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

You said I am in error when I'm not. That's what that makes you. If you acknowledge that I am correct and at the same time accuse me of being wrong, then one of those propositions is false. Which one is it? What's at issue here is your contradictory stance.
I couldn't be bothered to work out the labyrinthine workings of your devious mind in respect of the above, but I say this: as long as you persist in asserting that Jesus the man was "God" as a matter of NT doctrine, you will always be in error, just because neither the apostles nor Christ ever deferred to him that way; and you have no other legitmate source of authority.

You're only allowed by the OT to denote Jesus as "God" in the OT agency sense (infra), but as the NT apostolic doctrine has now largely done away with this sense, it's continued use is perverse. Rather we denote Jesus as the Son of God. May be you should think about what that term means.

None of this is true, but I know that name-calling and foot stomping is all you have.
People in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.

I know that "theos" is not a word/title used exclusively for God,
Theos or Father are the only Greek words used for YHWH, although I see in Rom 9:5 etc, "God who is over all" or "One God and Father" or "God the Father" or "The Great God" etc as alternative references to YHWH.

and I know that this verse demonstrates that. The rest of what you say is another demonstration of your character defects.
Theos is sometimes used to describe gods that are not real, but such is a contextually different usage of theos and has no bearing on its association with YHWH.

Theos is also sometimes used (very rarely) to translate the Hebrew Elohim (cf. John 10:34-36) as it relates to men. Here again there is a separate context of theos relating to human beings: the OT Elohim (agent) context.

John 20:28 is linguistically ambiguous vis-a-vis the Hebrew, given it is unclear whether theos used by Thomas refers to the Elohim (agent) context (men), or to the YHWH (agent) context (angels). Actually it doesn't really matter here, as Jesus's nexus to YHWH is sufficiently unique to allow either.

As to John 20:28: as both Elohim and YHWH are used in the OT to denote YHWH's agents (i.e. men or angels cf. Gen 18:1 &etc), then the same should be attributed to Thomas's remarks to Jesus.

You need to understand the concept of divine agency and how names of principals are given to agents acting in such a capacity if you are to make any theological headway.
 
Last edited:
I couldn't be bothered to work out the labyrinthine workings of your devious mind in respect of the above, but I say this: as long as you persist in asserting that Jesus the man was "God" as a matter of NT doctrine, you will always be in error, just because neither the apostles nor Christ ever deferred to him that way; and you have no other legitmate source of authority.
I have John 1, John 20:28, Col. 1, Heb. 1, etc that describe Jesus doing things men couldn't do. I don't know why you don't consider the Bible a legitimate "source of authority".
You're only allowed by the OT to denote Jesus as "God" in the OT agency sense (infra), but as the NT apostolic doctrine has now largely done away with this sense, it's continued use is perverse. Rather we denote Jesus as the Son of God. May be you should think about what that term means.
Or maybe you should stop interpreting the NT by the OT.
People in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.
If I were in a glass house, this would be good advice.
Theos or Father are the only Greek words used for YHWH, although I see in Rom 9:5 etc, "God who is over all" or "One God and Father" or "God the Father" or "The Great God" etc as alternative references to YHWH.
First off, this doesn't have anything to do with quoted from me. Secondly, it's not true. There's κύριος and several other titles that are applied to Him.
Theos is sometimes used to describe gods that are not real, but such is a contextually different usage of theos and has no bearing on its association with YHWH.
It proves, as I said, that the word isn't used exclusively of the Father.
Theos is also sometimes used (very rarely) to translate the Hebrew Elohim (cf. John 10:34-36) as it relates to men.
Sometimes.
Here again there is a separate context of theos relating to human beings: the OT Elohim (agent) context.

John 20:28 is linguistically ambiguous vis-a-vis the Hebrew, given it is unclear whether theos used by Thomas refers to the Elohim (agent) context (men), or to the YHWH (agent) context (angels). Actually it doesn't really matter here, as Jesus's nexus to YHWH is sufficiently unique to allow either.

