Does God have eyes?

You are making baseless assertions. You are the one saying that your scholars are using grammar to prove scripture.
So who do you use to prove / translate scripture?

God never called anyone to be a Christian. If a person decides to call himself a Christian that is his or her business.
Nonsense (Rom 8:30).

Now you are making yourself a mind reader. If Thomas is saying that Jesus is God in the passage why do you argue that Jesus is not God?
Thomas said "the God of me" which infers de facto God, not true God.

Then you are saying that the ascended Jesus is a God apart from his Father who is the only true God. That is two Gods.
He is one with his Father, which you disregard.

You are wrong...I have proven that your doctrine is not supported in the scripture. You are teaching that the ascended Jesus is a defacto God apart from the only true God his father. Clearly, you are asserting two Gods.

I don't know the person. If he is teaching you and what you claim are his words then he is not of God.
You can't prove anything, as you are full of hubris and don't understand anything of God's divine hierarchy. Neither are you qualified to teach.

I deny a defacto God. Christ being in his father who is God does not make Christ God. If that is the case it means if you are in Christ that makes you Christ.

There is no defacto God to the believer. There is only one God to the believer and that God is the father.
So Jesus does not figure in your divine hierarchy?

All Jesus' power comes from God his father...
Just so. But Jesus' power is "Jesus's" power, nonetheless. The fact is you have no coherent doctrine respecting Jesus or the Logos: he lies outside your overtly simplistic dogma born of ignorance.
 
You are insensate to the rudiments of English and Greek grammar and not fit to teach anyone.

James 3:1 "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness."

What makes you think you've got the qualities to become a teacher, since you are so badly educated?
Says the person pretending to know Greek. How can you have the audacity to write this?
 
I was going to make the same allegation against you too, since you don't seem to understand that the basis of Christianity is monotheism.
Your limited mental faculties don’t allow you to conceive of possibilities beyond your personal experiences, but reality isn’t limited by your understanding. You insist that things can only be the way you imagine them, because you are ignorant of other possibilities, not because you have found the only true answer. You don’t have enough information to have the definitive answer to the question (even if your conclusion happens to be correct), yet in your benightedness you pretend that you do. You would be pitiful were it not for your constant, willful deception and personal attacks. Your lack of integrity should be apparent to anyone who can read your remarks.
 
Your limited mental faculties don’t allow you to conceive of possibilities beyond your personal experiences, but reality isn’t limited by your understanding. You insist that things can only be the way you imagine them, because you are ignorant of other possibilities, not because you have found the only true answer. You don’t have enough information to have the definitive answer to the question (even if your conclusion happens to be correct), yet in your benightedness you pretend that you do. You would be pitiful were it not for your constant, willful deception and personal attacks. Your lack of integrity should be apparent to anyone who can read your remarks.
You wrote "When the Hebrew Bible says God is one, there is no reason to suppose that this must mean that numerically there is only one God."

Paul disagrees with you: "There is one God the Father." 1 Corinthians 8:6.

My mental facilities are limited by what I read in scripture, whereas yours stray outside of scripture. Although I allow the ascended Christ as a de facto God, that is "God" only in a noun sense, as possessing the properties of God, I do not allow Christ as titular God.

As for integrity: the one who is pretends that scripture allows two titular Gods is the deceiver.
 
You wrote "When the Hebrew Bible says God is one, there is no reason to suppose that this must mean that numerically there is only one God."

Paul disagrees with you: "There is one God the Father." 1 Corinthians 8:6.

My mental facilities are limited by what I read in scripture, whereas yours stray outside of scripture. Although I allow the ascended Christ as a de facto God, that is "God" only in a noun sense, as possessing the properties of God, I do not allow Christ as titular God.

As for integrity: the one who is pretends that scripture allows two titular Gods is the deceiver.
You took my remarks out of context. The point I was making in the full post was that the possibility exists for a conglomerate of “beings” to make up a the one “God”.

