The Alpha and the Omega is the Almighty (Revelation 22:13)

[The Real John Milton]

You just said the passage was talking about a man. Did you forget?

Yes, "a man" is not in the form of one. Does this need explaining ?

 

[John Milton]

Yes, "a man" is not in the form of one. Does this need explaining ?

Not to me. You, however, are contradicting yourself and don't realize it.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Not to me. You, however, are contradicting yourself and don't realize it.

Then you have bigger comprehension issues than I thought. A robot for example, could be in the form of a man (see here) , but it is not a man.

 

[cjab]

I couldn't tell you. What I can tell you with is that Wallace, Caragounis, and I all disagree with your statement that there is a notable difference between PNs with or without the a verb.

Such is100% fabrication on your part. The idea never entered my mind.

You were clearly making a distinction about the meaning of one versus the other.

I clearly was doing no such thing. I was using them as a basis for showing the extraordinary constructions put on Jn 1:1c, which attach "God" to the Word as if a (or rather "the") title of the Word, are baseless.

The word for that is "wrong". You said that the two phrases couldn't mean the same thing. That is entirely, as in 100%, incorrect.

Again you do have reading comprehension issues. My exact words were "The use of Θεός as predicate (Jn 1:1c) doesn't give rise to an appellative (cf. also Jn 4:24 and Spirit supra)."

How could I be understood as meaning "the two phrases couldn't mean the same thing?"

I also said "Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός (Jn 4:24) doesn't mean we can call God "Spirit". It means God IS spirit, as a matter of constitution or essence. We can defer to the Word of God as the Logos, as scripturally authenticated, by the use of the article "ὁ Λόγος" but we cannot call the logos "God" just because of Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος in Jn 1:1c."

Again I was identifying an equivalent construction common to the two verses, using the one to eludicate the other.

I don't intentionally twist your words.

The jury is still out.

I don't go around saying "God the Son" so I don't see how any of this is relevant (though to be clear there is nothing wrong with it). We do, however, say "God is spirit," and we can say "Jesus is God". Both are entirely in line with scripture.

No, for the reason I explained but which you missed. "God is Spirit" applies todefine the jurisdiction. It defines God to be in heaven (cf. the Lord's prayer). Hence it is a definitional statement as to jurisdiction.

Likewise, if the Word has the properties of God, it means, also by definition, that the Word is in heaven.

When the Word was made flesh, i.e. a man, as a matter of definition, the Word ceased to have the properties of God, because "God is Spirit" and jurisdictionally located in heaven.

"God" refers to the essence of the word.

In heaven, yes, where "essence" means "properties."

But on earth, no. On earth the bible uses "God" to refer either (a) to the Father in heaven, or (b) to the agency and ministry of the Word, whether of men or of angels in the Old Testament (cf. John 10:34-36). In prophecy, it was also used to refer to the ministry of the Son, viz. Isaiah 7:14.

The idea of God's essence or properties being inalienable with respect to the Word (i.e. the Logos of Jn 1:1) is not true, because if it were, the Word could never have been made flesh and "kensosis" is meaningless. The plenary / bodily fullness of God's essence / properties are confined to the jurisdiction of heaven and comprise "Spirit" (in the form of power and glory etc).

The Holy Spirit is used to communicate God's properties via the agency of the prophets and the ministry of the Son (it is valid to distinguish prophetic agency from sonship but it is not valid to classify these as different in kind, for by describing himself as a prophet Jesus showed his ministry differed in quality and degree - also see Heb 8:6ff where the comparison is made).

I have not claimed that Jesus is "God and man". And Jesus was called "God" while on earth so your fabricated distinctions of earth and heaven are bogus.

You chop and change your mind all the time, with respect to many things. Don't pretend you don't do that.

I have never denied this. I have repeatedly affirmed it. Why do you keep lying?

Your position is a contradiction in terms. On the one hand you claim to affirm "kenosis" but on the other, you assert that Jesus is "God." You can't have it both ways. If God is divested of the properties of God, he no longer has the properties of God, and so is not God in the Jn 1:1c sense.

This is how Wallace is wrong. "God" is not qualitative. You can't be 1% God. You have to be 100% possessed of God - i.e. "boldily" - or you're not God. This is why the NET BIBLE's "Fully God" is so absurd. It suggests you can have 1% of God's properties, and yet still be "God." If that were true, everyone could lay claim to being "God."

 

[The Real John Milton]

Your position is a contradiction in terms. On the one hand you claim to affirm "kenosis" but on the other, you assert that Jesus is "God." You can't have it both ways. If God is divested of the properties of God, he no longer has the properties of God, and so is not God in the Jn 1:1c sense.

