latreuō

John Milton

Well-known member
It certainly does not mean “ God” in John 10:34 or in Exodus 7:1, etc. It certainly can mean that, especially if it is anarthrous. Your biblical Koine is just weak, hence the ignorance of the range and function of this noun.
I gave you the correct range and function in the passage we were discussing. I'll assume it was an ignorant mistake and give you a pass.
Also, you did not answer the question I asked you .
I told you that I wasn't and gave you the reasons. Why are you surprised?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I gave you the correct range and function in the passage we were discussing. I'll assume it was an ignorant mistake and give you a pass.

I told you that I wasn't and gave you the reasons. Why are you surprised?
I’m glad you now understand that in the bible the anarthrous θεός has a range and function. Your earlier blanket statement (Theos means "God") was therefore deceptive at worse and inaccurate at best.
 

cjab

Well-known member
The problem is that you seem to think he has "a" God now.
You can delete the "a" as foreign to scripture. Then reconsider John 17:5, which despite your alleged Greek skills, you don't understand.

As Paul said in 1 Cor 11:3 κεφαλὴ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ Θεός. The implied verb is present.

Your perennial weakness is that your theology is only taken from a very limited selected of NT texts, as to which you have insufficient cognition. Your theology comes second-hand from latter-day scholastics in whom you put all your faith. In this respect, you should "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vanity, but humbly regard others as better than yourselves" Phil 2:3.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
This is one of a couple of ways that the Bible could be understood. Your understanding isn’t one of those ways.
The bible must be understood is in the way that Jesus himself understood it, which is (a) he came from God or down from heaven which entails a jurisdictional separation from the Father - See John 6, (b) he lacked the heavenly glory of God, John 17:5, and so didn't qualify as "God," except in the OT sense of men imbued with the authority of God, (John 10:34-36) cf. Son of Man, Son of God designators, (c) he had the hypostasis of a man and not God (Heb 1:3) - "imprint of the hypostasis of God," and as such was true man. Thus he did truthfully aver, "God was his Father."

This is difficult to reconcile with Trinitarian view that alleges that Jesus didn't possess the personal hypostasis of a man (the anhypostasis doctrine), but that the "personal" in Jesus is denoted by the hypostasis of the divine Word. Actually this is very close to the Apollinarian "heresy" (so termed by Trinitarians), where the Logos takes the place of the rational human mind. I'm not clear that Trinitarianism hasn't reverted back to Apollinarianism or to a close approximation of it.

One of the puzzling things about this enhypostasis doctrine is whether the hypostatized Logos retains all the attributes of divinity. The inference is that is does, as preached by so many. For they maintain, along with you, that it is impossible for the divine Logos to divested of the attributes of divinity. This entails that Jesus must always be denoted as "God." Alternatively, the votaries of enhypostasis misuse the term "God" in an unscriptural way.

Jesus acknowledged he didn't possess the glory of God, nor was he omniscient in the sense that we understand the Father to be. So it is always wrong to refer to Jesus as God, except in the way in which he himself understood "God" to relate to men (Jn 10:34-36).

