GNT grammar does not support “ God the son”

[The Real John Milton]

You assume that they became men just as you assume that they couldn't be men and still be "God" or "angels".

Different contexts.

How so ? The text calls Herod a fox. It doesn’t say he “behaves” like one. So why don’t you similarly argue that he was a real fox ?

 

[John Milton]

How so ? The text calls Herod a fox. It doesn’t say he “behaves” like one. So why don’t you similarly argue that he was a real fox ?

Context. I can't believe you can't figure this out on your own.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Context. I can't believe you can't figure this out on your own.

What is the different “context” ? It’s the same principle.

 

[John Milton]

What is the different “context” ? It’s the same principle.

It's not at all. One directly states what was there and the other alludes to a previously mentioned and known entity.

 

[The Real John Milton]

It's not at all. One directly states what was there and the other alludes to a previously mentioned and known entity.

Why would that make a difference ? The text calls Herod a fox. Do you think he was an actual fox ? Or just behaved like one ?

 

[John Milton]

Why would that make a difference ? The text calls Herod a fox. Do you think he was an actual fox ? Or just behaved like one ?

You don't understand how stating what is present is different from talking about someone?

 

[The Real John Milton]

You don't understand how stating what is present is different from talking about someone?

Answer the question I asked you .

 

[John Milton]

Answer the question I asked you .

The text doesn't call Herod a fox, Jesus did. The author simply recorded it. When the author of Genesis wrote that there were three men he was directly telling us that there were three men.

 

[cjab]

The text doesn't call Herod a fox, Jesus did. The author simply recorded it. When the author of Genesis wrote that there were three men he was directly telling us that there were three men.

He is telling us what appeared to Abraham. It is likely Abraham recognized them as angels due to the nature of what they were saying. Obviously we don't know their atomic constitution or how they appeared as men (but cf. water into wine etc), Angels are very powerful, of that there is no doubt.

 

[John Milton]

He is telling us what appeared to Abraham. It is likely Abraham recognized them as angels due to the nature of what they were saying.

Speculation.

Obviously we don't know their atomic constitution or how they appeared as men but cf, water into wine etc,

The point I am making is that the assertions you have made about whether or not Christ is God are completely inconsistent with your remarks on this subject. You make exceptions in the one area that you don't allow in the other.

 

[The Real John Milton]

The text doesn't call Herod a fox, Jesus did. The author simply recorded it. When the author of Genesis wrote that there were three men he was directly telling us that there were three men.

Don’t see the logic of this objection. Moses (the author) too was simply recording the text of Genesis 18 and 19.

Your original argument was that the Angel is an actual man simply because it is called a man. This foolish way of reading the Bible has been proved wrong. You seem to have backed away from it, and now are making nonsensical objections.

The bible sometimes asserts something meant to be taken non-literally. So when Herod is called a fox in Luke 13 we understand that it is because he behaved like one, not because he was an actual fox. Similarly when the Angels are called men in Genesis 18 we understand it is because they looked like men, and not because they were actual human beings.

 

[John Milton]

Don’t see the logic of this objection. Moses (the author) too was simply recording the text of Genesis 18 and 19.

He was writing the text and he called the beings who appeared to Abraham "men". Again, I know this is difficult for you to accept, but that's what he's done.

Your original argument was that the Angel is an actual man simply because it is called a man.

You are misrepresenting me. My argument is that scripture calls God and angels "men" and that you are inconsistent in your handling of scripture. All of these things I have shown you clearly.

This foolish way of reading the Bible has been proved wrong.

Far from it. You are confused.

You seem to have backed away from it,

I've not backed away from any of my assertions. Resorting to falsehoods doesn't win you any points.

and now are making nonsensical objections.

Just because you don't yet something doesn't mean it is nonsense. Maybe you'll get there if you really try.

The bible sometimes asserts something meant to be taken non-literally.

This is your not-so-subtle way of saying that you think the Bible says only what you want it to say.

So when Herod is called a fox in Luke 13 we understand that it is because he behaved like one, not because he was an actual fox.

These are two entirely different contexts.

Similarly when the Angels are called men in Genesis 18 we understand it is because they looked like men, and not because they were actual human beings.

The text says they were men. It doesn't say they looked like men. It doesn't say they weren't "actual human beings". You are speculating.

