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

cjab

Well-known member
If what you say is true, then you should be able to affirm that "the Word" is "God" just as you affirm that "God" is "spirit". Is this what you intended to say all along? What I suspect will happen is that you cannot do so because you constantly conflate "God" with "the Father".
Here again, you falsely create an aspersion that I disagree with Jn 1:1c. Such is but defamation, an outrageous slander.

The jury is now in. You do use slander as a weapon against me and TRJM, to found unfounded allegations to cater to your personal vanity and that of your equally vain companion in arms "Fred."

The fact is that is not what you said as I demonstrated in what I quoted from you above. Did you misspeak?
You did misspeak as I never said their constructions were different (you just imagined it).

If what I said isn't correct, then you should be able to affirm that "the word" is "God" just as the "God" is "spirit".
As I have never derogated from God's word, why do you bring such a charge?

I'm awaiting further clarification from your loose remarks, then.
You'll get none, because you can't be bothered to understand anything I say, and because I don't accept malicious allegations.

I just told you plainly that "God" refers to the word's essence, as has been my position all along.
No, you said the "Word was called God", as I showed. It is not "called God," as I showed. "God" is not an appellative, but an anarthrous PN. If the Word were to be "called God," the article before theos would at least be necessary, but an altogether different construction would be necessary using καλέω.

The Logos is called "the logos" (seems obvious when you think about it - too obvious for you).

No. I am not confusing the essence of God with the identity of the word. I have said that both "the Father" and the word are "God". That describe the essence that is common to both of them.
When theos is subject, then theos doesn't refer to God's essence, and neither does theos refer to God's essence with propositions. Only when theos is a PN will God's essence (or properties) be inferred.

You mean the misunderstanding and misstating of my position that you showed above.
Jesus's essence is "God" and that does not necessarily change despite his incarnation per Php. 2 as you and TRJM have come to realize too late in another thread (at least I think it's another thread).
Why should Jesus's essence matter if the Word "God" can variously denote an essence, a stomach or "the god of this world" (i.e. satan). You have consistently shown that the word "God" has no fixed meaning for you, inferring you have no theology worth discussing.

First of all, whether or not "theos" is anarthrous has nothing to do with anything.
Learned scholars such as Caragounis profoundly disagree with you, and this shows you faked "agreement" with him.

Secondly, you are now denying that "God' is a term that refers to essence. This would put you at odds, as I believe I have already pointed out, with the remarks from Caragounis.
I am not denying it. But before "God" can infer essence, the term "God" has to be defined by a referent. For you, as I have pointed out, it has no fixed referent (and so God has no fixed esssence in any event) because "God" is infinitely variable as connoting anything that is worshipped.

I debunked this above. It's cute that you don't address it and continue to make the false statement.
Since I've never raised the point of the "Logos" appellation being confined to a heavenly instantiation before (which arises out of considerations of Greek philosophy from where the Logos appellation originated), I've no idea what you're talking about.

This has nothing to do with anything. As you yourself would have to admit if you consistently applied your distinction between earthly and heavenly realms. Your inconsistency on this matter is undeniable.
You are badly mistaken. I was demonstating that an anarthrous PN doesn't have to denote a never changing or unchangable essence, as a point of grammar. (Heaven or earth is irrelevant.)

Then you should admit that he had the same essence as God before his incarnation and per John 17 after his incarnation.
Non sequitur, and "God" has still to be defined by you in some meaningful way. In fact, until you properly define God other than in a relativistic way, this discussion is pointless

It's not a new point, it comes from the fact that one's identity is independent of their form
I agree identity is independent of their form, but this has nothing to do with Jn 1:1c, as I stated.

