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

The Real 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.

He seems to have been projecting, yet again.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
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,
For the second time, I didn't say anything about you disagreeing with Jn. 1:1c. I said that you don't seem to view the statements you quoted as equivalent.
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.
I've not slandered you. In order to slander you, my statements would have to be false.
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,
You are intentionally misquoting me. Here is the full text of what I quoted from you in post 52.
You were clearly making a distinction about the meaning of one versus the other.
cjab 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.

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.
The logic runs thus: You said that Jn. 4:24 says "God IS spirit, as a matter of constitution or essence". Jn. 1:1c has the same construction, so it should be understood to say say "the word was God" as a matter of constitution or essence because you claimed to agree with Caragounis's statements earlier. But you denied this. Since you demonstrated that you perceive a difference in the verse based on your interpretations of them, you must have thought that they had "different connotations" and, indeed, you stated as much in your post.
Jn 1:1c doesn't have an easy translation into English,
I agree on this point. But...
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.
the difficulty of translating it into English doesn't have much of anything to do with the use or disuse of the article.
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.
John 1:1b distinguishes "the Father" from "the word". John 1:1c says that "the word" is "God". What this means is that the word is not "the Father" but the word has the same essence as "the Father".
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.
You implied that they didn't mean the same thing, and then you said words with and without the article had different connotations. It seems from what you wrote that you were claiming that the arthrous vs. anarthrous use of "theos" made some difference to the interpretation of the verses. I didn't lie. You either misspoke or are lying now.
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.
I have quoted your remarks in full and have explained my statements all of which are accurate. You are the one misquoting people; you intentionally misquoted me in this very post!
I have not changed the meaning of the word "called." I quoted you accurately. If you didn't mean "called" then you misspoke.
You know full well that I wasn't using the word "called" to denote an appellation as you suggested, and you admit that you knew this in your remarks below.
Grammatically an anarthrous PN does not create an appellative.
Again, I never claimed it did.
Obviously it doesn't mean that you can't use an appellative as an anarthrous PN, which happens in Jn 1:1c.
It is unclear what you are saying due to your sloppy use of two negatives in the same sentence. Are you trying to claim that Jn. 1:1c is an appellative?
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).
I have said that "o theos" can be used as an appellative for "the Father," but that that "theos" is simply a noun and can be used in a number of different ways. I have had the same position forever, and you are aware of it. You are simply a liar.
John is a name. Jesus is a name. Peter is a name. Paul is a name. θεός is a noun. Some nouns can be modified with an article and/or adjectives to refer to a single person like the word "president" is being modified in the phrase "the president of the USA," but it doesn't mean that "president" is a name. It doesn't matter how many times some wackadoodle claims otherwise, θεός is not a name. Therefore, your remarks here are a waste of time. End of thread.
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.
That's what Caragounis was saying, and I told you that you disagreed with what he wrote. You've even accused me of changing my position even though it is you who has done so and is at odds with yourself.
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?
I agreed with him then, and I agree with him now.
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."
I have said repeatedly that I agree with Caragounis. I have also said repeatedly that Jesus is "God" and "the Father" is "God". The articularity of the word does not matter. It can be articular or anarthrous depending on the context of the statement.
I can't be bothered to address your BS any longer.
Still more euphemistic profanity. What you can't be bothered to do is be honest. You have made several mistakes, intentional and unintentional, and your web of deceit is obvious to anyone with eyes. I am sure it is obvious even to you.
 

cjab

Well-known member
For the second time, I didn't say anything about you disagreeing with Jn. 1:1c. I said that you don't seem to view the statements you quoted as equivalent.
You said "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"."

This statement carries the clear innuendo that I don't credit Jn 1:1c, which is slander.

I've not slandered you. In order to slander you, my statements would have to be false.
You innuendo was false, as I have never said I don't credit Jn 1:1c.

You are intentionally misquoting me. Here is the full text of what I quoted from you in post 52.

The logic runs thus: You said that Jn. 4:24 says "God IS spirit, as a matter of constitution or essence". Jn. 1:1c has the same construction, so it should be understood to say say "the word was God" as a matter of constitution or essence because you claimed to agree with Caragounis's statements earlier. But you denied this. Since you demonstrated that you perceive a difference in the verse based on your interpretations of them, you must have thought that they had "different connotations" and, indeed, you stated as much in your post.
I didn't deny "this." I agree 100% with Caragounis on Jn 1:1c, which you don't. Where I would find Caragounis lacking is in not exploring precisely what "properties of God" means in terms of unity and the Word's relation to the Father, and similarly on Jn 1:1b, the argument is lacking in scope and imagination as to the nature of the relation of unity between the Father and the Word. However, this is clearly speculative territory.