 

[The Real John Milton]

He was writing the text and he called the beings who appeared to Abraham "men". Again, I know this is difficult for you to accept, but that's what he's done.

You are misrepresenting me. My argument is that scripture calls God and angels "men" and that you are inconsistent in your handling of scripture. All of these things I have shown you clearly.

Far from it. You are confused.

I've not backed away from any of my assertions. Resorting to falsehoods doesn't win you any points.

Just because you don't yet something doesn't mean it is nonsense. Maybe you'll get there if you really try.

This is your not-so-subtle way of saying that you think the Bible says only what you want it to say.

These are two entirely different contexts.

Scripture never calls God a man. When scripture does call angels "men" it is not in a literal sense , anymore than when scripture calls Herod a fox that that is to be taken literally. Take it from a Trinitarian who is a little wiser than you are. Benson:

These three men were three spiritual, heavenly beings, now assuming human shapes, that they might be visible to Abraham, and conversable with him. Some think they were all three created angels; others, which is more probable, that one of them was the Son of God. He bowed himself toward the ground — Religion doth not destroy, but improve good manners, and teaches us to “honour all men.”

--

The text says they were men. It doesn't say they looked like men. It doesn't say they weren't "actual human beings". You are speculating.

The text says Herod was a fox. It doesn't say he behaved like a fox. It doesn't say he wasn't "actual fox." You are speculating.

 

[John Milton]

Scripture never calls God a man.

It does in Genesis 18.

When scripture does call angels "men" it is not in a literal sense , anymore than when scripture calls Herod a fox that that is to be taken literally.

Two different contexts.

Take it from a Trinitarian who is a little wiser than you are. Benson:

Benson is speculating.

The text says Herod was a fox. It doesn't say he behaved like a fox. It doesn't say he wasn't "actual fox." You are speculating.

There is no speculation involved with the passage you mention. Fox is clearly modifying Herod. You are desperate.

 

[The Real John Milton]

It does in Genesis 18.

Two different contexts.

So context determines if a fox is an actual fox, not just because the bible calls someone a fox.

Benson is speculating.

There is no speculation involved with the passage you mention. Fox is clearly modifying Herod. You are desperate.

Yes, Jesus clearly calls Herod a fox, "no speculation involved." Yet even then we do not conclude that Herod is an actual fox. Genesis 18 is even less compelling on this score.

 

[John Milton]

So context determines if a fox is an actual fox, not just because the bible calls someone a fox.

It depends on who said what and for what purpose. The Bible can record someone telling lies, for instance. Context matters.

Yes, Jesus clearly calls Herod a fox, "no speculation involved."

Correct. He calls Herod a fox, he doesn't say he was a fox. You are starting to catch on.

Yet even then we do not conclude that Herod is an actual fox.

It is worth pointing out that you are the only one who has been thinking that the passage is saying Herod was a fox.

Genesis 18 is even less compelling on this score.

You made such progress just to fail at the end.

 

[The Real John Milton]

It depends on who said what and for what purpose. The Bible can record someone telling lies, for instance. Context matters.

Correct. He calls Herod a fox, he doesn't say he was a fox. You are starting to catch on.

It is worth pointing out that you are the only one who has been thinking that the passage is saying Herod was a fox.

You made such progress just to fail at the end.

If I call you a man, I'm not saying you're a man ? Actually, Jesus simply asserts that Herod is a fox.

 

[John Milton]

If I call you a man, I'm not saying you're a man ?

Not necessarily. As I've said repeatedly context matters.

Actually, Jesus simply asserts that Herod is a fox.

Your reading ability has let you down.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Not necessarily. As I've said repeatedly context matters.

Your reading ability has let you down.

Good, you finally get it. So just because the bible calls the angels “men” in Genesis 18 does not mean that they are actual men. Context matters.

 

[cjab]

Speculation.

The point I am making is that the assertions you have made about whether or not Christ is God are completely inconsistent with your remarks on this subject. You make exceptions in the one area that you don't allow in the other.

Christ is not God, for God is not a man. Jesus showed that by deferring to his Father as God. However it seems you reject Jesus's real teaching, whilst promoting the heresy that he was "God".

I am not "inconsistent" because you haven't proven why God should behave as an angel. It is you who promote lack of faith in the NT by derogating from God being invisible by definition, per Jesus's own teaching.

Gods becoming men is the stuff of paganism which shallow way of thinking is what you're addicted to.