As to John 20:28: as both Elohim and YHWH are used in the OT to denote YHWH's agents (i.e. men or angels cf. Gen 18:1 &etc), then the same should be attributed to Thomas's remarks to Jesus.
None of this takes into consideration John 1 where Jesus is said to have made all that was made. Men couldn't do that.
You need to understand the concept of divine agency and how names of principals are given to agents acting in such a capacity if you are to make any theological headway.
I have already explained agency several times. Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.
 
I have John 1, John 20:28, Col. 1, Heb. 1, etc that describe Jesus doing things men couldn't do. I don't know why you don't consider the Bible a legitimate "source of authority".

Or maybe you should stop interpreting the NT by the OT.

If I were in a glass house, this would be good advice.

First off, this doesn't have anything to do with quoted from me. Secondly, it's not true. There's κύριος and several other titles that are applied to Him.

It proves, as I said, that the word isn't used exclusively of the Father.

Sometimes.

None of this takes into consideration John 1 where Jesus is said to have made all that was made. Men couldn't do that.

I have already explained agency several times. Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.
Which verse exactly in "John 1" ? You have a mis-mash of dubious claims.
 
I have John 1, John 20:28, Col. 1, Heb. 1, etc that describe Jesus doing things men couldn't do. I don't know why you don't consider the Bible a legitimate "source of authority".
I was referring to Jesus as the Christ. Clearly you have a problem with Jesus as the Christ (the man). Why do you always insist on deferring to his alter-ego in heaven?

Or maybe you should stop interpreting the NT by the OT.
That would be to fail to understand that the NT is homologous with the OT.

If I were in a glass house, this would be good advice.
You are. You have thrown enough aspersions around to be living in one. You've got a sword of Damocles above your head, which you have created for yourself with your frequent judgements on others. "With the measure you use it will be measured to you."

First off, this doesn't have anything to do with quoted from me. Secondly, it's not true. There's κύριος and several other titles that are applied to Him.
κύριος comes from the OT, and is used in some quotations from the OT. It is used in this way, somewhat anachronistically, given systematic NT doctrine as formulated by the apostles, at the beginning of some of the gospels and in a few espistles such 2 Peter. 3:8,9 etc. But I was talking about systematic NT theology as defined by Paul and John for non-Jews.

It proves, as I said, that the word isn't used exclusively of the Father.

Sometimes.

None of this takes into consideration John 1 where Jesus is said to have made all that was made. Men couldn't do that.
I have already explained to you that "Jesus" is the name of the human Messiah. As such "Jesus" didn't create anything. It was his alter-ego in heaven in which all things were created. It seems you (intentionally) confound the jurisdictions of heaven and earth, in a way in which the bible doesn't, for reasons linked to your thesis that jurisdictional boundaries are largely inconsequential. Yet they are and remain very important. If you are going to refer the Word of God in heaven as "Jesus", you should qualify his name by an appropriate designator to indicate who you mean.
I have already explained agency several times. Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.
I have never heard you explain Jn 10:34-46, coherently. Only when you have done this will I credit you with any understanding in this field.
 
Last edited:
I was referring to Jesus as the Christ. Clearly you have a problem with Jesus as the Christ (the man). Why do you always insist on deferring to his alter-ego in heaven?
I don't have any problem with Jesus at all, whatsoever. I just find it strange that you refer to him as a man when John 17:5 implies that he has now received the glory that he had before his incarnation.
That would be to fail to understand that the NT is homologous with the OT.
That's a stupid assertion. The NT reveals much more than the OT does. For one big example, we get the big reveal of the Christ.
You are. You have thrown enough aspersions around to be living in one. You've got a sword of Damocles above your head, which you have created for yourself with your frequent judgements on others. "With the measure you use it will be measured to you."
I'm not worried about it. I have acted with integrity.
κύριος comes from the OT, and is used in some quotations from the OT. It is used in this way, somewhat anachronistically, given systematic NT doctrine as formulated by the apostles, at the beginning of some of the gospels and in a few espistles such 2 Peter. 3:8,9 etc. But I was talking about systematic NT theology as defined by Paul and John for non-Jews.
If that's what you meant, you should've spoken more precisely. Thanks for admitting your error, however. It's a refreshing change.
I have already explained to you that Jesus is the name of the Messiah. As such "Jesus" didn't create anything. It was his alter-ego in heaven in which all things were created.
Jesus doesn't have an alter-ego. John identifies Jesus as the Word. As I have said, you are vainly trying to split one person into two. The New Testament does not allow such a position.
It seems you intentionally confound the jurisdictions of heaven and earth, in a way in which the bible doesn't, for unfathomable personal reasons.
No. The problem is yours and it's what I said above: you are vainly trying to split one person into two.
As I have never heard you explain Jn 10:34-46, coherently, I don't credit anything you say.
That's right in line with the rest of your illogical thinking. A careful reader will recognize that Jesus is God from John 1. He will also realize that if Jesus admitted this to the unbelieving Jews it would result in his death. Therefore, Jesus gives an answer that is true in both senses: he is God in the sense of John 1 (according to his person and not his manifestation) and he is "god" in the sense of the OT quotation. What the people around him will choose to believe about him is a matter of their spiritual awareness. This is a constant theme of the entire book.
 