Your silly “noun sense” “title sense” remarks are not based on Greek grammar and are nothing more than your attempt to relieve the difficulty that exists because two entities that are distinguished from each are called “God” in scripture.
 
You took my remarks out of context. The point I was making in the full post was that the possibility exists for a conglomerate of “beings” to make up a the one “God”.
That's not how the NT or the OT uses the word God/YHWH, who is "I" not "We". The only sense in which theos may be a "conglomerate" is as anarthrous predicate where it infers the nature of God. As subject, θεός is invariably definite unless nature/actions are being inferred.

Your silly “noun sense” “title sense” remarks are not based on Greek grammar and are nothing more than your attempt to relieve the difficulty that exists because two entities that are distinguished from each are called “God” in scripture.
I use "title" for convenience. I could equally well have used "personal appellative", "proper name" or other words.

As I have said before, I follow the scholars referenced in the Caragounis article at p.117 and my position is perfectly orthodox from a grammarian's point of view:
______________
Greenlee (Grammar, (see n. 14), 21-24, 39) expands the argument. According to him proper names of
persons and places, and divine names and titles (e.g. θεός, αγιον πνεϋμα)
are definite in themselves; they may or may not take the article. However,
when θεός or αγιον πνεϋμα has the article the person (i.e. who he is)
is being thought of; and when there is no article his nature (i.e. what
he is) or his activity is usually being thought of. Jn. 1,1 can therefore be
translated as, "the Word was with God (the Father), and the Word was
deity (i.e. of the nature of God)".

Moule (Idiom, (see n. 49), 1968:53, 76. 115-116) advocated the same position: "[θεός in Jn 1:1C] is necessarily without the
article inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not
identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say 'the Word was ό
θεός'. No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression,
which simply affirms the true deity of the Word".

It is interesting to note that although the grammarians mainly opt for
interpreting θεός as "divine", this is not favoured by theologians in their
commentaries.
 
So who do you use to prove / translate scripture?
I don't use anyone to prove scripture...Translators translate the scripture.
Nonsense (Rom 8:30).
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
no mention of calling anyone to be a Christian
Thomas said "the God of me" which infers de facto God, not true God.
If not true God then false God... You just admitted that your defacto god is a false God.
He is one with his Father, which you disregard.
You are the one disregarding...you are teaching a false God...which infers de facto God, not true God
You can't prove anything, as you are full of hubris and don't understand anything of God's divine hierarchy. Neither are you qualified to teach.
just proved that you have two Gods...
So Jesus does not figure in your divine hierarchy?
Jesus is the son of God. I have shown you this several times. Jesus is subject to the father. You claim that Jesus is a false God.
Just so. But Jesus' power is "Jesus's" power, nonetheless.
Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
The fact is you have no coherent doctrine respecting Jesus or the Logos: he lies outside your overtly simplistic dogma born of ignorance.
Scripture is already doctrine so I don't need another doctrine. You have a doctrine that says... Thomas said "the God of me" which infers de facto God, not true God.
 