I've not insulted you, cjab, despite how deserving you are of it. You are the one who is doing all of the insulting, as is evident even now.
As I have said above, either you have really serious comprehension issues, which is what I strongly suspect, or you are an inveterate maligner of anyone who is perceived to threaten your self-appointed and imaginary supremacy.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Here again, you falsely create an aspersion that I disagree with Jn 1:1c. Such is but defamation, an outrageous slander.
I didn’t say anything about your agreement with John 1:1. I asked you a question that should have had an easy answer if you do view the constructions as equivalent. Instead, you started accusing me of things I clearly haven’t done.
The jury is now in. You do use slander as a weapon against me and TRJM, to found unfounded allegations to cater to your personal vanity and that of your equally vain companion in arms "Fred."
I didn’t slander you, and I’m immune to gaslighting.
You did misspeak as I never said their constructions were different (you just imagined it).
You did say it. I quoted where you said it, and I’ll do so again.
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.
If you are saying that they are equivalent constructions then you should be saying that we can say “the word” is “God” in the same way we say “God” is “spirit”. This shouldn’t be hard for you to figure out.
As I have never derogated from God's word, why do you bring such a charge?
I didn’t bring “a charge”. I told you an easy way to prove that you think the statements are equivalent. You are refusing to do so, and there can be little doubt what the reason is.
You'll get none, because you can't be bothered to understand anything I say, and because I don't accept malicious allegations.
I’ll graciously extend you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re confused. I have asked you for clarification. If you don’t provide it, don’t complain that I have misunderstood you. As it currently sits, you have clearly contradicted yourself. Your unwillingness to speak on the matter suggests that you are being duplicitous.
No, you said the "Word was called God", as I showed. It is not "called God," as I showed. "God" is not an appellative, but an anarthrous PN. If the Word were to be "called God," the article before theos would at least be necessary, but an altogether different construction would be necessary using καλέω.
You are illegitimately changing the meaning of the word “called” from how I used it. I have never claimed that God is a name or a title in this passage, and you are in error for suggesting that I have. However, as I said above even here your “grammar” is wrong. An anarthrous PN can be an appellative just as an articular PN can be. You should stop pretending that you know the language.
The Logos is called "the logos" (seems obvious when you think about it - too obvious for you).
When theos is subject, then theos doesn't refer to God's essence, and neither does theos refer to God's essence with propositions. Only when theos is a PN will God's essence (or properties) be inferred.
The you should agree that “the word” is “God” in essence just as “the Father” is, since “theos” is a PN in “θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”.
Why should Jesus's essence matter if the Word "God" can variously denote an essence, a stomach or "the god of this world" (i.e. satan). You have consistently shown that the word "God" has no fixed meaning for you, inferring you have no theology worth discussing.
You are being silly. My assertion is that the word’s meaning will depend on the context. I have told you exactly what the meaning of “God” is in “θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”. I told you from the start that Caragounis’s definition is a good one just like I’ve told you that he disagrees with you. I believe this fact is beginning to dawn on you.
Learned scholars such as Caragounis profoundly disagree with you, and this shows you faked "agreement" with him.
Lol. No. They don’t. You disagree with Caragounis.
I am not denying it. But before "God" can infer essence, the term "God" has to be defined by a referent. For you, as I have pointed out, it has no fixed referent (and so God has no fixed esssence in any event) because "God" is infinitely variable as connoting anything that is worshipped.
I dealt with your mistake here earlier.
Since I've never raised the point of the "Logos" appellation being confined to a heavenly instantiation before (which arises out of considerations of Greek philosophy from where the Logos appellation originated), I've no idea what you're talking about.
Your confusion probably has something to do with the fact that I’ve never said anything about appellatives. You brought up the topic, and are attempting to attribute that error to me. The only remarks that I have made on the subject were to correct the mistakes that you’ve introduced.
You are badly mistaken. I was demonstating that an anarthrous PN doesn't have to denote a never changing or unchangable essence, as a point of grammar. (Heaven or earth is irrelevant.)
Nope. The mistake is yours. I addressed this above.
Non sequitur, and "God" has still to be defined by you in some meaningful way. In fact, until you properly define God other than in a relativistic way, this discussion is pointless
I accepted Caragounis’s definition at the start of our conversation, and I told you then that he disagreed with you. You are simply readying your excuses for leaving the conversation.
I agree identity is independent of their form, but this has nothing to do with Jn 1:1c, as I stated.
My remark had to do with your insinuation that I had made a “new point”. You have known my position on this subject for well over a year, so your comment was misleading.
As I have said above, either you have really serious comprehension issues, which is what I strongly suspect, or you are an inveterate maligner of anyone who is perceived to threaten your self-appointed and imaginary supremacy.
You are terribly mistaken on all counts here. For one, you are the one having all manner of comprehension issues. For another, I haven’t said anything hateful to you or claimed to be superior to you in any way. (Although it is true that I can read Greek and you can’t, that does not make me superior to you.) Since you respond this strongly to civil disagreement, I fear you’d kill yourself if I actually attacked you.
 