I don't have any problem with Jesus at all, whatsoever.
You do, because of your formula 100% man and 100% God. Such is an oxymoron, and meaningless.

I just find it strange that you refer to him as a man when John 17:5 implies that he has now received the glory that he had before his incarnation.
The primary referent of "Jesus," and of faith itself, is his humanity. Faith is belief in Jesus the man, as the Son of God, and not in a God called Jesus. The latter may amount in practice to no more than deism. For anyone can call "God" by the name "Jesus," if they want to or if they are superstitious. That's fooling no-one.

That's a stupid assertion. The NT reveals much more than the OT does. For one big example, we get the big reveal of the Christ.
I dispute that. It isn't possible to grasp NT theology without the OT.

I'm not worried about it. I have acted with integrity.

If that's what you meant, you should've spoken more precisely. Thanks for admitting your error, however. It's a refreshing change.
No error on my part. That κύριος refers exclusively to Jesus in systematic theology is rather obvious, and that it translates adoni/adonai is also obvious. To make an issue of it is wrong.

Jesus doesn't have an alter-ego. John identifies Jesus as the Word. As I have said, you are vainly trying to split one person into two. The New Testament does not allow such a position.
An alter-ego is precisely what Jesus the man had in heaven. For in heaven, he is a God of judgement, as imbued with the glory of God, but not on earth.

This is one of the anachronisms you present: you don't take into account how radically different the Jesus of heaven is to Jesus the man (see Rev. 1 etc). So it is important to clarify your referent at all times.

No. The problem is yours and it's what I said above: you are vainly trying to split one person into two.
In which case although you concede the kenosis, it is clear you don't believe in it. I would go further: you are not allowed to promulgate it as a logical proposition, when you say Jesus remained 100% God (cf. Phil 2:6 - Jesus has the "form of God" only) & 100% man. (For such a proposition is just a contradiction in terms: a hopelessly ill-thought-out muddle.)

That's right in line with the rest of your illogical thinking. A careful reader will recognize that Jesus is God from John 1. He will also realize that if Jesus admitted this to the unbelieving Jews it would result in his death. Therefore, Jesus gives an answer that is true in both senses: he is God in the sense of John 1 (according to his person and not his manifestation) and he is "god" in the sense of the OT quotation. What the people around him will choose to believe about him is a matter of their spiritual awareness. This is a constant theme of the entire book.
There is enough discource between Jesus and his apostles to show he never conceded himself as "God" to anyone, and never confounded himself with God, his Father. John's gospel concludes "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

I read nothing about Jesus being "God" here, or about any necessity to believe he is "God." Such was a spurious addition to the gospel by gnostic charlatans, encratites & ascetics long ago, who were attempting to fuse Greek philosophy with Hebrew theology, and too readily credited by the naive today. Faith rests on crediting Jesus' humanity as the son of God, and not on believing in a "God called Jesus."
 
