GNT grammar does not support “ God the son”

[John Milton]

Are all these in error?

1. BDAG (3rd Edition): Concerning John 20:28 states that theos "certainly refers to Christ" (theos, page 450).
2. A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament: Of the Logos, who is declared to be ho theos, e.g. John 1:1...also in the exclamation of Thomas, John 20:28. - So Christ is called ho theos (theos, page 334)
3. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT): Jn. 20:28 contains the unique affirmation of Thomas addressing the Risen Christ as God: "My Lord and my God [ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou]." (2:81, God, J. Schneider).
4. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): the Risen Lord discloses Himself to Thomas, and the astonished disciple exclaims: ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou (Jn. 20:28). In Jn. 1:1 we have Christology: He is God in Himself. Here we have the revelation of Christ: He is God for believers. (3:105-106, theos, Stauffer)
5. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: Thomas, when he realized the significance of the presence of a mortal wound in the body of a living man, immediately joined with it the absolute title of Deity, saying, 'My Lord and my God,' John 20:28. (Lord)

Lord, Lordship - Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words -

A 1: κύριος ► (Strong's #2962 Noun Masculine kurios koo'-ree-os ) ;properly an adjective, signifying 'having power' (kuros) or 'authority,' is used as a noun, variously translated in the NT, ''Lord,' 'master,' 'Master,'

www.studylight.org

I’ve explained this to him countless times on this forum. He is willfully ignorant.

 

[The Real John Milton]

If it is Trinitarian propaganda then why:
1. Did you not produce any Greek lexicons that say otherwise.

Because blanket statements ( the kind you produced ) from “Lexicons” are neither here nor there, — simple propaganda , for the simple minded, as I said earlier. The grammar does not support your position, nor the context.

2. Do some Unitarians affirm that theos is in reference to Jesus.

Not me, nor any who I am familiar with.

 

[The Real John Milton]

It’s not. You should read the chapter again.

This is not a convincing argument, I’m afraid.

 

[John Milton]

This is not a convincing argument, I’m afraid.

It would be if you read and understood the chapter.

 

[Fred]

Because blanket statements ( the kind you produced ) from “Lexicons” are neither here nor there, — simple propaganda , for the simple minded,

All are wrong but you are right. Right?

No dice.

as I said earier The grammar does not support your position, nor the context.

As if this escaped their notice. You certainly have a high and deluded opinion of yourself.

Not me, nor any who I am familiar with.

Plenty out there beyond what you confined yourself too.

 

[The Real John Milton]

As if this escaped their notice. You certainly have a high and deluded opinion of yourself.


Plenty out there beyond what you confined yourself too.

Well, you certainly did not quote any of the apparently existing grammatical arguments from these Trinitarian friendly “ Lexicons” of yours. You only presented in your post isolated blanket assertions from them.

 

[The Real John Milton]

It would be if you read and understood the chapter.

Neither is this.

 

[cjab]

Yes, in a nutshell it is Trinitarian propaganda.

Rather, Sabellian propaganda. Nicene Trinitarianism strictly imputes the "same substance" to Christ and the Father, without identifying what that substance is, beyond "nature" (i.e. "light" for want of a better word). Sabellians impute Jesus as being YHWH himself, which is their heresy.

Sabellians have to rely on this exclamation from Thomas, because they can't easily cite any of Christ's own unambiguous words to support their heresy. Sabellian refuse to accept what Christ taught about himself being the Son of God, although they feign acceptance in order to dispel the Sabellian heresy, but their usage of John 20:28 unmasks it.

We grasp John 20:28 as being a trite extension from John 10:34-36 and from what Jesus had already taught concerning the Old Testament usage of Elohim, which he had related to himself, as denoting divine agency and in Jesus case, oneness with God per John 14:11. Thomas recognized Jesus's origin from and appointment by the Father: hence Jesus's reply that he now "believed."

 

[Fred]

I’ve explained this to him countless times on this forum. He is willfully ignorant.

Can you direct me to the thread where this was most clearly done?

Thanks

 

[cjab]

It’s because you know I’m right.

You infer, contrary to Greek scholars of the highest repute, that o Θεος in the NT doesn't denote the person of the Father (cf. John 20:17 etc).

No, cjab that is you. This has been shown more than once in this thread alone.

Your assertions, beliefs and how you reason is a disgrace.

Both of you are pernicious Sabellians, condemned by many Councils.

Go worship your lexicons in which your trust.

 

[John Milton]

You infer, contrary to Greek scholars of the highest repute, that o Θεος in the NT doesn't denote the person of the Father (cf. John 20:17 etc).

No. I agree with the Greek scholars that o theos in the GNT is not exclusively used for the Father.

 

[Fred]

Both of you are pernicious Sabellians,

A Trinitarian correctly believes Jesus is God, genius.

 

[cjab]

No. I agree with the Greek scholars that o theos in the GNT is not exclusively used for the Father.

I rate real Greeks as more proficient in Greek than Sabellian heretics. Besides which, Jn 1:1b unequivocally declares God as the Father. You are no scholar but a Sabellian heretic.

 

[John Milton]

I rate real Greeks as more proficient in Greek than Sabellian heretics. Besides which, Jn 1:1b unequivocally declares God as the Father. You are no scholar but a Sabellian heretic.