I agree on this point. But...

the difficulty of translating it into English doesn't have much of anything to do with the use or disuse of the article.
"God" in English always carried the definite article by implication. Therefore it is next to impossible to dissociate the implied definite article when using "God" in English in its proper sense, without using "a" which is not the meaning of the anarthrous in Greek.

Only by using God improperly of a false god is the definitive obviated, which makes Jn1:1c very problematic to translate into English.


John 1:1b distinguishes "the Father" from "the word". John 1:1c says that "the word" is "God". What this means is that the word is not "the Father" but the word has the same essence as "the Father".
It infers "The Word is in the Father, and the Father is in the Word....", per Jesus, "....bodily," per Paul, so as to give rise to an indissoluble unity when considered from the jurisdiction of earth.

You implied that they didn't mean the same thing, and then you said words with and without the article had different connotations. It seems from what you wrote that you were claiming that the arthrous vs. anarthrous use of "theos" made some difference to the interpretation of the verses. I didn't lie. You either misspoke or are lying now.
I made no such implication. Your problem is just this: you always try to make the worst sense of what I say, simply to critique. That is a ghastly fault that fools no one.

Your propensity for slander is well known, and has been demonstrated by a course of conduct over a very long time now, with your ready use of the "liar" which appears in so many of your posts.

I have quoted your remarks in full and have explained my statements all of which are accurate. You are the one misquoting people; you intentionally misquoted me in this very post!
You lie perennially and you have a record of slandering me whenever you think you can get away with it. Your standards are those of the world. It would not surprise me if you are only a nominal Christian.

You know full well that I wasn't using the word "called" to denote an appellation as you suggested, and you admit that you knew this in your remarks below.
I made no such admission.

Again, I never claimed it did.

It is unclear what you are saying due to your sloppy use of two negatives in the same sentence. Are you trying to claim that Jn. 1:1c is an appellative?
An existing appellative can be used as an anarthrous PN.
.
I have said that "o theos" can be used as an appellative for "the Father," but that that "theos" is simply a noun and can be used in a number of different ways. I have had the same position forever, and you are aware of it. You are simply a liar.
Nonsense. You always used to use Phl 3:19 to say that the existence of the article before theos is completely immaterial. You are now trying to change your position on this, just to conform with Caragounis. I don't credit your sincerity ONE IOTA.

You are also perversly trying to pretend I disagree with Caragounis. That is just another lie of yours.

That's what Caragounis was saying, and I told you that you disagreed with what he wrote. You've even accused me of changing my position even though it is you who has done so and is at odds with yourself.
The Father is not just "God in essence," as the Word is, but God by definition (this being my point). The two are not synonymous (the Father is greater than the Word).

You have certainly changed your position since I told you what Caragounis said. You are dishonest if you maintain the contrary.

I agreed with him then, and I agree with him now.
BS.

I have said repeatedly that I agree with Caragounis.
You spent a whole thread disagreeing with me on Caragounis's position (you've conveniently forgotten, where I was arguing his position).

I have also said repeatedly that Jesus is "God" and "the Father" is "God". The articularity of the word does not matter. It can be articular or anarthrous depending on the context of the statement.
In English you could not know how to reverse translate Jesus is "God" and "the Father" is "God" into Greek, viz-a-vis the use of the article, which shows the deficiency of the English language, unless you knew in advance that the Father was theos with the article, and the Word anarthrous.

Still more euphemistic profanity. What you can't be bothered to do is be honest. You have made several mistakes, intentional and unintentional, and your web of deceit is obvious to anyone with eyes. I am sure it is obvious even to you.
You are the most dishonest poster I have ever come across. I reject all your allegations as wholly spurious.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
You have certainly changed your position since I told you what Caragounis said. You are dishonest if you maintain the contrary.


BS.


You spent a whole thread disagreeing with me on Caragounis's position (you've conveniently forgotten, where I was arguing his position).

-
He is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
You said "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"."