This is how Wallace is wrong. "God" is not qualitative. You can't be 1% God. You have to be 100% possessed of God - i.e. "boldily" - or you're not God. This is why the NET BIBLE's "Fully God" is so absurd. It suggests you can have 1% of God's properties, and yet still be "God." If that were true, everyone could lay claim to being "God."

I've unfortunately have had to come to the conclusion that he is unstable.

 

[John Milton]

Such is 100% fabrication on your part. The idea never entered my mind.
I clearly was doing no such thing. I was using them as a basis for showing the extraordinary constructions put on Jn 1:1c, which attach "God" to the Word as if a (or rather "the") title of the Word, are baseless.
Again you do have reading comprehension issues. My exact words were "The use of Θεός as predicate (Jn 1:1c) doesn't give rise to an appellative (cf. also Jn 4:24 and Spirit supra)."

I have no reading comprehension issues. Here is what you said in full:

Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός (Jn 4:24) doesn't mean we can call God "Spirit". It means God IS spirit, as a matter of constitution or essence. We can defer to the Word of God as the Logos, as scripturally authenticated, by the use of the article "ὁ Λόγος" but we cannot call the logos "God" just because of Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος in Jn 1:1c.
This goes back to my earlier observation that you cannot engage properly with subject and predicate and words with the article, and words without the article. They all have different connotations, which you emasculate by using "God" as an appellative for the Word/Jesus, which Greek grammar clearly repudiates.

I underlined the relevant parts for you. You said "they all have different connotations." What I said is in line with your remarks. Based on what you said, you should've agreed.

How could I be understood as meaning "the two phrases couldn't mean the same thing?"

See above. There is also the fact that you stated that even though both the phrases use the same construction and have words referring to "constitution or essence," you denied that the logos could be called "God".

I also said "Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός (Jn 4:24) doesn't mean we can call God "Spirit". It means God IS spirit, as a matter of constitution or essence. We can defer to the Word of God as the Logos, as scripturally authenticated, by the use of the article "ὁ Λόγος" but we cannot call the logos "God" just because of Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος in Jn 1:1c."

Again I was identifying an equivalent construction common to the two verses, using the one to eludicate the other.

What I believe you were trying to do is to compare only "ὁ Θεός" and "ὁ Λόγος" but you forgot about the rest of the construction. But you shot yourself in the foot because God being called "spirit" in this construction suggests that the word is being called "God". But this is, admittedly, speculation. What is true is that you asserted that some difference exists between the two when there isn't a difference between the two.

The jury is still out.

No. It's not. I've never intentionally twisted your words.

No, for the reason I explained but which you missed. "God is Spirit" applies todefine the jurisdiction. It defines God to be in heaven (cf. the Lord's prayer). Hence it is a definitional statement as to jurisdiction.

You never said anything about this in those remarks. Instead, you spoke about it denoting "essence" just as you had elsewhere said about "God".

Likewise, if the Word has the properties of God, it means, also by definition, that the Word is in heaven.

No. These comments and distinctions are of your own invention.

When the Word was made flesh, i.e. a man, as a matter of definition, the Word ceased to have the properties of God, because "God is Spirit" and jurisdictionally located in heaven.

There is no justification for limiting "spirits" to heaven. In the NT "spirits" were active all over Israel.

In heaven, yes, where "essence" means "properties."

Debunked. Just for fun: how then did the spirit of God hover over the face of the deep?

But on earth, no. On earth the bible uses "God" to refer either (a) to the Father in heaven, or (b) to the agency and ministry of the Word, whether of men or of angels in the Old Testament (cf. John 10:34-36). In prophecy, it was also used to refer to the ministry of the Son, viz. Isaiah 7:14.

And to false gods and to Jesus. Why do you insist on repeating this lie.

The idea of God's essence or properties being inalienable with respect to the Word (i.e. the Logos of Jn 1:1) is not true, because if it were, the Word could never have been made flesh and "kensosis" is meaningless. The plenary / bodily fullness of God's essence / properties are confined to the jurisdiction of heaven and comprise "Spirit" (in the form of power and glory etc).

You are assuming that God's essence is affected by his constitution.

The Holy Spirit is used to communicate God's properties via the agency of the prophets and the ministry of the Son (it is valid to distinguish prophetic agency from sonship but it is not valid to classify these as different in kind, for by describing himself as a prophet Jesus showed his ministry differed in quality and degree - also see Heb 8:6ff where the comparison is made).

