to understand the scripture if you can't you won't stop writing rubbish.

You just proved that you believe in two it is only a matter of time before you grow another one.

How am I misrepresenting you? You have a man Jesus and an ascended Jesus who you think are different persons.

You are defaming yourself. by teaching rubbish.
As I've said before, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Waste of time.
 
Last edited:
As there is only one God, so theos cannot "refer to anyone as God."
To believers, there is one God. To unbelievers, like you, there are many Gods...
1 Cor 8
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.


No. That's your comprehension issue. Christ "ascended to where he was before" John 6:63.
Therefore the same Jesus, not a Jesus the man and an ascended Jesus
This isn't true, because the true King is the titular king, and the regent the de facto king.
So you are saying the son the de facto king who you said the true titular king made is a false king...If we put it into perspective it would be the true God is the titular God and the son a false God. If not you have two Gods.
So you don't understand the different between de jure and de facto?
I am going by what you say bro...
May be you need to become educated.
If you call yourself educated I don't believe anyone on CARM wants to be that
What are your educational qualifications?
I suppose the least...
I have two first degrees and also higher degrees.
They sure are not helping you.
1 Corinthians 1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
Moreover by virtue of the Jn 1:1b relation, which I don't think has yet been properly translated, the Father remains true God, as Jesus said.
I see it it as lexically and theologically dangerous to deny that the validity of the English translation the "Word was God"
It is Ok for only you to say what has not been properly translated and what is dangerous to deny...
God remains God, even if the Logos functions as God.
Then the Logos was not God. Only functioning as God. In the same way, God made Moses function as a God.
How that can be so is due to the unique spiritual relation between the Logos and the Father defined in Jn 1:1b; also see "I and my Father are one." John 10:30.
Therefore the Logos was not God since Jesus prayed that the apostles become one just as he and the father are one.
John 17:11
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Kings is just an illustrative example.
Therefore we can use God also to illustrate.
Clearly you are determined to learn nothing.
I am willing but you are not giving anything of value
But this is to be expected: if you won't listen to Christ, you won't listen to me.
I listen to Jesus He said he is the son of God, he never said he was God
You are saying it not me. I constantly emphasize that flesh cannot be God in the way we understand "God." Why do you controvert what I say? Jesus was the Son of God, not "God."
Just as the Logos is the word of God but not God. Just to make it simple, Jesus said he was in the beginning with God. Was Jesus there with God or was he not there? A simple yes or no would suffice.
As I've said before, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Waste of time.
No wonder we cannot come to an understanding. I do not speak brick, So keep on talking to your brick walls and wasting your time.
 
To believers, there is one God. To unbelievers, like you....
Get lost, then.

You're only here to insult me. I recall the proverb, "cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."

Mind you, I never regarded you as a believer from the beginning.
 
Get lost, then.
Why should I get like you?
You're only here to insult me.
I only speak the truth.
I recall the proverb, "cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."
Then I won't cast any pearls before you.
Mind you, I never regarded you as a believer from the beginning.
Who cares what you regard me as? You have proven yourself to be an unbeliever.
 
Why should I get like you?

I only speak the truth.
Satan is the father of lies. When he lies he speaks his native language.

A witness in his own cause is not valid John 5:31. Who cares what you claim?

Then I won't cast any pearls before you.

Who cares what you regard me as? You have proven yourself to be an unbeliever.
Again, satan is the father of lies. The onus is on the bringer of an allegation to prove it, and you've proven nothing. You have recourse to deceit in saying "You have proven yourself to be an unbeliever." You can't prove anything for you do not believe that Christ is the Son of God, for you do not believe the Word is God, and so how could God have had a son?

And you maintain that God is one? Even the devil believes it (James 2:19). That is your error: just to suppose that believing God is one gives you authority. Christ demanded faith in himself, not faith in "God is one." Even muslims believe God is one: how are you any different? You are worse, for at least muslims consistently maintain "God has no son" but you say God did have a son. How did he have a son? Answer the question.
 