That's not how the NT or the OT uses the word God/YHWH, who is "I" not "We". The only sense in which theos may be a "conglomerate" is as anarthrous predicate where it infers the nature of God. As subject, θεός is invariably definite unless nature/actions are being inferred.
Going all the way back to Genesis 1 we see “God” and “the spirit of God” mentioned. A bit later we see “let us make man in our image.” Going solely by what is in the text the only referent possible to refer to by God with the word “us” is “the spirit of God” unless he is referring to himself in the plural which is a possibility though you deny it. It is only if one approaches the text with innumerable preconceived assumptions (as you clearly do) that possibilities are missed.
I use "title" for convenience. I could equally well have used "personal appellative", "proper name" or other words.
You couldn’t have used all of them correctly. For instance, “God” is not a name.
As I have said before, I follow the scholars referenced in the Caragounis article at p.117 and my position is perfectly orthodox from a grammarian's point of view:
As I’ve said repeatedly, you cannot produce a single scholar that supports your claim that “o theos” is a default reference to the Father.
Greenlee (Grammar, (see n. 14), 21-24, 39) expands the argument. According to him proper names of
persons and places, and divine names and titles (e.g. θεός, αγιον πνεϋμα)
are definite in themselves; they may or may not take the article.
Here the author leaves open the possibility that anarthrous theos can be a title. This is contra your position. Also, he makes no distinction between modified and unmodified constructions. That is, as I’ve pointed out all along, your own invention which finds no scholarly support.
However,
when θεός or αγιον πνεϋμα has the article the person (i.e. who he is)
is being thought of; and when there is no article his nature (i.e. what
he is) or his activity is usually being thought of. Jn. 1,1 can therefore be
translated as, "the Word was with God (the Father), and the Word was
deity (i.e. of the nature of God)".
According to this articulation, the person of God (Jesus) would be in view at John 20:28 or the “person” of God would be in view in Php. 3:19. It is clear from what I cited earlier that the author viewed these passages as exceptions to his earlier remarks. You are applying the author’s remarks more broadly than the author himself. You have no support from Greenlee.
Moule (Idiom, (see n. 49), 1968:53, 76. 115-116) advocated the same position: "[θεός in Jn 1:1C] is necessarily without the
article inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not
identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say 'the Word was ό
θεός'. No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression,
which simply affirms the true deity of the Word".
It would only be “Sabellianisn” if “o theos” is assumed to be a default reference to “the Father”.
It is interesting to note that although the grammarians mainly opt for
interpreting θεός as "divine", this is not favoured by theologians in their
commentaries.
They are giving lip service to the fact that a noun is used, but they are treating it as though it were an adjective. The fact is that the Word is called “God” and distinguished from an earlier mentioned “God”. Later, John says that the two are one, but few seem willing to entertain the notion that all of what John wrote is true. Most tend to reinterpret one statement to align it with the other.

It’s all a bunch of bickering about something that doesn’t matter much, and it’s made worse by the ignorant arguments such as yours that have no basis at all in the grammar. You’ve simply chosen isolated statements from grammarians and cite them in “support” of arguments the authors themselves never advanced. You cannot produce a single grammarian that has made the specific claims you are making. You even disregard the fact that Caragounis himself treats capitalizes “theos” when it refers to “the word”.
 
I don't use anyone to prove scripture...Translators translate the scripture.

So you put your trust in unknown scholars, whose spirituality you know nothing of, to (a) provide a correct text, (b) translate it.

How then, by your own standards, are you not putting your trust in men rather than in God? Why don't you ask the Holy Spirit for guidance on how to translate it yoruself?

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
no mention of calling anyone to be a Christian
So you don't know what a Christian is? That might explain a lot.

If not true God then false God... You just admitted that your defacto god is a false God.
Your logic is faulty. What if true God employs subordinates?

You are the one disregarding...you are teaching a false God...which infers de facto God, not true God
Your logic is so infantile (cf. Jude 1:10 "Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand").

just proved that you have two Gods...

Jesus is the son of God. I have shown you this several times. Jesus is subject to the father. You claim that Jesus is a false God.
Why not address the issue of what it means for Jesus to sit in God's throne?

Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Scripture is already doctrine so I don't need another doctrine. You have a doctrine that says... Thomas said "the God of me" which infers de facto God, not true God.
You have no coherent doctrine on Christ: you evade the issue of who he is, what he was before he became man, and what he became again on his ascension.
 
Going all the way back to Genesis 1 we see “God” and “the spirit of God” mentioned. A bit later we see “let us make man in our image.” Going solely by what is in the text the only referent possible to refer to by God with the word “us” is “the spirit of God” unless he is referring to himself in the plural which is a possibility though you deny it. It is only if one approaches the text with innumerable preconceived assumptions (as you clearly do) that possibilities are missed.
Your argument is shot full of holes due to the key verses in Gen 1:27 "So God created mankind in his own image," and in Gen 1:29 "I give you...." Where God is a direct personal referent, then the singular is always used.

