Heb 1:8 - Why did you make it so difficult?

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
You are the only one that I have come across who denies that τὸν Θεόν in John 1:1b is the Father. Even Trinitarians don't deny this, such is your confusion. For this reason alone, you should be banned from reading the Gospel of John.
As usual, you never actually understood the argument, or simply distorted it to defend your indefensible theology. σὺ μόνος ὃν ἀπολέγεσθαι τοῦ τὰς γραφὰς ἀναγινώσκειν δεῖ εῖ.
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
So you disagree with most Trinitarian theologians who insist John 1:1c means Jesus is divine.
It means that Jesus is fully and completely God. I don't have time right now to give a full exposition of the text, but consider the following points:

1) τὸν θεόν refers to God in an undifferentiated not the Father specifically.

2) it is unreasonable to think that θεός has a different referent.

God as the Father in contrast to God as the Son is something which is unpacked as John proceeds with his discourse. At this point he makes an "outrageous" statement designed to set he readership up for what is to come.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
As usual, you never actually understood the argument, or simply distorted it to defend your indefensible theology. σὺ μόνος ὃν ἀπολέγεσθαι τοῦ τὰς γραφὰς ἀναγινώσκειν δεῖ εῖ.
Nonsense, you have gone on record to say that τὸν Θεόν in John 1:1b is not the Father. You can straighten this out next post by saying that τὸν Θεόν in John 1:1b is the Father. But you won’t, because you like to speak from both sides of your perverted mouth.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
It means that Jesus is fully and completely God.

Jesus is fully and completely a three person being?
Jesus is fully and completely the Father?

OR, Jesus is fully and completely divine (by nature)?

Which is it? What do you say John 1:1c is saying?

I don't have time right now to give a full exposition of the text, but consider the following points:

1) τὸν θεόν refers to God in an undifferentiated not the Father specifically.

2) it is unreasonable to think that θεός has a different referent.

God as the Father in contrast to God as the Son is something which is unpacked as John proceeds with his discourse. At this point he makes an "outrageous" statement designed to set he readership up for what is to come.

You plainly don't know what you are talking about.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
It means that Jesus is fully and completely God. I don't have time right now to give a full exposition of the text, but consider the following points:

1) τὸν θεόν refers to God in an undifferentiated not the Father specifically.

2) it is unreasonable to think that θεός has a different referent.

God as the Father in contrast to God as the Son is something which is unpacked as John proceeds with his discourse. At this point he makes an "outrageous" statement designed to set he readership up for what is to come.

That is just nonsense. Is "God in an undifferentiated" a person or a thing ?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
The word θεός occurs thousands of times in the LXX and in the GNT. Show us a verse where it is defined as "God in an undifferentiated" ?

Biblical words must be given biblical definitions with biblical precedent, and not with made-up, nonsense definitions.
 

cjab

Well-known member
It means that Jesus is fully and completely God. I don't have time right now to give a full exposition of the text, but consider the following points:

1) τὸν θεόν refers to God in an undifferentiated not the Father specifically.

2) it is unreasonable to think that θεός has a different referent.

God as the Father in contrast to God as the Son is something which is unpacked as John proceeds with his discourse. At this point he makes an "outrageous" statement designed to set he readership up for what is to come.
Father is de jure God, Word is de facto God whenever the Word is in heaven. "Son" Jesus is the human being, who is not "God the Son" in any sense as to what "God" connotes, which is in the holding and exerciser of supreme authority. And yet as to the Son, everything was entrusted to him (Jo. 3:35). And upon the completion of that mission of trust, Jesus testified that such de facto powers as he had before were (re-)given to him (Ma. 28:18) by the one who was "μου πατέρα καί μου θεός" (Jo. 20:17) and to be exercised upon his ascension.
 
Last edited:

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
Nonsense. The Shema identifies God as just one individual, as the Father. Look at the singular verbs and pronouns everywhere. Nothing to “differentiate.” You need help.
Here is the Shema in Hebrew:

שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יהוה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יהוה אֶחָד

Here it is in Greek:

Ἄκουε, Ἰσραήλ· Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν Κύριος εἷς ἐστιν·

Where do you see the word "Father" in the text? And you the one who likes to accuse of others of eisegesis...
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Here is the Shema in Hebrew:

שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יהוה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יהוה אֶחָד

Here it is in Greek:

Ἄκουε, Ἰσραήλ· Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν Κύριος εἷς ἐστιν·

Where do you see the word "Father" in the text? And you the one who likes to accuse of others of eisegesis...
I'm making a grammatical argument. Look at the grammar:

Ἄκουε, Ἰσραήλ· Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν Κύριος εἷς ἐστιν·

When does the third person singular verb ἐστιν not refer to a specific individual in the GNT ? When does the noun Κύριος not refer to a specific, individual person in the GNT ? You could take Κύριος in the Shema to mean apostle Peter for all I care, it would still be grammatically more viable than what you are proposing.