Last edited:
Satan is the father of lies. When he lies he speaks his native language.
And that is what you do.
A witness in his own cause is not valid John 5:31.
Then prove what I say is not the truth.
Who cares what you claim?
It seems you do since you are bickering about it.
Again, satan is the father of lies.
Why are you boasting about yourself?
The onus is on the bringer of an allegation to prove it, and you've proven nothing.
Are you not making allegations without proof here?
You have recourse to deceit in saying "You have proven yourself to be an unbeliever."
But you have...these are your words...
cjab said:
As there is only one God, so theos cannot "refer to anyone as God."
Paul says
1 Cor 8
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

You can't prove anything for you do not believe that Christ is the Son of God,
I am the one saying that Jesus Christ is the son of God, you cannot quote me saying anyone else is God.
for you do not believe the Word is God,
The Word is Jesus therefore Jesus cannot be God. The scripture does not say "the Word is God"
and so how could God have had a son?
Ask Jesus, he said he was in the beginning with God. You are saying he only came into existence when he was born.
John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
And you maintain that God is one?
That does not change anything. My wife and I are one, Jesus and the church are one. God and his son are one. Members of the church are one
Even the devil believes it (James 2:19). That is your error: just to suppose that believing God is one gives you authority.
What are you even talking about? Where did I say that? Is that not an allegation without proof?
Christ demanded faith in himself, not faith in "God is one."
Mark 11:22
And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
Even muslims believe God is one: how are you any different?
I don't know what Muslims believe. I am not a Muslim. Do you believe God is one?
You are worse, for at least muslims consistently maintain "God has no son" but you say God did have a son.
I don't know what Muslims maintain. I am not a Muslim. Muslims know what they maintain, so check yourself.
How did he have a son? Answer the question.
Who cares how, I simply believe him...
Matthew 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
 
But you have [recourse to deceit]...these are your words...
cjab said:
As there is only one God, so theos cannot "refer to anyone as God."
Paul says
1 Cor 8
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Your litany of accountable slander continues unabated, for which you will have to give full account.

As to the above, "to us there is but one God" is harmonious with "theos [unqualified theos] cannot refer to anyone as God" contextual to John the apostle's writing.

That is to say, a Christian is not entitled to call anyone "God." So how did John call the Word "God" if as you suggest, the "Word was not God?"

I am the one saying that Jesus Christ is the son of God, you cannot quote me saying anyone else is God.
I am asking what it means to you that Jesus is the Son of God? Do you have no opinion of what it means for Jesus to the son of God?

The Word is Jesus therefore Jesus cannot be God. The scripture does not say "the Word is God"
As I have never maintained that "Jesus [the man] is God", yours is a straw-man argument.

Ask Jesus, he said he was in the beginning with God. You are saying he only came into existence when he was born.
John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
If there was a man named Jesus "in the beginning before the world was," then where was he?

That does not change anything. My wife and I are one, Jesus and the church are one. God and his son are one. Members of the church are one


What are you even talking about? Where did I say that? Is that not an allegation without proof?
Your distribe is based on your assumed superiority over me for crediting God as "one." But in truth, I have never maintained the contrary. It is you who erroneously suppose that "The Word was God" leads to two Gods.

Mark 11:22
And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

I don't know what Muslims believe. I am not a Muslim. Do you believe God is one
Muslims do not believe the Word was God, so they don't credit God as having a begotten son.

I don't know what Muslims maintain. I am not a Muslim. Muslims know what they maintain, so check yourself.

Who cares how, I simply believe him...
Matthew 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
To believe that God declared Jesus to be "his son" isn't good enough for faith.

You have to believe that Jesus is the one whom "God sent" (Jn 11:42), and the "Holy One of God" (Jn 6:69) & "The Father is in me, and I in the Father” (Jn 10:38 &etc). You have to understand why Jesus said these things. Why did he?

Let me again ask you, how is it that you believe the above, if the heavenly version of Jesus was not "the ruler of all of God's creation in the beginning?" (Rev 3:14)
 
Your litany of accountable slander continues unabated, for which you will have to give full account.
so will you...
As to the above, "to us there is but one God" is harmonious with "theos [unqualified theos] cannot refer to anyone as God" contextual to John the apostle's writing.
No, it does not, Theos is a Greek word and Greek words have their own meaning... The true believer's one God is YHWH... Not Theos. Theos applies to every God in Greek.
That is to say, a Christian is not entitled to call anyone "God."
First of all God /YHWH did not call anyone to be a Christian...Secondly, Those who believe in YHWH when they say God they are referring to YHWH. Therefore When Paul says to us there is but one God he is saying to us there is one YHWH.
So how did John call the Word "God" if as you suggest, the "Word was not God?"
John did not call the Word YHWH. In the Hebrew understanding, John would be saying Elohim which can apply to the Word/Jesus. If John is saying the Word was YHWH then YHWH there would be two YHWHs, YHWH was YHWH, and when he says the Word was with God, that would also mean YHWH was with YHWH.

