GNT grammar does not support “ God the son”

Notice the Koine of Genesis 18:2–

ἀναβλέψας δὲ τοῗς ὀφθαλμοῗς αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶδεν ἰδοὺ τρεῗς ἄνδρες

and now

Rev. 5:6 —

Καὶ εἶδον ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων καὶ ἐν μέσῳ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων Ἀρνίον ἑστηκὸς ὡς ἐσφαγμένον,

Notice the grammar is the same in both verses, so this is not a grammatical issue but one of simple contextual reading comprehension, which Trinitarians often lack.

Just because the bible states that Jesus is a “man” in one verse and in another verse the bible calls Jesus “a lamb” does not mean Jesus is literally a lamb as well. There was something about what the apostle saw in Revelation 5:6 that caused the apostle to describe Jesus as a lamb there. It’s as simple as that. Similarly there was something about what Abraham saw when he looked at the three Angels which caused him to describe them as men. Most probably because they looked like men.But there is absolutely nothing here contextually which could cause us to declare that these Angels were ontologically men, let alone that they were “ men” and “angels,” ontologically speaking.
 
Do you believe that two of the three beings which Abraham saw in Genesis 18 are “ Angels” and “men” ?
You haven't provided evidence that I've said what you have accused me of. Either find it or apologize. If you don't have the integrity or intelligence required to present my actual claims, don't bother me with off-topic questions.
 
Notice the Koine of Genesis 18:2–

ἀναβλέψας δὲ τοῗς ὀφθαλμοῗς αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶδεν ἰδοὺ τρεῗς ἄνδρες

and now

Rev. 5:6 —

Καὶ εἶδον ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων καὶ ἐν μέσῳ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων Ἀρνίον ἑστηκὸς ὡς ἐσφαγμένον,

Notice the grammar is the same in both verses, so this is not a grammatical issue but one of simple contextual reading comprehension, which Trinitarians often lack.

Just because the bible states that Jesus is a “man” in one verse and in another verse the bible calls Jesus “a lamb” does not mean Jesus is literally a lamb as well. There was something about what the apostle saw in Revelation 5:6 that caused the apostle to describe Jesus as a lamb there. It’s as simple as that. Similarly there was something about what Abraham saw when he looked at the three Angels which caused him to describe them as men. Most probably because they looked like men.But there is absolutely nothing here contextually which could cause us to declare that these Angels were ontologically men, let alone that they were “ men” and “angels,” ontologically speaking.
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: I already knew that you don't know how to distinguish different contexts. You demonstrated this above. I didn't need another example.
 
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: I already knew that you don't know how to distinguish different contexts. You demonstrated this above. I didn't need another example.
Thanks for finally understanding that it is the context in Genesis 18 which informs us whether or not these angels are actual men . I think the content and context of chapters 18 and 19 taken together make it clear that they are clearly not, but you are ofcourse welcome to foolishly continue believing that they are real men . ... And that's the way the cookie crumbles.
 
Thanks for finally understanding that it is the context in Genesis 18 which informs us whether or not these angels are actual men .
The passage tells us that they are "men" and that they (2 of them) are "angels". It tells us that there is nothing incongruent about describing them as "men" or as "angels".
I think the content and context of chapters 18 and 19 taken together make it clear that they are clearly not, but you are ofcourse welcome to foolishly continue believing that they are real men . ... And that's the way the cookie crumbles.
It's what the text says. I can't help it you disagree with the text.
 
You haven't provided evidence that I've said what you have accused me of. Either find it or apologize. If you don't have the integrity or intelligence required to present my actual claims, don't bother me with off-topic questions.

I am not "accusing" you of anything, just trying to clarify what you believe, by asking simple yes or no questions. It is rather foolhardy of you to ask me to "provide evidence" for what you believe . You should rather explain your position clearly and answer all clarifying questions if you want your position to be understood.

So again, the simple clarifying questions:

(1) Do you believe two of the three beings which Abraham saw in Genesis 18 were actual “ Angels” and at the same time actual “men,"ontologically speaking. Yes or No ?

(2) If your answer is "no" to question (1) above, is it fair to conclude that you do not believe them to be real men (ontologically speaking), but only "men" in their form ?

(3) If no to (1) and (2) above, tell us exactly how they are "men."

Do not complain that your position is being misrepresented or ask for an apology, if you are not willing to explain your position clearly and honestly. Fair ?
 