This statement carries the clear innuendo that I don't credit Jn 1:1c, which is slander.
My remarks were in response to your claim that you think the phrases in Jn. 1:1 and 4:24 are equivalent. Whatever you are talking about here is an imagined slight.
You innuendo was false, as I have never said I don't credit Jn 1:1c.
You have apparently misunderstood what my remarks referred to. This is an error on your part, not mine.
I didn't deny "this." I agree 100% with Caragounis on Jn 1:1c, which you don't.
You seem to be denying that "the Word" has the same essence as "the Father". If you deny this, you are in apparent disagreement with Caragounis.
"God" in English always carried the definite article by implication.
No. It is sometimes used as an exclamation or even a sign of derision with no notable association with "God" whatsoever.
Therefore it is next to impossible to dissociate the implied definite article when using "God" in English in its proper sense,
Lol. It seems by "in its proper sense" you mean the sense that you arbitrarily assign to it. It appears that you make the same errors in English that you make in Greek.
without using "a" which is not the meaning of the anarthrous in Greek.
The meaning of the Greek whether arthrous or anarthrous is largely dependent upon the context of the uttering. You consistently misunderstand and misstate the function of the article.

It infers "The Word is in the Father, and the Father is in the Word....", per Jesus, "....bodily," per Paul, so as to give rise to an indissoluble unity when considered from the jurisdiction of earth.
If that's what the author meant, he could've just said that.
I made no such implication. Your problem is just this: you always try to make the worst sense of what I say, simply to critique. That is a ghastly fault that fools no one.

Your propensity for slander is well known, and has been demonstrated by a course of conduct over a very long time now, with your ready use of the "liar" which appears in so many of your posts.
You said what I asserted. I gave you a chance both to clarify your remarks and to demonstrate that you actually think the two propositions are equivalent. You spurned the opportunities to double, and even triple down, on your error. It seems you'd rather just make false statements about me; that's cool. I understand it's all you've got. It's obvious to anyone who reads the garbage you post.
You lie perennially and you have a record of slandering me whenever you think you can get away with it. Your standards are those of the world. It would not surprise me if you are only a nominal Christian.
I haven't slandered you. Everything that I have asserted about you personally is true.
I made no such admission.
You are correct for that would require you to have integrity. Your remarks betrayed you as I pointed out above.
An existing appellative can be used as an anarthrous PN.
This is not relevant to John 1:1.
Nonsense. You always used to use Phl 3:19 to say that the existence of the article before theos is completely immaterial.
I have never made an argument such as this. You are lying again.
You are now trying to change your position on this, just to conform with Caragounis. I don't credit your sincerity ONE IOTA.
I haven't changed my position. If you claim otherwise, you are the one in error. If you think my position has changed, provide the evidence. You are clearly fond of making false claims and then ignoring me when I point them out to you. You have done so at least twice in this post alone.
You are also perversly trying to pretend I disagree with Caragounis. That is just another lie of yours.
You do disagree with him, but I don't deny the possibility that you are too ignorant to know it.
The Father is not just "God in essence," as the Word is, but God by definition (this being my point). The two are not synonymous (the Father is greater than the Word).
Your remarks go beyond what Caragounis claims.
You have certainly changed your position since I told you what Caragounis said. You are dishonest if you maintain the contrary.
Then it should be easy for you to prove it. Go ahead. Show me.
Proof?
You spent a whole thread disagreeing with me on Caragounis's position (you've conveniently forgotten, where I was arguing his position).
I spent this thread disagreeing with you on Caragounis's position: you clearly don't understand what he's said.
In English you could not know how to reverse translate Jesus is "God" and "the Father" is "God" into Greek, viz-a-vis the use of the article, which shows the deficiency of the English language,
It's not always clear in Greek whether God refers to "the Father" or to "Jesus" whether or not the article is used.
unless you knew in advance that the Father was theos with the article, and the Word anarthrous.
You have been shown that "theos with the article" does not necessarily refer to "the Father". Your assumption is flawed.
You are the most dishonest poster I have ever come across. I reject all your allegations as wholly spurious.
If this were true, you'd have lots of evidence. You don't have any evidence, because your assertions aren't true.
 

cjab

Well-known member
I spent this thread disagreeing with you on Caragounis's position: you clearly don't understand what he's said.

It's not always clear in Greek whether God refers to "the Father" or to "Jesus" whether or not the article is used.

You have been shown that "theos with the article" does not necessarily refer to "the Father". Your assumption is flawed.