Now address the grammar and quit skirting around the issue.

---


Ref:

ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι Πρώτη ἐστίν Ἄκουε, Ἰσραήλ, Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Κύριος εἷς ἐστιν,

Mark 12:29
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
I'm making a grammatical argument. Look at the grammar:

Ἄκουε, Ἰσραήλ· Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν Κύριος εἷς ἐστιν·

When does the third person singular verb ἐστιν not refer to a specific individual in the GNT ? When does the noun Κύριος not refer to a specific, individual person in the GNT ? You could take Κύριος in the Shema to mean apostle Peter for all I care, it would still be grammatically more viable than what you are proposing.

Now address the grammar and quit skirting around the issue.

---


Ref:



Mark 12:29
Not really an argument per se. It's why I posted the Hebrew: κύριος refers of course to יהוה. It's actually in the NT that a big deal is made about God as the Father (and particularly, interestingly enough, in the gospel of John), but not so much in the OT, where, if memory serves me, he is called father 9 or so times. But I'm not here to feed your need for theological controversy and engage in Trinitarian apologetics. But isn't it interesting in light of the Shema that Jesus' most frequent title is κύριος, and in a number of very intriguing contexts?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Not really an argument per se. It's why I posted the Hebrew: κύριος refers of course to יהוה. It's actually in the NT that a big deal is made about God as the Father (and particularly, interestingly enough, in the gospel of John), but not so much in the OT, where, if memory serves me, he is called father 9 or so times.

So in the OT יהוה is defined as the Father about 9 times, according to you. So this is definitely one way the bible defines יהוה/God. Even you cannot dispute it.

But I'm not here to feed your need for theological controversy and engage in Trinitarian apologetics. But isn't it interesting in light of the Shema that Jesus' most frequent title is κύριος, and in a number of very intriguing contexts?

As I said, if you want to define God as Jesus or apostle Paul or King Herod that is up to you. All this just proves the grammatical point I raised in my last post but which you did not address.

So again, the grammar: Where in the GNT does יהוה (κύριος/God) refer not to a specific individual but to something “undifferentiated” ( whatever that means) ? And arguing in circles is a non-starter on this score. And more importantly, when does a third person,singular form of a verb ( like ἐστιν, Mark 12:29) NOT refer to a specific, single individual in the GNT when a rational entity is in view ? You are trying to negate the most basic rules of Greek grammar in the GNT for your crazy position at John 1:1b which no Trinitarian scholar that I am aware of even subscribes to.
 
Last edited:

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
So in the OT יהוה is defined as the Father about 9 times, according to you. So this is definitely one way the bible defines יהוה/God. Even you cannot dispute it.



As I said, if you want to define God as Jesus or apostle Paul or King Herod that is up to you. All this just proves the grammatical point I raised in my last post but which you did not address.

So again, the grammar: Where in the GNT does יהוה (κύριος/God) refer not to a specific individual but to something “undifferentiated” ( whatever that means) ? And arguing in circles is a non-starter on this score. And more importantly, when does a third person,singular form of a verb ( like ἐστιν, Mark 12:29) NOT refer to a specific, single individual in the GNT when a rational entity is in view ? You are trying to negate the most basic rules of Greek grammar in the GNT for your crazy position at John 1:1b which no Trinitarian scholar that I am aware of even subscribes to.
Just repeating yourself doesn't help. I mean undifferentiated with regard to person. With God called Father so few times in the OT (a much bigger corpus of material than the NT), it's simply not a prominent designation, and the faithful OT believer would have thought of יהוה as אלהימ, not אב, and certainly not אבי!

For accuracy, 13 times in the OT, over 150 times in the NT, and 30 times Jesus refers to God as "our Father." Of course, when he refers to God as his own Father, he gets quite the reaction...John 5:17-18. :)
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Just repeating yourself doesn't help. I mean undifferentiated with regard to person. With God called Father so few times in the OT (a much bigger corpus of material than the NT), it's simply not a prominent designation, and the faithful OT believer would have thought of יהוה as אלהימ, not אב, and certainly not אבי!

For accuracy, 13 times in the OT, over 150 times in the NT, and 30 times Jesus refers to God as "our Father." Of course, when he refers to God as his own Father, he gets quite the reaction...John 5:17-18. :)
Explain that ( bold above). With that are you saying that ὁ Θεὸς in John 1:1b is indeed a single person, albeit an undefined person ?
 
Top