Oseas

Member
That's like saying the same person who speaks in verse 6 is speaking in verse 7. You are preying on the lack of a direct attribution in some of the verses in Rev. 22 to engage in biblical eisegesis. Jesus is being quoted in verse 12 and the Father in verse 13.
Greetings in Christ JESUS.
It would be interesting you re-study your above assertions.
Revelation 22:v.6 - 6 And he said unto me (the angel said to John), "These sayings are faithful and true":
And John said: and the Lord GOD of the holy prophets sent his angel (Revelation 1:v.1-in fact an archangel) to shew unto His servants the things which must shortly be done.

Revelation 22:v.7 - The archangel said: " Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book". (The archangel comes first, I mean, before JESUS-1Thessalonians 4:v.15-17 combined with Daniel 12:v.1-3, and Revelation 12:v.7to17 and 20:v.1-4)

Revelation 22:v.16 - I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.


Revelation 22:v.12-13:
12
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. (Here JESUS says: I come quickly. He will come after the archangel-1 Thessalonians 4:v.16 - For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel -MICHAEL-Daniel 12:v.1-3-, and with the trump of GOD: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
13
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Here JESUS still speaking, speaking of Himself. JESUS said He is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. It is not the Father , as you above said, no absolutely, the Father is from everlasting to everlasting, He has not beginning nor ending, understand? - JESUS IS THE BEGINNING AND THE ENDING, as He Himself said-Revelation 1:v.8-Check it.)
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Greetings in Christ JESUS.
It would be interesting you re-study your above assertions.
Revelation 22:v.6 - 6 And he said unto me (the angel said to John), "These sayings are faithful and true":
And John said: and the Lord GOD of the holy prophets sent his angel (Revelation 1:v.1-in fact an archangel) to shew unto His servants the things which must shortly be done.

Revelation 22:v.7 - The archangel said: " Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book". (The archangel comes first, I mean, before JESUS-1Thessalonians 4:v.15-17 combined with Daniel 12:v.1-3, and Revelation 12:v.7to17 and 20:v.1-4)

Revelation 22:v.16 - I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.


Revelation 22:v.12-13:
12
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. (Here JESUS says: I come quickly. He will come after the archangel-1 Thessalonians 4:v.16 - For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel -MICHAEL-Daniel 12:v.1-3-, and with the trump of GOD: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
13
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Here JESUS still speaking, speaking of Himself. JESUS said He is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. It is not the Father , as you above said, no absolutely, the Father is from everlasting to everlasting, He has not beginning nor ending, understand? - JESUS IS THE BEGINNING AND THE ENDING, as He Himself said-Revelation 1:v.8-Check it.)
Eu vou tentar escrever em Portugues para pratica e divertimento. Perdoe os meus erros, por favor. Nao e uma boa ideia falar com isso homem. Ele nao sabe nada sobre a lingua grega e nao tem integridade. Qualquer coisa que voce dissesse ele vai torcer. Mas eu sei que as vezes e divertido brincar e eu nao estou a tentar dizer voce o que fazer.
 

Oseas

Member
Eu vou tentar escrever em Portugues para pratica e divertimento. Perdoe os meus erros, por favor. Nao e uma boa ideia falar com isso homem. Ele nao sabe nada sobre a lingua grega e nao tem integridade. Qualquer coisa que voce dissesse ele vai torcer. Mas eu sei que as vezes e divertido brincar e eu nao estou a tentar dizer voce o que fazer.
Obrigado pela atenção. O que importa e prevalece é a Palavra de DEUS, i.e. O Verbo - a Palavra,digo,o Verbo, é DEUS-João 1:v.1.
 