That’s funny. The real Greeks agree with me.

 

[cjab]

That’s funny. The real Greeks agree with me.

You lie fluently, as

(1) You said of Chrys C. CARAGOUNIS "This last statement is incorrect. Jesus is called “o theos” in John 20:28."
So you don't agree with the real Greek scholars. John 20:28 doesn't relate to the Logos qua God, but to Jesus qua Thomas, and which you further distort by refusing to recognize John 10:34-36 when theos is used of men;

and

(2) "Also of note is that it is you are in greatest disagreement with the author. I affirm that Jesus is God without identifying him with the Father. You, on the other hand, deny that Jesus possessed the essence of God as the author asserted. You are being silly."

which is false as the author never mentions Jesus in the passage I cited; and further falsified by the need of Jesus to rely on his Father through the Holy Spirit, in admitting he was but "son of man" and "son of God."

Hence you are a BS'er of the highest rank.

 

[John Milton]

You lie fluently, as

(1) You said of Chrys C. CARAGOUNIS "This last statement is incorrect. Jesus is called “o theos” in John 20:28."
So you don't agree with the real Greek scholars. John 20:28 doesn't relate to the Logos qua God, but to Jesus qua Thomas, and which you further distort by refusing to recognize John 10:34-36 when theos is used of men;

I clarified my remarks. The only way that Caragounis’s remarks are correct are in reference to the logos never being called o theos. Why are you falsely accusing me of lying

(2) "Also of note is that it is you are in greatest disagreement with the author. I affirm that Jesus is God without identifying him with the Father. You, on the other hand, deny that Jesus possessed the essence of God as the author asserted. You are being silly."
which is false as the author never mentions Jesus in the passage I cited; and further falsified by the need of Jesus to rely on his Father through the Holy Spirit, in admitting he was but "son of man" and "son of God."

Again, your misunderstanding of what I’ve said does not mean that I have lied. Your poor reading comprehension and even worse judgement has led you to make false accusations.

Hence you are a BS'er of the highest rank.

No. You are simply a confused slanderer who doesn’t even possess the fortitude to use the profanity you are so clearly comfortable with. Lies and foul language only offer further proof of your lack of character. But what else can you do? You clearly don’t have a convincing answer to the facts I’ve presented to you.

 

[The Real John Milton]

No. I agree with the Greek scholars that o theos in the GNT is not exclusively used for the Father.

Could you provide an example of ὁ Θεὸς not used of the Father. Remember ὁ Θεὸς means the bare ὁ Θεὸς not ὁ Θεὸς with modifiers.

 

[The Real John Milton]

You lie fluently, as

(1) You said of Chrys C. CARAGOUNIS "This last statement is incorrect. Jesus is called “o theos” in John 20:28."
So you don't agree with the real Greek scholars. John 20:28 doesn't relate to the Logos qua God, but to Jesus qua Thomas, and which you further distort by refusing to recognize John 10:34-36 when theos is used of men;

and

(2) "Also of note is that it is you are in greatest disagreement with the author. I affirm that Jesus is God without identifying him with the Father. You, on the other hand, deny that Jesus possessed the essence of God as the author asserted. You are being silly."

which is false as the author never mentions Jesus in the passage I cited; and further falsified by the need of Jesus to rely on his Father through the Holy Spirit, in admitting he was but "son of man" and "son of God."

Hence you are a BS'er of the highest rank.

I think a good biblical Greek synonym for “ BS’er” is the word τυφόω, — a person who is puffed up, one who is convinced of the truthfulness of his own delusions . One cannot use John 20:28 to argue that someone other than the Father is called ὁ Θεὸς because this is a dubious example. It is dangerous to build a position on the strength of one dubious example, and foolishness to then speak arrogantly about this weak claim as though it is irrefutable fact.

 

[cjab]

I think a good biblical Greek synonym for “ BS’er” is the word τυφόω, — a person who is puffed up, one who is convinced of the truthfulness of his own delusions . One cannot use John 20:28 to argue that someone other than the Father is called ὁ Θεὸς because this is a dubious example. It is dangerous to build a position on the strength of one dubious example, and foolishness to then speak arrogantly about this weak claim as though it is irrefutable fact.

I am convinced that John 20:28 must be imputed to the teaching of Jesus in John 10:34-36, where it finds its rightful context. It is a statement to be equated with Peter's confession of Jesus as Son of God, but spoken in an alternative terminology originating in the Old Testament, whilst at the same time anticipating Jesus' ascension to the right hand of God.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I clarified my remarks. The only way that Caragounis’s remarks are correct are in reference to the logos never being called o theos. Why are you falsely accusing me of lying


Again, your misunderstanding of what I’ve said does not mean that I have lied. Your poor reading comprehension and even worse judgement has led you to make false accusations.

No. You are simply a confused slanderer who doesn’t even possess the fortitude to use the profanity you are so clearly comfortable with. Lies and foul language only offer further proof of your lack of character. But what else can you do? You clearly don’t have a convincing answer to the facts I’ve presented to you.

You seem to constantly pretend to have to do that. But really you understand nothing, having rather a sickly craving for “Deity of Christ” speculations and fights about simple biblical words which you constantly seek to re-define in an unbiblical fashion. You would do well to just be silent.