The Trinitarian doctrine might be truer if it was to acnowledge (a) the enhypostatized Logos as divested of all the attributes of divinity excepting the hypostasis of the Word (as distinct from the Father), (b) that in consequence it was possible for Jesus to possess a fully human hypostasis, but one nonetheless with the "imprint of the hypostasis of God," per Heb 1:3, (c) that the "true God" was in heaven, i.e. the Father of Jesus.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
I’m glad you now understand that in the bible the anarthrous θεός has a range and function. Your earlier blanket statement (Theos means "God") was therefore deceptive at worse and inaccurate at best.
You made the mistake, not me. We were discussing a specific passage. I wasn't making a general statement. Your remarks concerning deception and inaccuracy apply to you.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
You can delete the "a" as foreign to scripture.
?
Then reconsider John 17:5, which despite your alleged Greek skills, you don't understand.
I'm growing tired of your repeated lies. You know full well, or should, that I know Greek. If you think I have misunderstood John 17:5, you should be able to explain why. You haven't done so. Until you can it appears that you are the one who doesn't understand the passage, because I shredded the explanation you initially gave. I'm still waiting for a cogent response from you.
As Paul said in 1 Cor 11:3 κεφαλὴ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ Θεός. The implied verb is present.
What implied verb? Where do you think it should go? What is your justification for it?
Your perennial weakness is that your theology is only taken from a very limited selected of NT texts
This is a false statement.
as to which you have insufficient cognition.
Another false statement.
Your theology comes second-hand from latter-day scholastics
False statement.
in whom you put all your faith.
False statement.
In this respect, you should "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vanity, but humbly regard others as better than yourselves" Phil 2:3.
Contradictory false statement. If my theology came from other people, I would be regarding them as better than myself whether I acknowledged that fact or not. This is especially true if I put all my faith in them. It is laughable that you are the one questioning my cognition.

Also, my motives for interacting with you aren't selfish ambition; I don't gain anything by constantly interacting with you. The sting you feel has nothing to do with my vanity and everything to do with your depravity.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
The bible must be understood is in the way that Jesus himself understood it, which is (a) he came from God or down from heaven which entails a jurisdictional separation from the Father - See John 6, (b) he lacked the heavenly glory of God, John 17:5, and so didn't qualify as "God," except in the OT sense of men imbued with the authority of God, (John 10:34-36) cf. Son of Man, Son of God designators, (c) he had the hypostasis of a man and not God (Heb 1:3) - "imprint of the hypostasis of God," and as such was true man. Thus he did truthfully aver, "God was his Father."

This is difficult to reconcile with Trinitarian view that alleges that Jesus didn't possess the personal hypostasis of a man (the anhypostasis doctrine), but that the "personal" in Jesus is denoted by the hypostasis of the divine Word. Actually this is very close to the Apollinarian "heresy" (so termed by Trinitarians), where the Logos takes the place of the rational human mind. I'm not clear that Trinitarianism hasn't reverted back to Apollinarianism or to a close approximation of it.

One of the puzzling things about this enhypostasis doctrine is whether the hypostatized Logos retains all the attributes of divinity. The inference is that is does, as preached by so many. For they maintain, along with you, that it is impossible for the divine Logos to divested of the attributes of divinity. This entails that Jesus must always be denoted as "God." Alternatively, the votaries of enhypostasis misuse the term "God" in an unscriptural way.

Jesus acknowledged he didn't possess the glory of God, nor was he omniscient in the sense that we understand the Father to be. So it is always wrong to refer to Jesus as God, except in the way in which he himself understood "God" to relate to men (Jn 10:34-36).

The Trinitarian doctrine might be truer if it was to acnowledge (a) the enhypostatized Logos as divested of all the attributes of divinity excepting the hypostasis of the Word (as distinct from the Father), (b) that in consequence it was possible for Jesus to possess a fully human hypostasis, but one nonetheless with the "imprint of the hypostasis of God," per Heb 1:3, (c) that the "true God" was in heaven, i.e. the Father of Jesus.
You do realize that nearly all of this is speculation, right? Why do you accuse me of getting my doctrine from people when you are the one who clearly depends on others for your thoughts?
 

cjab

Well-known member
Lol. We are saying the same thing. You are the one falsely claiming that this emphasis somehow relates to the Father or his throne rather than the word.
What I said was:

"The Greek says "God was the Word." This has a different slant from "The Word was God" because the emphasis is on who is de facto God (acting God) over creation. The Word is identified. If the Greek had said "The Word was God" then the emphasis would have been on who the Word is, but in Jn 1:1c the emphasis is on who God is as a matter of doctrine.

As for the word "deity," [not in Jn 1:1c] I have reflected on it somewhat, and would see it this way: if Christ is assessed independently of or apart from the Father, as in Col 2:9 then deity is acceptable. If Christ is construed alongside the Father on God's throne, then there is but one God. (As in Jn 1:1c, the throne of God is under consideration, "God" is properly used)."