Only where God is an indirect referent, i.e. allowing for the involvement of subordinates (i.e. the heavenly host), is the plural pronoun is used. "Let us make man...." clearly allows for the involvement of angels in the role of creation.

You couldn’t have used all of them correctly. For instance, “God” is not a name.
Hair splitting as "God" is sui generis in the NT and the OT when used as an unqualified subject.

As I’ve said repeatedly, you cannot produce a single scholar that supports your claim that “o theos” is a default reference to the Father.
It is a matter of theology as to who "o theos" denotes.

Jesus and the apostles John are my witnesses. As I've said all along, find me one unqualified reference to “o theos” in the mouth of Christ or in the writings of John that is not a reference to the Father. I don't need any other witnesses.

Ultimately it comes down to "Do you follow Christ" or some high Trinitarian/Sabellian heretic?

You don't seem to understand that Christianity has been shot through with heretics since the year dot preaching all kinds of nonsense. It was Julian the Apostate who, presumably following the pagan system of defining "theos", saw John as setting up another God besides the Father. He was condemned by God at the hands of fate and suffered an early death.

Do you want to follow him?

Here the author leaves open the possibility that anarthrous theos can be a title.
Such doesn't not affect my position, because I have never argued the converse, i.e. that the article is always required, but which you seem to want to maliciously impute to me nonetheless. The grammatical finness of omitting the article only derogates from the specific personal reference down to the nature/actions etc of God, which are frequent. Indeed it is quite easy to predict when the article will be omitted.

This is contra your position. Also, he makes no distinction between modified and unmodified constructions. That is, as I’ve pointed out all along, your own invention which finds no scholarly support.
See above.

According to this articulation, the person of God (Jesus) would be in view at John 20:28 or the “person” of God would be in view in Php. 3:19. It is clear from what I cited earlier that the author viewed these passages as exceptions to his earlier remarks. You are applying the author’s remarks more broadly than the author himself. You have no support from Greenlee.
This is scurrilous, as some references to theos are qualified. A qualified use always infers the common noun sense, and so is distinguishable from an unqualified use. In such cases the notion of God/god is largely determined by the precise qualification introduced.

It would only be “Sabellianisn” if “o theos” is assumed to be a default reference to “the Father”.
“o theos” is a default reference to “the Father” in the mouth of Christ. Refusal to accept this core doctrine is, to me at least, a distinguishing mark of heresy - and a very dangerous heresy because it confounds the gospel by setting up a false philosophical gospel at variance with Christ's own teaching.

They are giving lip service to the fact that a noun is used, but they are treating it as though it were an adjective. The fact is that the Word is called “God” and distinguished from an earlier mentioned “God”. Later, John says that the two are one, but few seem willing to entertain the notion that all of what John wrote is true. Most tend to reinterpret one statement to align it with the other.
If I say "The man is a dog", I am using "dog" adjectivally. Your grammatical objection is misplaced. The "two being one" simply means that the God-like characteristics and actions of the Word derive from the Father and from the relation of the Word to the Father, who is the origin/source of all things.

It’s all a bunch of bickering about something that doesn’t matter much, and it’s made worse by the ignorant arguments such as yours that have no basis at all in the grammar. You’ve simply chosen isolated statements from grammarians and cite them in “support” of arguments the authors themselves never advanced. You cannot produce a single grammarian that has made the specific claims you are making. You even disregard the fact that Caragounis himself treats capitalizes “theos” when it refers to “the word”.
You misinterpret the grammarians because your own theology is so wayward. Theos is always capitalized re the Word because the God-like powers of the Word derive from the Father "who is in all" to a greater or lesser extent, but in the Word to the maximum extent (Col 2:9).
 