If this were true, you'd have lots of evidence. You don't have any evidence, because your assertions aren't true.
I do. 27 individual posts from you where you have used the word "liar" (from a forum search), not including other asperions such as "idiot" etc. This does not include numerous other posts where you have insulted, belittled and humiliated others.

As for the rest of your nonsense, I couldn't be bothered to rely. I've nothing further to add to what I've already said, except that youve proved beyond reasonable doubt that you're a charlatan with a massive superiority complex, who uses this forum to insult others, almost for sport and because you seem to enjoy it. And "o theos" is a title for the Father, as Caragounis said, and more importantly, as Jesus ad his apostles used it of the Father. On this point you are gravely in error to the point of heresy.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
I do. 27 individual posts from you where you have used the word "liar" (from a forum search),
You certainly are a liar. There's no question there.
not including other asperions such as "idiot" etc. This does not include numerous other posts where you have insulted, belittled and humiliated others.
Your claim was that I am dishonest, and for that you have no evidence. Even though I have called you names in the past, I have refrained from doing so in the last several threads. This has been a conscious effort on my part, because even though some certain labels that I have used for you in the past are true it doesn't mean they should be used.
As for the rest of your nonsense, I couldn't be bothered to rely. I've nothing further to add to what I've already said, except that youve proved beyond reasonable doubt that you're a charlatan with a massive superiority complex, who uses this forum to insult others, almost for sport and because you seem to enjoy it.
It's because you can't support the claims you made in your last post.
And "o theos" is a title for the Father, as Caragounis said,
I told you that it can be. It isn't always.
and more importantly, as Jesus ad his apostles used it of the Father. On this point you are gravely in error to the point of heresy.
For you, apparently, the truth is heresy.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
You certainly are a liar. There's no question there.

.
Psychological projection. Cjab seems to be a relatively honest individual searching for a semblance of scriptural truth. You on the other hand are invested in certain diabolical lies & contradictions about Jesus, and perhaps for this reason you are slandering him.
 

cjab

Well-known member
You certainly are a liar. There's no question there.
I used the forum search facility. Recall rule 12.8 before making unjustified allegations of lying.

For you, apparently, the truth is heresy.
ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν εἷς Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ (1 Cor 8:6)

"Yet to us one God, the Father."

And you accuse me of heresy?

It's a black and white choice. Either believe you, or scripture.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I used the forum search facility.
Unfortunately, you did not read and understand my post. You tried to use the fact that I have called you a liar as evidence that I have been dishonest, but that isn't evidence of dishonesty. When I have called you a liar, it has been evident that you have lied. That doesn't make me dishonest. I have not been dishonest with you or anyone else on the forum.
Recall rule 12.8 before making unjustified allegations of lying.
If I tell you that I don't hold a certain position and give you evidence that I don't and you continue making the claim or you claim that I have said something that I have not said, you are lying. It doesn't matter what your motive is or what you believe about it. I have proven throughout the course of this thread alone that you frequently say things you know or should know to be untrue and have pointed this out to you and to others beyond doubt. You have no qualms about saying many things that you know are not true, and you lack the integrity to fix your mistakes when they are pointed out to you. The forum moderators can ban me if they want to. Perhaps if they do they will at least be consistent and ban you as well or confine you to the Trinity forum or the the cult sections of the forum where you should be posting.
ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν εἷς Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ (1 Cor 8:6)

"Yet to us one God, the Father."

And you accuse me of heresy?
Once again you say something that isn't true. I didn't accuse you of heresy. I pointed out that you are still implying that "o theos" is only used as a title for the Father. You have consistently treated this as an absolute fact when you know, because it has been pointed out to you, that it's not. I haven't said anything on the matter of the usage of "o theos" that has been untrue. So when you say "you are gravely in error to the point of heresy" you are apparently calling "truth" "heresy".
It's a black and white choice. Either believe you, or scripture.
I've shown you that the scripture disagree with your assertions on multiple points. You are delusional.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Unfortunately, you did not read and understand my post. You tried to use the fact that I have called you a liar as evidence that I have been dishonest, but that isn't evidence of dishonesty. When I have called you a liar, it has been evident that you have lied. That doesn't make me dishonest. I have not been dishonest with you or anyone else on the forum.
You have dishonesty referred to me as a liar, and fabricated allegations against me. As the rule I mentioned dislosed (which you clearly haven't read) it is dishonest to label people liars unless you can see into their hearts and understand their motives, which you (equally clearly) have no ability to do, as much of the time you have trouble understanding what others are saying (even in English).