Oseas

Member
So your Jesus has a beginning and ending ?
Don't you believe in JESUS? He Himself said: I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which IS, and which WAS, and which IS to COME, the Almighty - Revelation 1:v.8.

In fact, JESUS said: No man knows the Son, but the Father; neither knows any man the Father, save the Son, and he TO WHOMSOEVER the Son will reveal Him-Matthew 11:v.27. - This explains the why you know not JESUS.


THE WORD IS GOD
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Don't you believe in JESUS? He Himself said: I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which IS, and which WAS, and which IS to COME, the Almighty - Revelation 1:v.8.

In fact, JESUS said: No man knows the Son, but the Father; neither knows any man the Father, save the Son, and he TO WHOMSOEVER the Son will reveal Him-Matthew 11:v.27. - This explains the why you know not JESUS.


THE WORD IS GOD
Would you answer the question I asked ?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
He is the beginning.
So he did not have a beginning, but "he is the beginning." Is that correct ? What does "He is the beginning" mean to you ?

In the beginning-in JESUS- GOD created the heavens-several heavens- and the earth - Israel - the clay, the dry land.

You added the words in bold above into the text. . The true text says "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." (See Genesis 1:1).

Without JESUS was not any thing made that was made.

Again you are twisting the actual text. John 1:3 says without the Word (not without "Jesus") not one thing came into being. So that makes the Word an instrument, not the originator or the origin (ἡ ἀρχὴ).

Why do trinitarians feel a need to twist the scriptures ? The answer seems pretty obvious to me.
 

cjab

Well-known member
I didn’t say anything about your agreement with John 1:1. I asked you a question that should have had an easy answer if you do view the constructions as equivalent. Instead, you started accusing me of things I clearly haven’t done.
Clearly you cast a wantonly aspersive innuendo that I disagreed with Jn 1:1c. Defamation can be by innuendo or otherwise. The creation of innuendos, and twisting people's words, are your typical debating techniques,

I didn’t slander you, and I’m immune to gaslighting.
You slander me whenever you wish, and I'm immune to it, as I see your theological system as a sham, both lexically and grammatically.

You did say it. I quoted where you said it, and I’ll do so again.
What you quoted from me in your post #52, in so far as it mentioned the verses in question, was the following:

"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."

Question: do you call God "Spirit"? Do you say "Our Spirit which art in heaven"? Do you "call" God by the term "God the Spirit" or constantly proclaim: "Jesus is Spirit"? I don't think so. You understand "Spirit" as a PN in its proper setting. My point was that Jn 1:1c is no different.

So in the above it is clear I was directly comparing equivalent constructions, and saying that if Jn 4:24 doesn't engender an appellative, neither does Jn 1:1c. You also said "You said that the two phrases couldn't mean the same thing" in the same post. Again you lied, as I never said any such thing,

If you are saying that they are equivalent constructions then you should be saying that we can say “the word” is “God” in the same way we say “God” is “spirit”. This shouldn’t be hard for you to figure out
Jn 1:1c doesn't have an easy translation into English, because of the limitations of the English language, which is unable to accurately convey that "theos" doesn't carry the definite article, as Jn 1:1b does. In fact anarthrous theos could be alternately denoted in English by other words, but I don't want to get into any such discussion with you on that point. The best approximation is "God was the Word in the specific context of Jn 1:1b." As Jn 1:1c and Jn 1:1b are corollaries, they have to be juxtaposed to get the right sense.

I didn’t bring “a charge”. I told you an easy way to prove that you think the statements are equivalent. You are refusing to do so, and there can be little doubt what the reason is.
You asserted "You said that the two phrases couldn't mean the same thing" i.e. that they had different constructions. I never said any such thing.

You lied.

I’ll graciously extend you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re confused. I have asked you for clarification. If you don’t provide it, don’t complain that I have misunderstood you. As it currently sits, you have clearly contradicted yourself. Your unwillingness to speak on the matter suggests that you are being duplicitous.
I don't accept any benefit of the doubt.