How did you end up on the Holy Spirit?

You chop and change your mind all the time, with respect to many things. Don't pretend you don't do that.

I haven't changed my mind or my position or my remarks at all. It is a joke that you accuse me of inconsistency.

Your position is a contradiction in terms. On the one hand you claim to affirm "kenosis" but on the other, you assert that Jesus is "God." You can't have it both ways. If God is divested of the properties of God, he no longer has the properties of God, and so is not God in the Jn 1:1c sense.

I can do that because, as I've stated, there is a distinction between one's identity and one's form.

This is how Wallace is wrong. "God" is not qualitative. You can't be 1% God. You have to be 100% possessed of God - i.e. "boldily" - or you're not God. This is why the NET BIBLE's "Fully God" is so absurd. It suggests you can have 1% of God's properties, and yet still be "God." If that were true, everyone could lay claim to being "God."

I didn't say anything about Wallace's interpretation of the passage. I quoted his remarks about the grammar of PN constructions. Try to keep up.

 

[John Milton]

Then you have bigger comprehension issues than I thought. A robot for example, could be in the form of a man (see here) , but it is not a man.

You just said that the passage was not denying Jesus was a man. Your contradictory remarks since make you seem foolish.

 

[cjab]

I can do that because, as I've stated, there is a distinction between one's identity and one's form.

You have spent most of the last couple of weeks arguing that "God" is not an identity, as it can refer to the Father, or to Jesus, and to many other things, including stomachs, as you have pointed out. For you to now insinuate God as an "identity" is hypocrisy (you now assert that Jesus bears the identity of God but not the form of God). For as anything can legitimately bear "God" as an identity if it is worshipped, in your view, so the notion of "God" as an identity of anything has been trashed by you.

Moreover, as I have shown, there is nothing in Jn 1:1c that establishes "God" as an identity for the Word from the anarthrous PN construction.

If "God"were to be attributed to the Word as an identity, we would certainly expect the article prior to theos, and the phrase structure as ὁ Λόγος ἦν ὁ Θεὸς,

Per Winer, p. 120, The Greek Art. in the predicate denotes that the object has a definite kind of a property it is known to possess; as is more obvious from Heb. vii. 24. απαράβατον εχει την ϊερωσύνην (He hath an unchangeable priesthood - predicate).

Winer says that it was vital that John omit the article in Jn 1:1c, which also distinguishes the Word from the Father, who does bear the identity ὁ Θεὸς.

I didn't say anything about Wallace's interpretation of the passage. I quoted his remarks about the grammar of PN constructions. Try to keep up.

Wallace's remarks were specifically made with a view to understanding Jn 1:1c, so it is wrong for you to try to disassociate his remarks from his interpretation of Jn 1:1c.

"Qualitative" may be appropriate, depending on the semantics and nature of the predicate for there are many different PN constructions. The predicate doesn't have to be a noun, but where it is a noun, then "properties" would seem to be the right denotation of what an anarthrous predicate denotes (per Caragounis).

All in all, you have not shown that your position is other than incoherent on every level, and your sense of Θεὸς continually shapeshifting. You seem to be incapable of articulating a coherent doctrine, preferring instead to criticize others. Actually, you are incredibly wearisome. TRJM definitely has a point in critiquing your comprehension of the New Testament, and I would argue that your heavily argumentative and contentious style betrays a very uncertain theology.

 

[John Milton]

You have spent most of the last couple of weeks arguing that "God" is not an identity, as it can refer to the Father, or to Jesus, and to many other things, including stomachs, as you have pointed out. For you to now insinuate God as an "identity" is hypocrisy. For as anything can legitimately bear "God" as an identity if it is worshipped, in your view, so the notion of "God" as an identity of anything has been continuously trashed by you.

I never said anything about "God" being an identity! What are you talking about? I was talking about Jesus being the same entity (having the same identity) regardless of his form. Learn to read, man!

Moreover, as I have shown, there is nothing in Jn 1:1c that establishes "God" as an identity for the Word from the anarthrous PN construction.

You said it refers to an "essence" as I just pointed out.

If "God"were to be attributed to the Word as an identity, we would certainly expect the article prior to theos, and the phrase structure as ὁ Λόγος ἦν ὁ Θεὸς,

Per Winer, p. 120, The Greek Art. in the predicate denotes that the object has a definite kind of a property it is known to possess; as is more obvious from Heb. vii. 24. απαράβατον εχει την ϊερωσύνην (He hath an unchangeable priesthood - predicate).

