Now you are being selective. Honesty is the best policy.
Did I write "HO THEOS" always = YHWH
Or did I write "[when not modified] "HO THEOS" always = YHWH."
Phil 3:19 its modified. Similar to 'the god of this world',
Yes it does, nothing contradicts it.
The subject of the address in Ps 45 is a human being, even a King, but not YHWH. That much is undeniable. That this "God/King" has a God (Ps 45:7) is also the indisputable context. That the Hebrew text does NOT have the article in its address to this "God/King" contradicts your supposition that "ho theos" is inferred. The LXX uses the article in a
grammatical vocative sense only also contradicts your supposition.
You are going nowhere with this insane abuse of grammar & languages, except into the realm of cultism. Why not do everyone a favor: just drop the idea that Heb 1:8 supports Jesus as "ho theos"?
Now you are just making things up.
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.
18 No one has seen God at any time
3:2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God;
21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”
9:33 If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing.”
God is not in action here.
I said: "The article is used when talking specifically about God/the Father (ho theos)
as a person. You don't see him as a person? That is wrong, because it was Jesus himself whom identified "ho theos" as his own Father. The LXX also identifies "ho theos" as a person.
I said "The anarthrous form of "theos" is used for God in action or matters incidentally relating to God." What I mean by "incidental" is to be construed widely. i.e. (a) not the main subject of the sentence, (b) reflects God doing something, or qualifying something.
So whenever "God" appears in a qualifying clause, e.g. as in
If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing
then "God" is frequently anarthrous, and in fact very often throughout the NT. I can't see what point you're making.
As to "theos" as predicate, Jn 1:1c is made more complicated than it really is by things like "Colwell's rule" which do not help (see below). As a direct predicate in Jn 1:1c, "God" cannot be linked to other anarthrous usages, e.g. where God is subject, or used as a qualifier, although I would add this: grammatically it may indicate that the
focus "is not on the
person of God but on the
nature/qualities of God." However even anarthrous theos, where used otherwise than as a predicate, and where contextually appropriate, does generally denote the Father.
So you are introducing a lot of confusion by comparing apples and oranges. You cannot compare "theos" taken from different grammatical contexts to draw "trinitarian" conclusions: such is almost demented (like letter a child playing with matches).
According to Greek scholar E. C. Colwell: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun despite the absence of the article." Predicate nominative = is a noun or pronoun that follows a linking verb and refers to the same person or thing as the subject of the verb.
Known as Colwell’s rule, this principle applies to certain uses of the Greek article. Now, I agree that Colwell’s rule does not prove a definite article for “theos”, but it most definitely supports it.
Wallace argues against a definite in Jn 1:1c on the following basis: "The
vast majority of definite anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are
monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names, none of which
is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite θεός in Jn 1,1c" (Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 268).
In short Wallace says that Colwell's rule has been misunderstood. Wallace also points out that before the article of Colwell most commentators saw θεός as qualitative. That is to say, although the Word is deity, he is not the "ho theos" of Jn 1:1b.
Caragounis (a Greek professor) goes further in "John 1:1" and rubbishes Colwell's rule as
formulated problematically. He says:
"Colwell's rule that "Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb
usually lack the article... a predicate nominative which precedes the verb
cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because
of the absence of the article...",
is formulated problematically, quite apart
from its misinterpretations, which have introduced even more confusion.
For even if we interpret it in the most benevolent fashion, the rule still
opens the way to treating Jn 1,1c as definite, which, as we have seen, it is
not. This is the reason why Wallace has to introduce his "sub-set proposition"
and his "convertible proposition". However, his explanation that
the anarthrous Θεός in Jn 1,1c seems to be definite, because it refers to
the same person (τον Θεόν, Jn 1,1b), is far off the mark (though, imperceptively,
here he comes dangerously close to Modal ism). He is, however,
uncertain about this interpretation, because "the vast majority of definite
anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic ... or proper
names, none of which is true here". Here we are on the wrong track."
You should read the Caragounis article in full. It will help dispel some of the Trinitarian mythology surrounding Jn 1:1c.
So I like to be specific.
In John 1:1c theos “singular, anarthrous, predicate, nominative, preceding the verb, lacking a possessive pronoun”.
From my search Luke 20:38 is the only other vs in the NT where Theos is “singular anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb lacking a possessive pronoun”, it is translated as God. Theos in vs 38 is YHWH based on vs 37 the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in vs 37. It was not translated on a rule, but based on the text.
Sorry, still does not make sense. You would have to explain this more thoroughly.
Revelation 19:3 "And he
was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."
If Jesus is the "Word of God" per Rev 19:13, then what does it say about his relation to God [ho theos]?
Note Rev 19:13 does NOT say "God the Word." Rev 19:13 is the antithesis of Trinitarianism, because it would have to say "o logos theos" and not "o logos tou theos" if Trinitarianism were to hold.
OK.
What is the minimum number of persons it takes to have a loving relationship?
Jn 17:24 “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
If the Jesus said the Father loved Him before the foundation of the world, how many individuals does that entail? If Jesus was created how did the Father express His love in eternity, since He was alone?
Did I say that Jesus was created? I am not a Socinian/adoptionist, as "Yahweh will Increase" is. You need to distinguish me from the socinians on this forum. I know it is confusing; but me and Yahweh Will Increase don't agree on anything in actuality. I no longer debate much with socinians, as they are a cult whose only justification for existing is their opposition to High Trinitarianism - which I can put up with, but they don't have the truth otherwise.
So don't count me in with the Socinians. I think that answers your question.