Last edited:
The passage tells us that they are "men" and that they (2 of them) are "angels". It tells us that there is nothing incongruent about describing them as "men" or as "angels".

It's what the text says. I can't help it you disagree with the text.
Do you believe them to be "men" ontologically speaking ?
 
Last edited:
I am not "accusing" you of anything,
You said I use the phrase here:
Scripture doesn't use it as a phrase , as you do, which makes the whole difference. If in one place Jesus calls Herod a "fox," and in another Jesus calls him "a man," are you going to argue that Herod is "Fox and man?" It's an unbiblical phrase, which deceives people with a word game mashed together from sentences with different contextual frameworks, in order to make an unbiblical claim -- namely that someone has dual ontologies. It was never the intention of the writer of Genesis 18 to argue that these angels had two ontologies. You're assuming a whole lot.



God-man and 'God and man" are seen by orthodox Trinitarians as synonyms.
I'm asking you where you think I said it.
just trying to clarify what you believe, by asking simple yes or no questions. It is rather foolhardy of you to ask me to "provide evidence" for what you believe .
You asserted that I have said it. I asked you where I said that. So far, nothing.
You should rather explain your position clearly and answer all clarifying questions if you want your position to be understood.
I have done so repeatedly. At this point you are either extremely slow to understand or willfully misunderstanding. Based on the evidence here, the latter explanation is more likely, though that doesn't necessarily mean you aren't a slow learner as well.
Do not complain that your position is being misrepresented or ask for an apology, if you are not willing to explain your position clearly and honestly. Fair ?
You made a claim you can't support, and now you are trying to shift the blame. It won't work.
 
I have done so repeatedly. At this point you are either extremely slow to understand or willfully misunderstanding. Based on the evidence here, the latter explanation is more likely, though that doesn't necessarily mean you aren't a slow learner as well.

You made a claim you can't support, and now you are trying to shift the blame. It won't work.

You really have not. For example you have not told us whether or not you believe these angels were men, as to their ontology.
 
Ofcourse you do not want to answer the question. Go in peace.
I am happy to answer your question after you issue the apology I am due. It is clear that you have made false statements, and it is equally clear that you lack the integrity required to admit and mend them. Why would I want to interact with such as you?
 
I am happy to answer your question after you issue the apology I am due. It is clear that you have made false statements, and it is equally clear that you lack the integrity required to admit and mend them. Why would I want to interact with such as you?
I'll bite. Not sure what I'm apologizing for, but I apologize.

Question (1) : Do you consider the two angels of Genesis 18 to be men, ontologically speaking ?
 
By your own admission you still haven't acknowledged what you've done wrong. That's not an apology, especially not the one I am owed.
I can't honestly admit to any "wrong doing", since I don't even know what I have apparently "done wrong." Perhaps you can explain how I have done that (i.e. explain exactly and in detail how I have apparently mis-represented you). I can however offer you an apology because it seems to me that you need one.

Have I mis-represented your position by stating that you believe both those Angels in Genesis 18 are ontologically men ? Or is this just another excuse to not answer simple questions ?
 
I can't honestly admit to any "wrong doing", since I don't even know what I have apparently "done wrong." Perhaps you can explain how I have done that (i.e. explain exactly and in detail how I have apparently mis-represented you). I can however offer you an apology because it seems to me that you need one.

Have I mis-represented your position by stating that you believe both those Angels in Genesis 18 are ontologically men ? Or is this just another excuse to not answer simple questions ?
I've told you repeatedly and clearly. Your error happened here:
Scripture doesn't use it [men and angels] as a phrase , as you do, which makes the whole difference.
I haven't used these terms as a phrase.
 
I've told you repeatedly and clearly. Your error happened here:
I haven't used these terms as a phrase.
You might not admit that you are using it as a phrase, but it nevertheless is one. Just as denying that 1+1= 2 doesn't make you right. But why should that dis-agreement prevent you from answering the following simple question ?

Do you consider the two angels of Genesis 18 to be men, ontologically speaking ?
 
Actually, now that I am looking at it more closely, it happened here:
Remember readers, the author of Genesis 18 does not write that creatures who visited Abraham were “men and Angels.” “John Milton” made that phrase up. It is not a sensible phrase to begin with (kind of like saying “My pet Michael is dog and cat”) , that is why he won’t explain what it means.

When we ask a charlatan to explain his word games ( “God and Man,” Man and Angel,” etc.) he will surely try to evade and obfuscate the issue, and after that start the ad hominems.
 
Back
Top