That you have used the word "liar" 27 times against me and other posters suggests you are inherently dishonest, just by misusing the word "liar." It is not conceivable that you are surrounded by posters who are deliberately misrepresenting the truth. Rather it is that YOU enjoy calling people "liars;" and as I have established on this thread, you don't even know what I am talking about much of the time, so you're in no position to judge.

If I tell you that I don't hold a certain position and give you evidence that I don't and you continue making the claim or you claim that I have said something that I have not said, you are lying.
When you said in post #30

"The "word" and "Jesus" are two different names for the same being. The word was called "God" and Jesus was called both "God" and "man". There is clearly no problem with whether Jesus is referred to as "God" or "man" depending upon the timeframe under discussion."

you made a statement that has no biblical support. As I pointed out to you, "God" is not an appellative of Christ. Such is a misstatement of fact. Moreover "Jesus" was not named before circa 4BC, and also Jesus is never "called God" as an appellative. As I said to you "the God of me" in John 20:28 has a different connotation to the simple appellative "the God". It is like the anarthrous "theos" in Jn 1:1c, and a reference to Thomas seeing in Jesus the properties of God (unity with the Father). It was taken by Jesus as a statement of faith in himself as the Son of God, which is what it was (not as an appellative for Jesus).

As I said, neither Jesus nor any of the apostles ever demanded that anyone call Jesus "God."

It doesn't matter what your motive is or what you believe about it. I have proven throughout the course of this thread alone that you frequently say things you know or should know to be untrue and have pointed this out to you and to others beyond doubt. You have no qualms about saying many things that you know are not true, and you lack the integrity to fix your mistakes when they are pointed out to you. The forum moderators can ban me if they want to. Perhaps if they do they will at least be consistent and ban you as well or confine you to the Trinity forum or the the cult sections of the forum where you should be posting.
Your problem is that you start off with the assumption that you are right, which entitles you to judge others. But you are often not right, and your theological system is clearly immature and lacking in substance and in true understanding. You imagine that one apostle saying to Jesus "the God of me" entitles you to go around saying "Jesus is called God" by the bible. Ridiculous. "God" when it is applied to men (i.e. the prophets) is an expression of unity with and authority from God, deriving from the Old Testament. God lent his name to his servants, and to angels, but that doesn't mean his servants or angels are entitled to usurp the Father's title to claim exact equality with the Father, who is, per the apostles "ABOVE ALL." Jesus said "The Father is greater that I."

Therefore your judgementalism is absurd. You preach the dogma of your sect, IMO.

Once again you say something that isn't true. I didn't accuse you of heresy. I pointed out that you are still implying that "o theos" is only used as a title for the Father.
"o theos" is only used as a title for the Father, in its dogmatic unabridged unqualified sense. I have also constantly emphasized the Old Testament diction of using the Father's title to refer to his servants, as in an agency arrangement, which is also reflected in John 1:1c when applied to the Word on the throne of God. Again you don't understand this, because it is foreign to your dogma, which is either Catholic, Lutheran, or Hyper-Calvinism or some other flavour of hyper-Trinitarianism (which very few scholars share).

You'll have to learn that subordinationism, which may extend only to order, but which conflicts with hyper-Trinitarianism which is a undeniably a brand of Sabellianism IMO, because it doesn't posit any difference between divine "persons" other than in respect of their economies, is no ground to accuse people of being liars.

You have consistently treated this as an absolute fact when you know, because it has been pointed out to you, that it's not. I haven't said anything on the matter of the usage of "o theos" that has been untrue. So when you say "you are gravely in error to the point of heresy" you are apparently calling "truth" "heresy".
Eph 4:4-6 and 1 Cor 8:6 are definitive. You either accept them, or you're a heretic. Do accept that there is "one God, the Father, who is "over all""?