I am asking what it means to you that Jesus is the Son of God?
Exactly what it says. If Jesus is the son of God/YHWH then he cannot YHWH
Do you have no opinion of what it means for Jesus to the son of God?
It means Jesus came out from YHWH. Sons are offsprings of their fathers.
As I have never maintained that "Jesus [the man] is God", yours is a straw-man argument.
So how many Jesus do you have? Do you have another Jesus that is God
If there was a man named Jesus "in the beginning before the world was," then where was he?
He was not made flesh yet. That is not a hard concept to understand. You were a sperm and an egg before you became flesh
Your distribe is based on your assumed superiority over me for crediting God as "one."
Where did I claim superiority over you?
But in truth, I have never maintained the contrary. It is you who erroneously suppose that "The Word was God" leads to two Gods.
Of course, it does. You maintain that the Word is Jesus you also maintain God is the father of Jesus. If you maintain that Jesus is God but not his own father then that is two Gods
Muslims do not believe the Word was God, so they don't credit God as having a begotten son.
I am not a Muslim, what a Muslim believes is his business. It does not nullify the scriptures
To believe that God declared Jesus to be "his son" isn't good enough for faith.
It is one of the pillars of faith
Acts 8
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

One cannot overcome without believing it
1 John 5:5
Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
You have to believe that Jesus is the one whom "God sent" (Jn 11:42), and the "Holy One of God" (Jn 6:69) & "The Father is in me, and I in the Father” (Jn 10:38 &etc). You have to understand why Jesus said these things. Why did he?
You are funny...Faith and understanding are two different things. The disciples followed Jesus for over three years ...
Luke 24:45
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Let me again ask you, how is it that you believe the above, if the heavenly version of Jesus was not "the ruler of all of God's creation in the beginning?" (Rev 3:14)
So let us break down the passage you posted...
14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

The one speaking is the beginning of the creation of God


15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
The one speaking has a father with a throne.

Where does it say he is the ruler of anything?
 
so will you...

No, it does not, Theos is a Greek word and Greek words have their own meaning... The true believer's one God is YHWH... Not Theos. Theos applies to every God in Greek.
(a) Your inability to distinguish noun from title usage, as conceded by all erudite scholars, puts you in the "ignoramus" category of biblical expositors.

First of all God /YHWH did not call anyone to be a Christian...Secondly, Those who believe in YHWH when they say God they are referring to YHWH. Therefore When Paul says to us there is but one God he is saying to us there is one YHWH.
That much, as concerns the titular usage of "God", was conceded millions of posts ago. But unqualified theos with the article is exactly the same as the English word "God".

John did not call the Word YHWH. In the Hebrew understanding, John would be saying Elohim which can apply to the Word/Jesus. If John is saying the Word was YHWH then YHWH there would be two YHWHs, YHWH was YHWH, and when he says the Word was with God, that would also mean YHWH was with YHWH.
See (a) above.

Exactly what it says. If Jesus is the son of God/YHWH then he cannot YHWH

It means Jesus came out from YHWH. Sons are offsprings of their fathers.
True, Jesus did come from YHWH.

So how many Jesus do you have? Do you have another Jesus that is God
There is the man Jesus, and the Jesus who sits at the right hand of God clothed with the glory of God. Although they are the same one ("person"), they are constituted differently.

He was not made flesh yet. That is not a hard concept to understand. You were a sperm and an egg before you became flesh
So you're saying that in the beginning, Jesus just was a conception, a mere seed, in the mind of YHWH?

Where did I claim superiority over you?

Of course, it does. You maintain that the Word is Jesus you also maintain God is the father of Jesus. If you maintain that Jesus is God but not his own father then that is two Gods

I am not a Muslim, what a Muslim believes is his business. It does not nullify the scriptures

It is one of the pillars of faith
Acts 8
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

One cannot overcome without believing it
1 John 5:5
Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
Yes, but Jim Jones of the People's Temple claimed to "believe" that Jesus was the son of God, as did David Koresh, as do JWs, and all kinds of weirdoes. You have to have the right conception of Jesus. It's not good enough to just articulate "I believe that Jesus was the son of God."