Last edited:
Your argument is shot full of holes due to the key verses in Gen 1:27 "So God created mankind in his own image," and in Gen 1:29 "I give you...." Where God is a direct personal referent, then the singular is always used.
Only where God is an indirect referent, i.e. allowing for the involvement of subordinates (i.e. the heavenly host), is the plural pronoun is used. "Let us make man...." clearly allows for the involvement of angels in the role of creation.
The text says that people are created in the image of God, not the image of angels. Angels are mentioned nowhere in the passage. You import them into the text for your own convenience. Where are angels said to be involved in creation or where does the explicitly say that they are made in the image of God? Jesus, on the other hand, fits all these categories. As I said, your assumptions are what limits your interpretational options, not the text. The only way you can arrive at your conclusion (and this is a theme for you) is by adding foreign ideas into the text.
Hair splitting as "God" is sui generis in the NT and the OT when used as an unqualified subject.
Where is your grammatical support for your “unqualified” requirement? You always ignore this question, because you know you have made it up.
It is a matter of theology as to who "o theos" denotes.
No. It’s a matter of context.
Jesus and the apostles John are my witnesses. As I've said all along, find me one unqualified reference to “o theos” in the mouth of Christ or in the writings of John that is not a reference to the Father. I don't need any other witnesses.
As I’ve already told you: 1) Your assumption that if a word is only used a certain way it must always bear that meaning is a logical fallacy. 2) You have no grammatical basis for your “unqualified” requirement. Where is the grammarian you can cite for this idea? 3) Your reasoning is circular. There are passages where articular “theos” could refer to Jesus instead of God, such as 2 Pet. 1:2. You exclude these in your examples. The grammarians on this point are clear that the questions about the meaning of these passages cannot be solved on the basis of grammar alone. So it is a joke that you claim that these same grammarians support your fabricated rules that give you such

.
Such doesn't not affect my position, because I have never argued the converse, i.e. that the article is always required, but which you seem to want to maliciously impute to me nonetheless. The grammatical finness of omitting the article only derogates from the specific personal reference down to the nature/actions etc of God, which are frequent. Indeed it is quite easy to predict when the article will be omitted.
You’ve claimed that a distinction exists between the two usages, person vs. quality. That isn’t always the case per the source you cite. It is relevant to your remarks.
See above.
You still haven’t given the grammatical source that supports your “unqualified” requirement. It’s not above or anywhere else.
This is scurrilous, as some references to theos are qualified. A qualified use always infers the common noun sense, and so is distinguishable from an unqualified use. In such cases the notion of God/god is largely determined by the precise qualification introduced.
You have no support for these claims.
“o theos” is a default reference to “the Father” in the mouth of Christ. Refusal to accept this core doctrine is, to me at least, a distinguishing mark of heresy - and a very dangerous heresy because it confounds the gospel by setting up a false philosophical gospel at variance with Christ's own teaching.
You mean besides the fact that he was divested of his divinity at that time per scripture? You forget this fact.

If I say "The man is a dog", I am using "dog" adjectivally. Your grammatical objection is misplaced. The "two being one" simply means that the God-like characteristics and actions of the Word derive from the Father and from the relation of the Word to the Father, who is the origin/source of all things.
No. It is used as a noun. You don’t use articles with adjectives. (You wouldn’t say “the man is a fat.”) You are classifying the man as “a dog” in your example.
You misinterpret the grammarians because your own theology is so wayward. Theos is always capitalized re the Word because the God-like powers of the Word derive from the Father "who is in all" to a greater or lesser extent, but in the Word to the maximum extent (Col 2:9).
I interpret the grammarians correctly. You are the one who cherry-picks what they say and falsely claim they support your arguments.
 
The text says that people are created in the image of God, not the image of angels. Angels are mentioned nowhere in the passage. You import them into the text for your own convenience. Where are angels said to be involved in creation or where does the explicitly say that they are made in the image of God? Jesus, on the other hand, fits all these categories. As I said, your assumptions are what limits your interpretational options, not the text. The only way you can arrive at your conclusion (and this is a theme for you) is by adding foreign ideas into the text.
It is axiomatic God is one. Therefore it is impossible for God to be plural.

