Lol, but that’s what you are implying, and what the Trinity Creed demands.
I didn't imply anything. It's not my fault you gave an incorrect answer and then immediately contradicted yourself.
Why would I retract a statement I never made? You were the one adding that word to the text.
You are making a fool of yourself.
Oh, I was simply corrrecting your impression that we needed μία as though modifying οὐσία instead of εἷς modifying θεός and showing one way of phrasing it in Greek. It's interesting that the more you wander off the reservation of "things already translated from Greek" the farther south your Greek goes.Nice trickery Gryllus. The problem is that in 1 Tim 2:5 the sentence structure is totally
different than your sentence above:
εἷς γὰρ Θεός stands complete as is, there is nothing implied ( so no need for ἐν τῇ οὐσίᾳ ). It is simply saying that there is one God, as opposed to two or three Gods. It is not asserting that there is one God “in essence” ( whatever that means). Similarly, the second part of the verse is saying that there is one Mediator, as opposed to two or three. If εἷς γὰρ Θεός has an implied prepositional phrase, an awkward one at that, then why does not εἷς μεσίτης have one also ? Or does it ?
Also, I know you would like to change the subject to this, though you are not doing much better , but I am more concerned with the original issue we were discussing. About how a singular noun , pronoun or verb never denotes multiple persons in the Greek of the GNT.
You said the following:
If you do not add words into the text, we do. Over and over you betray no natural tendency for it:
Oh. I didn't realize I had made a typo. I meant to say "one in purpose" which is what you had said in your previous post. Sorry for misquoting you.
Typo aside, why would God be anything other than "one in substance?"
Not even sure what that would mean. To me “ God is one in substance” sounds like “ God is one in donkey.” It’s 4th century gobbledegook.
The fad for defining God in terms of substance never arose in the church or in theology until the Council of Nicea under Constantine elected to overthrow the decisions of the Synods of Antioch convened between 264 and 269 in the matter of Paul of Samosata, which had rejected the use of ὁμοούσιον by Paul of Samosata (deposed, 269 AD), whom had said the Father and Son are ὁμοούσιον. According to Eusebius of Caesarea, ὁμοούσιον was inserted in the Nicene Creed by the personal order of Constantine, a matter that is readily creditable given it's hermetic origins and that Constantine was himself a hermeticist, and that few of the bishops had any attachment to this word.
"John Milton" claims to never have even read the Creeds, yet he manages to somehow magically understand and align himself with pretty developed musings concerning the "Trinity doctrine," and even with words (like "substance" to go with "Orthodoxy's" biblically contradictory definition of οὐσία) which gained their novel definitions from 4th century creeds. He is one of the most dishonest posters I have met at Carm. in all my years.
One of us is dishonest, but it certainly isn't me.
Have you found the time to read the Trinitarian Creeds yet ?
It's a tautological to say that elohim cannot be addressed to a mere king. But it could be applicable to an annointed prophet-king or immediate representative of God, such as a messiah or son of God cf. Psalm 82:1,6, John 10:35. David is accorded the honorific plural in the Hebrew (אֲדֹנֵ֥ינוּ - our Lord) in 1 Kings 4:3.
It's the same kind of language.