Winer says that it was vital that John omit the article in Jn 1:1c, which also distinguishes the Word from the Father, who does bear the identity ὁ Θεὸς.

Now it makes sense. Your source thinks that ὁ Θεὸς is an identity. Your issue is actually with your source.

Wallace's remarks were specifically made with a view to understanding Jn 1:1c, so it is wrong for you to try to disassociate his remarks from his interpretation of Jn 1:1c.

His remarks hold true for PN constructions, not just Jn. 1:1.

"Qualitative" may be appropriate, depending on the semantics and nature of the predicate for there are many different PN constructions. The predicate doesn't have to be a noun, but where it is a noun, then "properties" would seem to be the right denotation of what an anarthrous predicate denotes (per Caragounis).

However you wish to spin it, what is true of the PN construction of Jn. 1:1 can also be true of Jn. 4:24. Your earlier statements were contrary to this fact.

All in all, you have not shown that your position is other than incoherent on every level, and your sense of Θεὸς continually shapeshifting. You seem to be incapable of articulating a coherent doctrine, preferring instead to criticize others. Actually, you are incredibly wearisome. TRJM definitely has a point in critiquing your comprehension of the New Testament.

My statements are completely justified; they are all true. The only thing you can do is make false statements and try to drum up unwarranted sympathy for the trouncing you are taking.

 

[The Real John Milton]

You just said that the passage was not denying Jesus was a man. Your contradictory remarks since make you seem foolish.

That's precisely why it cannot be said that he was in the form of a man.

 

[John Milton]

That's precisely why it cannot be said that he was in the form of a man.

The text says he was in the form of a man and by this it meant that he was a man. That's the whole point of this. What I said was entirely correct, and you seem to have confused yourself.

 

[cjab]

The text says he was in the form of a man...

No: μορφὴν δούλου. Form of a servant means not invested with the powers and properties of God. It is stressing the antithesis of Jesus vis-a-vis the Word in Jn 1:1c.

 

[John Milton]

No: μορφὴν δούλου. Form of a servant means not invested with the powers and properties of God. It is stressing the antithesis of Jesus vis-a-vis the Word in Jn 1:1c.

I was referring to the thought not the wording. The text is saying that Jesus was a man. It did this by saying that he was in the "form of"/"likeness of"...

 

[The Real John Milton]

The text says he was in the form of a man and by this it meant that he was a man. That's the whole point of this. What I said was entirely correct, and you seem to have confused yourself.

The text nowhere says Jesus was in the form of a man, it says rather he was in the form of a servant.

 

[The Real John Milton]

No: μορφὴν δούλου. Form of a servant means not invested with the powers and properties of God. It is stressing the antithesis of Jesus vis-a-vis the Word in Jn 1:1c.

Yeah, not μορφὴν ἀνθρώπου

 

[The Real John Milton]

I was referring to the thought not the wording. The text is saying that Jesus was a man. It did this by saying that he was in the "form of"/"likeness of"...

It's not saying he was "a man" with the words "he was in the form of a servant," but rather that he was "a servant." The implication being that even though he was a King, he became a servant. It's in reference to the following:

ὥσπερ ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι, ἀλλὰ διακονῆσαι καὶ δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν.

Matt. 20:28,

 

[John Milton]

The text nowhere says Jesus was in the form of a man, it says rather he was in the form of a servant.

This just proves how little you and cjab know. What do you think this means: "καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος"?

 

[The Real John Milton]

This just proves how little you and cjab know. What do you think this means: "καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος"?

Not "in the form of a man." You're speculating.

 

[John Milton]

Not "in the form of a man." You're speculating.

It says "and in form being found as man". You clearly don't read Greek.
σχῆμα = "form, shape, figure"

Greek Word Study Tool

www.perseus.tufts.edu

 

[The Real John Milton]

It says "and in form being found as man". You clearly don't read Greek.
σχῆμα = "form, shape, figure"

Greek Word Study Tool

www.perseus.tufts.edu

(1) The word is σχῆμα, not μορφή.

(2) We have a different Greek construction here -- καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος (and in appearance have been found as a man). Even if you wish to translate σχῆμα as "form," this clause is not saying "he was in the form of a man" but "in form having been found as a man." It is pointing out to the readers that he was seen as a man (i.e. someone who has to die, someone who has sinned), even though he was sinless. You should remember the following scriptures when reading this verse:

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

2 cor. 5:21

for all (men) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 3:23

Surely there is no righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.

Ecc. 7:20