Where is your grammatical support for your “unqualified” requirement? You always ignore this question, because you know you have made it up.
At this point, I stop. You're taking the piss. If I say "your god is your belly," I do not need to show "grammatical support" for my qualified sense, because I am always entitled to use "theos" in a common noun sense as it is a common noun. In its noun sense, it means whatever the speaker determines, and qualifies it as, within the general sense of what "theos" denotes as a common noun. That is why you don't grasp Jn 1:1c, because it is a common noun sense only usage, but qualified by Jn 1:1b which gives it a context relational to "o theos."

No. It’s a matter of context.

As I’ve already told you: 1) Your assumption that if a word is only used a certain way it must always bear that meaning is a logical fallacy. 2) You have no grammatical basis for your “unqualified” requirement. Where is the grammarian you can cite for this idea? 3) Your reasoning is circular. There are passages where articular “theos” could refer to Jesus instead of God, such as 2 Pet. 1:2. You exclude these in your examples. The grammarians on this point are clear that the questions about the meaning of these passages cannot be solved on the basis of grammar alone. So it is a joke that you claim that these same grammarians support your fabricated rules that give you such

.

You’ve claimed that a distinction exists between the two usages, person vs. quality. That isn’t always the case per the source you cite. It is relevant to your remarks.

You still haven’t given the grammatical source that supports your “unqualified” requirement. It’s not above or anywhere else.

You have no support for these claims.

You mean besides the fact that he was divested of his divinity at that time per scripture? You forget this fact.


No. It is used as a noun. You don’t use articles with adjectives. (You wouldn’t say “the man is a fat.”) You are classifying the man as “a dog” in your example.

I interpret the grammarians correctly. You are the one who cherry-picks what they say and falsely claim they support your arguments.
 
It is axiomatic God is one. Therefore it is impossible for God to be plural.
It’s not impossible at all. It all depends on what is meant by “one”.
At this point, I stop. You're taking the piss. If I say "your god is your belly," I do not need to show "grammatical support" for my qualified sense, because I am always entitled to use "theos" in a common noun sense as it is a common noun.
This is nothing more than a roundabout way of admitting that your assertion does not have any grammarian’s support. You have ruled out “o theos” phrases with modifiers for the sole reason that they falsify your fabricated rule.
In its noun sense, it means whatever the speaker determines, and qualifies it as, within the general sense of what "theos" denotes as a common noun. That is why you don't grasp Jn 1:1c, because it is a common noun sense only usage, but qualified by Jn 1:1b which gives it a context relational to "o theos."
Here you are essentially saying that you can take each usage whatever way strikes your fancy. It’s a “common noun sense” if that’s what you’d prefer, or it’s a title if that happens to make things easier to you (unless it’s used for Jesus in which case you deny that possibility on the basis of your made-up “unqualified” rule). The truth is that the meaning of each usage of “o theos” is contextual. The number of times the phrase is used for “the Father” versus some other “god” proves nothing. Your entire “argument” rests on a logical fallacy and has no scholarly support.
 
So you put your trust in unknown scholars, whose spirituality you know nothing of, to (a) provide a correct text, (b) translate it.
No, I trust Jesus...
1 John 5:20
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
How then, by your own standards, are you not putting your trust in men rather than in God? Why don't you ask the Holy Spirit for guidance on how to translate it yoruself?
Who are the men you are talking about?
So you don't know what a Christian is? That might explain a lot.
I know that God did not call anyone to be a Christian..
Your logic is faulty. What if true God employs subordinates?
Subordinates are not God.
Your logic is so infantile (cf. Jude 1:10 "Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand").
you teach a defacto God, don't you? A defacto God is not the true God..
Why not address the issue of what it means for Jesus to sit in God's throne?
It means that Jesus is the son of God, not a defacto God. I Jesus sitting in God's throne make him a defacto God, what does sitting in Jesus' throne make believers?
You have no coherent doctrine on Christ: you evade the issue of who he is, what he was before he became man, and what he became again on his ascension.
The scripture has the doctrine of Christ, not me. The scripture does not mention a defacto God.
 