Y/N?
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
You have dishonesty referred to me as a liar, and fabricated allegations against me.
Everything I have said about you is true.
As the rule I mentioned dislosed (which you clearly haven't read) it is dishonest to label people liars unless you can see into their hearts and understand their motives,
That is their definition of lying, and I, and most people, don't hold to it. If you know something is a lie and say it anyway, you are lying. I don't have to know your motives or even that you are doing it for it to be a lie. In your case your most frequent deceptions involve accusing people of saying things they have never said even after you have been corrected, misquoting both other posters and the sources you cite, and pretending that you know something about Greek. You've done most all of these in this very thread.
which you (equally clearly) have no ability to do, as much of the time you have trouble understanding what others are saying (even in English).
I don't have any trouble with comprehension.
That you have used the word "liar" 27 times against me and other posters suggests you are inherently dishonest, just by misusing the word "liar."
I don't have to accept the forum's definition of "lie". That is my prerogative. I have defined what I meant when I said it, and what I've said about you is all true.
It is not conceivable that you are surrounded by posters who are deliberately misrepresenting the truth. Rather it is that YOU enjoy calling people "liars;"
In this forum I am surrounded by those people, you and TRJM. And you fit the label.
and as I have established on this thread, you don't even know what I am talking about much of the time, so you're in no position to judge.
I know what you are saying better than you do. That is why you never address the points I make about what you've said. This is obvious to anyone who reads our remarks with the exception of your equally confused friend TRJM.
When you said in post #30

"The "word" and "Jesus" are two different names for the same being. The word was called "God" and Jesus was called both "God" and "man". There is clearly no problem with whether Jesus is referred to as "God" or "man" depending upon the timeframe under discussion."

you made a statement that has no biblical support. As I pointed out to you, "God" is not an appellative of Christ. Such is a misstatement of fact.
My statement is completely biblical, and I explained to you that I have never said anything about "God" being an "an appellative of Christ". You erroneously implied that I have and have continued to repeat this assertion even though you have been corrected. You know what this makes you despite your protests to the contrary.
Moreover "Jesus" was not named before circa 4BC,
This isn't relevant, and we've already discussed it.
and also Jesus is never "called God" as an appellative.
It does not matter.
As I said to you "the God of me" in John 20:28 has a different connotation to the simple appellative "the God".
Of course it does to you because you wrongly assume that "the God" must refer to "the Father"! But as I have demonstrated, your assumption is wrong. Therefore, your conclusion is wrong.
It is like the anarthrous "theos" in Jn 1:1c, and a reference to Thomas seeing in Jesus the properties of God (unity with the Father). It was taken by Jesus as a statement of faith in himself as the Son of God, which is what it was (not as an appellative for Jesus).
According to your earlier remarks, it can't be because one is articular and the other is not.
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.
You can observe here your total ignorance of Greek, your slanderous remarks about my abilities, and your false claim that I have mentioned appellatives.

As I said, neither Jesus nor any of the apostles ever demanded that anyone call Jesus "God."
And I've explained that this is not relevant, but this fact appears to be beyond your ability to understand it.
Your problem is that you start off with the assumption that you are right, which entitles you to judge others.
I think I'm right because my arguments are superior to yours. You haven't had any position that withstands scrutiny, and you ignore the flaws in your arguments when they are pointed out to you. I don't judge you by your arguments or judge you in general. However, I do think you lack integrity, and I do believe this is evident in the things you say.
But you are often not right, and your theological system is clearly immature and lacking in substance and in true understanding.
My "theological system" as far as I can tell is consistent with itself and with God's word. You have done nothing to demonstrate otherwise.
You imagine that one apostle saying to Jesus "the God of me" entitles you to go around saying "Jesus is called God" by the bible. Ridiculous.
What is ridiculous is that you disagree with me.
"God" when it is applied to men (i.e. the prophets) is an expression of unity with and authority from God, deriving from the Old Testament. God lent his name to his servants, and to angels, but that doesn't mean his servants or angels are entitled to usurp the Father's title to claim exact equality with the Father, who is, per the apostles "ABOVE ALL."
John calls "the word" who he later reveals is also called "Jesus" as "God". He isn't said to be a servant or an angel or a man at that point. "God" is nowhere claimed to be "the Father's title" and your assumption that it is is a large part of your problem.
Jesus said "The Father is greater that I."
We've been over this. This was said while he was a man. Jesus was called God before his incarnation as well as after his resurrection. You are ignoring these two facts in favor of the interpretation your itching ears prefer.
Therefore your judgementalism is absurd. You preach the dogma of your sect, IMO.
Your assertions, as I've just demonstrated yet again, are what's absurd.
"o theos" is only used as a title for the Father, in its dogmatic unabridged unqualified sense.
What does this gibberish even mean?
I have also constantly emphasized the Old Testament diction of using the Father's title to refer to his servants, as in an agency arrangement, which is also reflected in John 1:1c when applied to the Word on the throne of God.
You have attempted to shoehorn John 1:1 into the category you feel it has to go in order to hold the belief that you want to hold. You ignore the clear statements about Jesus being actively involved in creative acts in John 1, Hebrews 1, Colossians 1, that cannot be accomplished by anything less than "God". These acts were said in John's account specifically to have been performed by the word and the author makes no reference to "the Father's" direct involvement. Your insistence that they were performed by the enabling power of "the Father" is an anachronistic assertion based upon a passage later in the gospel where the word had since become flesh and was divested of the glory he previous held. I've explained all this to you before.
Again you don't understand this, because it is foreign to your dogma, which is either Catholic, Lutheran, or Hyper-Calvinism or some other flavour of hyper-Trinitarianism (which very few scholars share).
This doesn't relate to anything but your own imagination.
You'll have to learn that subordinationism, which may extend only to order, but which conflicts with hyper-Trinitarianism which is a undeniably a brand of Sabellianism IMO, because it doesn't posit any difference between divine "persons" other than in respect of their economies,
Irrelevant.
is no ground to accuse people of being liars.
That's not my ground for accusing you of lying. Your repeated false statements are the reason I accuse you of lying.
Eph 4:4-6 and 1 Cor 8:6 are definitive. You either accept them, or you're a heretic.
We are not really in a position to label someone as a heretic, despite the hubris of those who would do so.
Do accept that there is "one God, the Father, who is "over all""?