You lied, simple.

You deliberately perverted my words to render my words incoherent. Such is your perennial tactic.

You are illegitimately changing the meaning of the word “called” from how I used it. I have never claimed that God is a name or a title in this passage, and you are in error for suggesting that I have. However, as I said above even here your “grammar” is wrong. An anarthrous PN can be an appellative just as an articular PN can be. You should stop pretending that you know the language.
I have not changed the meaning of the word "called." I quoted you accurately. If you didn't mean "called" then you misspoke.

Grammatically an anarthrous PN does not create an appellative. Obviously it doesn't mean that you can't use an appellative as an anarthrous PN, which happens in Jn 1:1c. But "theos" is not an appellative of the Logos but of the Father. Yet you have consistently repudiated the idea that "theos" is an appellative of the Father (from Jn 1:1b). Such is your heresy (& that of your companion in arms "Fred" - even the Sabellian heresy).

The you should agree that “the word” is “God” in essence just as “the Father” is, since “theos” is a PN in “θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”.
No, I don't accept your qualification "just as the Father is." That is not what Jn 1:1b says of the Father. Again you betray the Sabellian heresy.

You are being silly. My assertion is that the word’s meaning will depend on the context. I have told you exactly what the meaning of “God” is in “θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”. I told you from the start that Caragounis’s definition is a good one just like I’ve told you that he disagrees with you. I believe this fact is beginning to dawn on you.
Caragounis’s definition of "God" is the Father. He says "The Logos was God and yet he was not the God (which he reserves for the Father)."

This is not your position, nor that of your sidekick "Fred." For both of you, Jesus is "The God."


Lol. No. They don’t. You disagree with Caragounis.

I dealt with your mistake here earlier.

Your confusion probably has something to do with the fact that I’ve never said anything about appellatives. You brought up the topic, and are attempting to attribute that error to me. The only remarks that I have made on the subject were to correct the mistakes that you’ve introduced.

Nope. The mistake is yours. I addressed this above.

I accepted Caragounis’s definition at the start of our conversation, and I told you then that he disagreed with you. You are simply readying your excuses for leaving the conversation.

My remark had to do with your insinuation that I had made a “new point”. You have known my position on this subject for well over a year, so your comment was misleading.

You are terribly mistaken on all counts here. For one, you are the one having all manner of comprehension issues. For another, I haven’t said anything hateful to you or claimed to be superior to you in any way. (Although it is true that I can read Greek and you can’t, that does not make me superior to you.) Since you respond this strongly to civil disagreement, I fear you’d kill yourself if I actually attacked you.
I can't be bothered to address your BS any longer.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
Eu vou tentar escrever em Portugues para pratica e divertimento. Perdoe os meus erros, por favor. Nao e uma boa ideia falar com isso homem. Ele nao sabe nada sobre a lingua grega e nao tem integridade. Qualquer coisa que voce dissesse ele vai torcer. Mas eu sei que as vezes e divertido brincar e eu nao estou a tentar dizer voce o que fazer.
What a disgraceful thing to say. Note to @The Real John Milton

The above translates to; "I will try to write in Portuguese for practice and fun. Forgive my mistakes, please. It's not a good idea to talk to that man. He knows nothing about the Greek language and has no integrity. Anything you say he will twist. But I know sometimes it's fun to play and I'm not trying to tell you what to do."

Just about sums up your odious character, that you would slander someone in a foreign tongue. In truth, you do not display the Spirit of Christ.

 

John Milton

Well-known member
What a disgraceful thing to say. Note to @The Real John Milton

The above translates to; "I will try to write in Portuguese for practice and fun. Forgive my mistakes, please. It's not a good idea to talk to that man. He knows nothing about the Greek language and has no integrity. Anything you say he will twist. But I know sometimes it's fun to play and I'm not trying to tell you what to do."

Just about sums up your odious character, that you would slander someone in a foreign tongue. In truth, you do not display the Spirit of Christ.

It is true. In his very next post he did exactly what I said he would do.
 
Top