One evidence of faith is having the right conception of who Jesus is. And if Jesus was, as he clearly is in the minds of so many unitarians, just a conception in the mind of God before he became human, then he is no different from any other man.

Do you credit the virgin birth?

You are funny...Faith and understanding are two different things. The disciples followed Jesus for over three years ...
Luke 24:45
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

So let us break down the passage you posted...
14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

The one speaking is the beginning of the creation of God


15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
The one speaking has a father with a throne.

Where does it say he is the ruler of anything?
Again, your lack of Greek is your undoing. The beginning of the creation of God in Greek carries nuances, including "ruler of all creation" by virtue of having the pre-eminence over all creation. Similar idea to the first born. This is not to say that the Logos was himself "created" in time. Of that the bible says nothing. In fact, as time itself seems to be part of creation, all that is known is that the Logos existed outside of time ("before the world was" - John 17:5).
 
(a) Your inability to distinguish noun from title usage, as conceded by all erudite scholars, puts you in the "ignoramus" category of biblical expositors.
Ad hom
That much, as concerns the titular usage of "God", was conceded millions of posts ago. But unqualified theos with the article is exactly the same as the English word "God".
You are still playing games with words...The person reading English sees God...
See (a) above.
nothing to see...The person reading sees God
True, Jesus did come from YHWH.
Therefore Jesus is not YHWH, your titular usage makes the Word YHWH. You already conceded that the Word is Jesus, nothing more nothing less.
There is the man Jesus, and the Jesus who sits at the right hand of God clothed with the glory of God. Although they are the same one ("person"), they are constituted differently.
You are assuming two different Jesus... there is no "they"
It is the man Jesus who sits at the right hand of God.

Mark 16:19
So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
Luke 22:69
Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
Acts 7:55
But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
Romans 8:34
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
So you're saying that in the beginning, Jesus just was a conception, a mere seed, in the mind of YHWH?
No, I am not saying any such thing... I am saying he is the beginning of the creation of God. Which you are going to deny.
Revelation 3:14
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Yes, but Jim Jones of the People's Temple claimed to "believe" that Jesus was the son of God, as did David Koresh, as do JWs, and all kinds of weirdoes. You have to have the right conception of Jesus. It's not good enough to just articulate "I believe that Jesus was the son of God."
Why are you surprised about that?... Confession is the base...Actions prove if the confession is true.
Luke 6
45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.


One evidence of faith is having the right conception of who Jesus is.
The right conception begins with confessing that Jesus is the son of God.
And if Jesus was, as he clearly is in the minds of so many unitarians, just a conception in the mind of God before he became human, then he is no different from any other man.
I cannot say what others have in their minds.
Do you credit the virgin birth?
If by credit you mean to believe, of course, I do. People perform artificial insemination, don't they? Which do you think is harder to do? Make a man from the dirt or impregnate a woman artificially?
Again, your lack of Greek is your undoing.
on the contrary your knowledge of Greek ist your undoing.
Proverbs 3:5-6
Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
The beginning of the creation of God in Greek carries nuances, including "ruler of all creation" by virtue of having the pre-eminence over all creation.
It also means God created the one who is the beginning of creation
Similar idea to the first born.
Then who do you suppose is the beginning of creation? The firstborn of every creature?
Colossians 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
This is not to say that the Logos was himself "created" in time.
So he was created outside of time as we know it.
Of that the bible says nothing.
Of course, it does...time as we know it began with the celestial bodies.
Genesis 1:14
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
In fact, as time itself seems to be part of creation,
We are fully informed as to when time began...
Genesis 1:14
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
all that is known is that the Logos existed outside of time ("before the world was" - John 17:5).
Because he is the beginning of creation...God created all things by him and for him...
Col 1
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
 
Ad hom

You are still playing games with words...The person reading English sees God...

nothing to see...The person reading sees God

Therefore Jesus is not YHWH, your titular usage makes the Word YHWH. You already conceded that the Word is Jesus, nothing more nothing less.
I really don't know why I bother.

You keep on attributing to me false positions that I don't hold in order to rebut them, and you talk nonsense at the same time.