Y/N?
Of course, I do. I also accept that he has one name: "πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος," I hope one day I'll find out what that name is. I'm patient, though. I'll wait and see.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
.
Of course, I do. I also accept that he has one name: "πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος," I hope one day I'll find out what that name is. I'm patient, though. I'll wait and see.
What does the Father having “one name” have to do with a quote of Matthew 28:19? And what are you patiently waiting to see ?
 

cjab

Well-known member
That's not my ground for accusing you of lying. Your repeated false statements are the reason I accuse you of lying.
You have no ground for accusing me of being a liar. Your defamation of me is why I label you in return as antichrist.

We are not really in a position to label someone as a heretic, despite the hubris of those who would do so.
You already have labelled me as a heretic by accusing me of being a liar (a liar is a heretic by definiton).

Of course, I do.
No you don't, as you assert that Jesus is also "called" God.

I also accept that he has one name: "πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος,"
That's not the name of the Father, unless you're a Sabellian that conceives of 3 modes to God, which I impute to you anyway, so I guess you're just affirming it at this point.

I hope one day I'll find out what that name is. I'm patient, though. I'll wait and see.
The Father's name is YHWH (or Father): at least it's how Jesus understood it (Matt 6:9). The reason the "name" in Matt 28:19 is singular is per Deut 6:4, i.e. unity of the throne of unus deus in the Father's name.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
The Father's name is YHWH (or Father): at least it's how Jesus understood it (Matt 6:9). The reason the "name" in Matt 28:19 is singular is per Deut 6:4, i.e. unity of the throne of unus deus in the Father's name.
Because the singular is grammatically justified. Had the plural been used we would have had the following nonsense, “.. baptize them into the names of the Father, and (into the names ) of the son and (into the names ) of the Holy Spirit.” Foolish “John Milton” will “patiently wait” until the day of judgment only to “find out” that he should have listened to the Real John Milton . Here is someone on-line who is on the right track on this score:


The use of the singular “name” is grammatically justifiable. “Of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” is a string of three genitival phrases modifying “name.” It could be argued that the prepositional phrase, “in the name,” is implied for both the Son and the Holy Spirit, so that the intended sense of the verse is, “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and [in the name] of the Son, and [in the name] of the Holy Spirit.” It would be similar to my saying, “Arrest them in the name of the king, and the queen, and the motherland.” Here, the singular use of “name” is justified because “in the name of” is implied for both the queen and the motherland. The sentence should really read, “Arrest them in the name of the king, and [the name of] the queen, and [the name of] the motherland.”

A parallel example is found in Luke 9:26:

ἔλθῃ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων.