How is your comment that the "emphasis somehow relates to the Father or his throne" justifiable? Further I said, "The emphasis is on who God is as a matter of doctrine."

As to doctrine: "The God" is the Father, "God" is the Word.

Implied is that the Father and the Word are one God.

So you allegation is pure fabrication. You certainly like falsely misrepresenting me, as I have witnessed on numerous occasions.

You've already said before you want to see me banned from this forum. There is little doubt what your real agenda is in being here. You are "accuser in chief."
 

Fred

Well-known member
Who is a liar but the one who denies that Jesus came to earth as a real human being. Trinitarians deny that Jesus was a human person / a human being ( “anhypostasis” ).

cjab couldn't back up his claim so he ran away.

You're running away too.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
What I said was:

"The Greek says "God was the Word." This has a different slant from "The Word was God" because the emphasis is on who is de facto God (acting God) over creation. The Word is identified. If the Greek had said "The Word was God" then the emphasis would have been on who the Word is, but in Jn 1:1c the emphasis is on who God is as a matter of doctrine.

As for the word "deity," [not in Jn 1:1c] I have reflected on it somewhat, and would see it this way: if Christ is assessed independently of or apart from the Father, as in Col 2:9 then deity is acceptable. If Christ is construed alongside the Father on God's throne, then there is but one God. (As in Jn 1:1c, the throne of God is under consideration, "God" is properly used)."

How is your comment that the "emphasis somehow relates to the Father or his throne" justifiable? Further I said, "The emphasis is on who God is as a matter of doctrine."

As to doctrine: "The God" is the Father, "God" is the Word.

Implied is that the Father and the Word are one God.

So you allegation is pure fabrication. You certainly like falsely misrepresenting me, as I have witnessed on numerous occasions.

You've already said before you want to see me banned from this forum. There is little doubt what your real agenda is in being here. You are "accuser in chief."
Your quote here demonstrates that my remarks were accurate. Why do you find fault with them?
 

cjab

Well-known member
Your quote here demonstrates that my remarks were accurate. Why do you find fault with them?
Because my remarks echo the judgement of Chrys C. Caragounis that what is being denoted in Jn 1:1c are the properties/essence of God (i.e. not the person of God), which you've previously alleged to agree with (although I don't think you do agree with at all - you just say you do for form's sake), and which reflects on what God is as a matter of doctrine, (i.e. ruler over creation &etc). Here you are disagreeing with me once again over something that is uncontroversial. You seem to not be able to understand anything I say without adding a hostile, derogatory and sneering gloss.

Since this is the case, why even bother to reply?
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Because my remarks echo the judgement of Chrys C. Caragounis
What are you referring to? The only remarks that I recall you sharing from him were those immediately below which in no way support the claims you make below.
"For a Hellene the construction of και Θεός ην ό Λόγος is perfectly
normal. It is exactly what he would have expected. The structure of the
phrase emphasizes the word Θεός. If Θεός were not to be emphasized,
then the clause would have been: και ό Λόγος ην Θεός"

that what is being denoted in Jn 1:1c are the properties/essence of God (i.e. not the person of God), which you've previously alleged to agree with (although I don't think you do agree with at all - you just say you do for form's sake), and which reflects on what God is as a matter of doctrine, (i.e. ruler over creation &etc).