The title of the Logos is.................."the Logos".
I conceded the Logos ...............became Jesus.


You are assuming two different Jesus... there is no "they"
It is the man Jesus who sits at the right hand of God.
The man Jesus is no longer a man (flesh and blood doesn't inherit the kingdom of God).


Mark 16:19
So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
Luke 22:69
Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
Acts 7:55
But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
Romans 8:34
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

No, I am not saying any such thing... I am saying he is the beginning of the creation of God. Which you are going to deny.
Revelation 3:14
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Why are you surprised about that?... Confession is the base...Actions prove if the confession is true.
Luke 6
45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.
If you've never going to learn Greek, why post in this forum?


The right conception begins with confessing that Jesus is the son of God.

I cannot say what others have in their minds.

If by credit you mean to believe, of course, I do. People perform artificial insemination, don't they? Which do you think is harder to do? Make a man from the dirt or impregnate a woman artificially?

on the contrary your knowledge of Greek ist your undoing.
Proverbs 3:5-6
Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

It also means God created the one who is the beginning of creation

Then who do you suppose is the beginning of creation? The firstborn of every creature?
Colossians 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

So he was created outside of time as we know it.

Of course, it does...time as we know it began with the celestial bodies.
Genesis 1:14
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

We are fully informed as to when time began...
Genesis 1:14
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Because he is the beginning of creation...God created all things by him and for him...
Col 1
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Did Jesus come down from heaven? Y/N?
 
I really don't know why I bother.
because you are trying to convince yourself
You keep on attributing to me false positions that I don't hold in order to rebut them, and you talk nonsense at the same time.

The title of the Logos is.................."the Logos".
I conceded the Logos ...............became Jesus.
Therefore John cannot mean the Logos was God.
The man Jesus is no longer a man
If Jesus is not a man what is he?
(flesh and blood doesn't inherit the kingdom of God).
Jesus has no blood, what do you think came out from him on Calvary
Luke 24:39
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Ephesians 5:30
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
If you've never going to learn Greek, why post in this forum?
Is this a Greek forum?
Did Jesus come down from heaven? Y/N?
Of course, he did...
John 6:38
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
 
because you are trying to convince yourself

Therefore John cannot mean the Logos was God.
What did he mean then?


If Jesus is not a man what is he?
A life giving spirit. 1 Cor 15:45

Is this a Greek forum?
Yes

Of course, he did...
John 6:38
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
So what role did he have in heaven?
 
I read the beginning and then the conclusion of the article. The author is unable to link Elohim with the Trinity which was good to read but if he/she had stated otherwise, I still believe the Hebrews/Jews had a correct understanding of YHWH as one "person" because of the singular personal pronouns ascribed to him and in which he speaks of himself.
The implications of the usage are interesting, especially when compared with that of other cultures, but you wouldn't have read that part in the beginning or the conclusion.
I agree with you that spirits do not have gender. It would be strange to speak of spirits as "it or its".
But if deception is measured by the precision of the language used, wouldn't something other than "it" be deceptive? That was the premise I intended to address.
Maybe the "let us" is unclear because it doesn't state who the "us" is, but through further descriptions of heaven it would seem most likely be referring to angels.
If we are speaking of probabilities, it is most likely that the Spirit of God is to be distinguished from God as the only other entity mentioned for God to speak with. It is preconception that denies this possibility.
I can and have ruled the possibility of a trinity out by revelation of God. That is why I have had to find another explanation of what I read about in the NT that fits with the OT revelation of YHWH given to the Jews.
I've had no such revelation. It's still on the table for me.
Can you explain this more in depth? It sounds like a complete kenosis or maybe something extremely different. This explanation of Kenosis by Greg Boyd is something akin to what I believe.



What would those divine attributes be?

This is Boyd's follow-up post in which he gives his answer to that question.

I agree with the line of reasoning in most of that. I disagree that what constitutes divinity can be definitively reduced to a single, known attribute like "love," and I feel speculation about what those attributes "are"/"could be" is wasted effort. I personally frame the question in terms of identity, because scripture supports the idea that a change in form does not change identity. Therefore, it is possible for one to have different forms "human" vs. "God" or "flesh" vs. "spirit" and still retain the recognition for things accomplished in the other form. This removes the element of speculation.
 
Back
Top