δόξῃ is singular because of how the biblical Greek prepositional phrase works and not because of some non-existent Trinitarian fantasy. It’s the same as if the author had written the following:

ἔλθῃ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ καὶ (ἐν τῇ δόξῃ) τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ (ἐν τῇ δόξῃ) τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
You have no ground for accusing me of being a liar. Your defamation of me is why I label you in return as antichrist.
I have show several instances where you have said things that aren’t true that prove that you haven’t been telling the truth. If you don’t like the label, don’t do those things and try to correct the mistakes you have made.
You already have labelled me as a heretic by accusing me of being a liar (a liar is a heretic by definiton).
Calling someone a heretic isn’t the same as calling them a liar.
No you don't, as you assert that Jesus is also "called" God.
And God and Christ are one per John.
That's not the name of the Father, unless you're a Sabellian that conceives of 3 modes to God, which I impute to you anyway, so I guess you're just affirming it at this point.
The point is that the authority of the Father, Son, and Spirit are implied to be equally. Grammatically, it is possible that the three share a single name, but it doesn’t really matter.

As I have said before, there is too much we don’t know about “God” for people with any degree of wisdom to be dogmatic about what “God” is or how he may operate. The people who squawk the loudest about “Trinitarians” or “Sabellians” or “Modalists” are generally the ones with the least understanding. This certainly appears to be true in your case.
The Father's name is YHWH (or Father): at least it's how Jesus understood it (Matt 6:9). The reason the "name" in Matt 28:19 is singular is per Deut 6:4, i.e. unity of the throne of unus deus in the Father's name.
We don’t know God’s name with certainty, and YHWH doesn’t mean “Father”. There exists some degree of tension between Deut. 6:4 and Mt. 28:19 where the authority is shared, but the identities are distinguished.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Because the singular is grammatically justified. Had the plural been used we would have had the following nonsense, “.. baptize them into the names of the Father, and (into the names ) of the son and (into the names ) of the Holy Spirit.” Foolish “John Milton” will “patiently wait” until the day of judgment only to “find out” that he should have listened to the Real John Milton . Here is someone on-line who is on the right track on this score:




A parallel example is found in Luke 9:26:

ἔλθῃ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων.


δόξῃ is singular because of how the biblical Greek prepositional phrase works and not because of some non-existent Trinitarian fantasy. It’s the same as if the author had written the following:

ἔλθῃ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ καὶ (ἐν τῇ δόξῃ) τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ (ἐν τῇ δόξῃ) τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων.
This is a possibility, but it also seen that the “authority/name” mentioned in Mt. 28:19 is sometimes expressed without reference to the Father. Thus it does appear that a reference to the authority of one is a reference to the authority of all. As I said, I’m patient enough to let “God” sort all of this out when and if he chooses.
 

cjab

Well-known member
I have show several instances where you have said things that aren’t true that prove that you haven’t been telling the truth. If you don’t like the label, don’t do those things and try to correct the mistakes you have made.
As I have said, you are antichrist.

Calling someone a heretic isn’t the same as calling them a liar.
In the context of Christianity, it is.

And God and Christ are one per John.
Not in the Sabellian way you conceive it.

The point is that the authority of the Father, Son, and Spirit are implied to be equally. Grammatically, it is possible that the three share a single name, but it doesn’t really matter.
No your point was "I also accept that he has one name.............................." See how inconsistent you are. Chop and change your position all the time, which is why nothing you say is or can be relied upon: an eternal shape shifter.

As I have said before, there is too much we don’t know about “God” for people with any degree of wisdom to be dogmatic about what “God” is or how he may operate. The people who squawk the loudest about “Trinitarians” or “Sabellians” or “Modalists” are generally the ones with the least understanding. This certainly appears to be true in your case.
A good example of a malicious aspersion. All I pretend to know is what the bible says, "there is one God the Father who is above all." You however have yet to learn it.

We don’t know God’s name with certainty, and YHWH doesn’t mean “Father”. There exists some degree of tension between Deut. 6:4 and Mt. 28:19 where the authority is shared, but the identities are distinguished.
Jesus made the connection clear by deferring to Ps 110:1. So you are just a BS'er.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
This is a possibility, but it also seen that the “authority/name” mentioned in Mt. 28:19 is sometimes expressed without reference to the Father. Thus it does appear that a reference to the authority of one is a reference to the authority of all. As I said, I’m patient enough to let “God” sort all of this out when and if he chooses.
Keep “waiting patiently” that this verse ( Matthew 28:19) somehow proves that Jesus is God , and that God will “sort this out” in your favour. You will indeed be without excuse on the day of judgment.
 
Top