No, I trust Jesus...
1 John 5:20
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Who are the men you are talking about?
You can't see how hypocritical your arguments are. On the one hand you condemn me for putting my trust in scholars, and on the other you dissemble your indebtedness to the very same category of men for your knowledge of what the bible says by proclaiming the superiority of your trust in Christ.

1 Cor 14:26 "Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?"

I know that God did not call anyone to be a Christian..
So you are not a follower of Christ. Makes sense.

Subordinates are not God.
What if they are elevated to a state of equivalence to God? (Phil 2:6)

you teach a defacto God, don't you? A defacto God is not the true God..
A de facto God may manifest true God.

It means that Jesus is the son of God, not a defacto God. I Jesus sitting in God's throne make him a defacto God, what does sitting in Jesus' throne make believers?
Brothers of Christ: "If we suffer/endure, we shall also reign with him" 2 Tim 2:12

The scripture has the doctrine of Christ, not me. The scripture does not mention a defacto God.
Jn 1:1c repudiates you.
 
When it is unqualified it refers to the Father. Such has empirical support from Jesus. That you deny it is your heresy.
I’ve never denied that Jesus used the phrase in this manner; that you assert that I have is your lie. What I have denied is that his usage of the phrase defines all uses of the phrase. That is your logical error. Besides, when Thomas used “o theos mou” with reference to him he did not deny it as an inappropriate use.

I know at this point you’ll resort to your same tired excuses: 1) It’s qualified, so it’s excluded. (This is not a valid complaint because it is clear not all qualifications change the referent. You are excluding it solely because it does not support your conclusion. Besides this, you have no grammarian’s support for denying the phrase solely on the basis of it being qualified.) 2) It refers to “the Father” and not Jesus. (This is circular reasoning because you are excluding the evidence as explained above, and it goes against what is stated in the text, “Thomas said to him”.)
 
I’ve never denied that Jesus used the phrase in this manner; that you assert that I have is your lie. What I have denied is that his usage of the phrase defines all uses of the phrase. That is your logical error. Besides, when Thomas used “o theos mou” with reference to him he did not deny it as an inappropriate use.

I know at this point you’ll resort to your same tired excuses: 1) It’s qualified, so it’s excluded. (This is not a valid complaint because it is clear not all qualifications change the referent. You are excluding it solely because it does not support your conclusion. Besides this, you have no grammarian’s support for denying the phrase solely on the basis of it being qualified.) 2) It refers to “the Father” and not Jesus. (This is circular reasoning because you are excluding the evidence as explained above, and it goes against what is stated in the text, “Thomas said to him”.)
“o theos mou” ia qualified to Jesus, because of 1 Cor 11:3 and by being spoken to Jesus (article denotes a vocative). It is further qualified by being associated with "o kyrios mou." Therefore it is completely unrelated to unqualified theos (e.g. as in Jn 1:1b or Jn 4;24).

As God is one, unqualified theos must always refer to the Father: otherwise "God" would not be one.
 
You can't see how hypocritical your arguments are. On the one hand you condemn me for putting my trust in scholars,
I don't condemn anyone, you condemn yourself if you trust in men.
and on the other you dissemble your indebtedness to the very same category of men for your knowledge of what the bible says by proclaiming the superiority of your trust in Christ.
You are mistaken I did not categorize anyone. You esteem scholars above others...
Luke 16:15
And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
1 Cor 14:26 "Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?"
I never made those claims.
So you are not a follower of Christ. Makes sense.
Saints follow Christ. Not everyone who says Lord, Lord is actually following Christ. Christian was a generic term used by the people of Antioch for everyone who said Lord, Lord. They were not aware of
John 8:31
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
What if they are elevated to a state of equivalence to God? (Phil 2:6)
That still does not make them God. Why are you trying to make another god?
A de facto God may manifest true God.
A false God may manifest true God? What exactly are you saying?
Brothers of Christ: "If we suffer/endure, we shall also reign with him" 2 Tim 2:12
To reign with Jesus does not make us Jesus. What are you reigning as?
Jn 1:1c repudiates you.
No, it does not...However, you still teach two Gods ...a false defacto God and a true God.
 
Back
Top