Here you are disagreeing with me once again over something that is uncontroversial.
Your remarks are controversial. It's strange that you think someone agrees with you.
You seem to not be able to understand anything I say without adding a hostile, derogatory and sneering gloss.
Since this is the case, why even bother to reply?
Feel free to stop replying at any time, but since you claimed that Caragounis agrees with you I do expect you to provide some evidence.
 

cjab

Well-known member
What are you referring to? The only remarks that I recall you sharing from him were those immediately below which in no way support the claims you make below.
"For a Hellene the construction of και Θεός ην ό Λόγος is perfectly
normal. It is exactly what he would have expected. The structure of the
phrase emphasizes the word Θεός. If Θεός were not to be emphasized,
then the clause would have been: και ό Λόγος ην Θεός"
See here

"The question of definite or indefinite does not arise for a Greek in this
context, because Θεός as predicate denotes property or essence, not
an individual [AND NOT QUALITY - see below]. Thus, no question arises
as to whether the Logos is the only God or one of many. As for the qualitative
use, apart from its liability to varying interpretations, it should
be rejected both because the existing θείος is not used, and because God
is a 'person' not an attribute. From the theological point, too, we see
that John's use of Θεός (instead of ό Θεός) was not only grammatically
correct, but also reflected his theological conception. At the beginning,
when the Logos was, God was already there. John does not confuse the
Two. The Logos was God and yet he was not the God (which he reserves
for the Father)."

Your mistake is to see "God" as an attribute. This leads you to say "Jesus is 100% God." Rather one should say "all the properties of God are invested in the Word (who became Jesus)" or in the poetic language of Jn 1:1c "[anarthrous] God was the Word."

Property or essence involves a consideration of doctrine as to the nature of God. Contrariwise, the persona of "God" (theos with the article) is defined to be that of the Father without equivocation. Christ is said to wear the persona of the Father, as a matter of doctrine per John 14:9,11,20 etc. (cf. Melito of Sardis who alleged that Christ "wears the Father" which tends to Sabellianism - Christ being the Father - if left unchecked). This doctrine respecting the persona that Jesus (and the angels in the OT) wore explains John 20:28, and the many references to angels using the YHWH name in the OT. It also explains John 10:34-36.

Your remarks are controversial. It's strange that you think someone agrees with you.
If you ever agreed with me, I would doubt your sincerity or else have to examine myself to see whether I had said something wrong.

Feel free to stop replying at any time, but since you claimed that Caragounis agrees with you I do expect you to provide some evidence.
Supra.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
See here

"The question of definite or indefinite does not arise for a Greek in this
context, because Θεός as predicate denotes property or essence, not
an individual [AND NOT QUALITY - see below]. Thus, no question arises
as to whether the Logos is the only God or one of many. As for the qualitative
use, apart from its liability to varying interpretations, it should
be rejected both because the existing θείος is not used, and because God
is a 'person' not an attribute. From the theological point, too, we see
that John's use of Θεός (instead of ό Θεός) was not only grammatically
correct, but also reflected his theological conception. At the beginning,
when the Logos was, God was already there. John does not confuse the
Two. The Logos was God and yet he was not the God (which he reserves
for the Father)."

Your mistake is to see "God" as an attribute. This leads you to say "Jesus is 100% God." Rather one should say "all the properties of God are invested in the Word (who became Jesus)" or in the poetic language of Jn 1:1c "[anarthrous] God was the Word."
There is nothing incongruous about my remarks and that of your source. Pay attention to the sentence you are overlooking, "Thus, no question arises as to whether the Logos is the only God or one of many."
Property or essence involves a consideration of doctrine as to the nature of God. Contrariwise, the persona of "God" (theos with the article) is defined to be that of the Father without equivocation. Christ is said to wear the persona of the Father, as a matter of doctrine per John 14:9,11,20 etc. (cf. Melito of Sardis who alleged that Christ "wears the Father" which tends to Sabellianism - Christ being the Father - if left unchecked). This doctrine respecting the persona that Jesus (and the angels in the OT) wore explains John 20:28, and the many references to angels using the YHWH name in the OT. It also explains John 10:34-36.
Supra.
If you ever agreed with me, I would doubt your sincerity or else have to examine myself to see whether I had said something wrong.
If you had reason to, I'm sure you'd selectively quote the things that I say that you think suit your purposes just like you do all your other sources. If what you say is true, you wouldn't quote the sources you currently quote if you had interacted with them personally instead of me.
 
Top