Last edited:
You do, because of your formula 100% man and 100% God.
This assertion is incorrect.
The primary referent of "Jesus," and of faith itself, is his humanity. Faith is belief in Jesus the man, as the Son of God, and not in a God called Jesus.
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.
The latter may amount in practice to no more than deism. For anyone can call "God" by the name "Jesus," if they want to or if they are superstitious. That's fooling no-one.
You appear to be conflating "God" and the Father again.
I dispute that.
Then you are laughably wrong.
It isn't possible to grasp NT theology without the OT.
I never said anything about this.
No error on my part.
There is, and you noted it, but now you are backtracking. This is, therefore, another lie.
That κύριος refers exclusively to Jesus in systematic theology is rather obvious, and that it translates adoni/adonai is also obvious.
It doesn't refere exclusively to Jesus in systematic theology or scripture. This is obvious.
To make an issue of it is wrong.
Your denial that you were mistaken after you've already admitted it is what's wrong.
An alter-ego is precisely what Jesus the man had in heaven. For in heaven, he is a God of judgement, as imbued with the glory of God, but not on earth.
This is like you claiming that Clark Kent and superman are two separate people; it doesn't work.
This is one of the anachronisms you present: you don't take into account how radically different the Jesus of heaven is to Jesus the man (see Rev. 1 etc). So it is important to clarify your referent at all times.
I've noted this distinction countless times; I can't help it that you act like this is something I've never addressed. This is the nice way of putting it. The truth is that you should know better and this is another of your willfully false statements.
In which case although you concede the kenosis, it is clear you don't believe in it.
If you believe that I don't believe in the kenosis, you are profoundly slow to understand. I have explained my position to you clearly. You seemingly refuse to acknowledge these established facts.
I would go further: you are not allowed to promulgate it as a logical proposition, when you say Jesus remained 100% God (cf. Phil 2:6 - Jesus has the "form of God" only) & 100% man. (For such a proposition is just a contradiction in terms: a hopelessly ill-thought-out muddle.)
I'm making a distinction between identity and form. I can only suppose it is too fine a distinction for your binary thinking to process.
There is enough discource between Jesus and his apostles to show he never conceded himself as "God" to anyone
You mean except Thomas?
, and never confounded himself with God, his Father.
You are again conflating "God' with the Father.
John's gospel concludes "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
This is the same person talked about in John 1 where an equivalent conclusion is given in verses 10-13 "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." Jesus gives the life spoken of in the conclusion of his gospel and Jesus is God.
I read nothing about Jesus being "God" here, or about any necessity to believe he is "God."
It was given at several points throughout the book, and it's been pointed out to you. At this point, you can't even say you've missed it. You are simply refusing to accept the truth.
Such was a spurious addition to the gospel by gnostic charlatans, encratites & ascetics long ago, who were attempting to fuse Greek philosophy with Hebrew theology, and too readily credited by the naive today. Faith rests on crediting Jesus' humanity as the son of God, and not on believing in a "God called Jesus."
There you go off-topic again...
 
This assertion is incorrect.

The "word" and "Jesus" are two different names for the same being. The word was called "God"
Jn 1:1 doesn't say "God" is the name of the Word, or that the Word should be deferred to as "God."

and Jesus was called both "God" and "man".
No Jesus was never called by the name "God." And Thomas's words are referable to Jn 10:34-36 which you have failed to evaluate.

There is clearly no problem with whether Jesus is referred to as "God" or "man" depending upon the timeframe under discussion.
Why didn't he refer to himself as "God the Man" then? Would have solved all problems?

You appear to be conflating "God" and the Father again.
Oh dear. I suggest you arraign Jesus in a court of heresy and accuse him of conflating "God" and "the/his Father" because he did so constantly e.g. John 20:17.

......and that is where I must end my increasingly pointless dialogue with you, lest I go insane from the BS I am constantly subjected to from you.
 
Jn 1:1 doesn't say "God" is the name of the Word,
This is not a good-faith critique given that you already know that I don't consider "God," "Word," "Father," "Son," "Lord," etc. to be names. What I meant is that "Word" is one way to refer to the entity that is also called "Jesus".
or that the Word should be deferred to as "God."
It says he is God. If God is worthy of being deferred to, it would apply.
No Jesus was never called by the name "God."
See above.
And Thomas's words are referable to Jn 10:34-36 which you have failed to evaluate.
This is a lie. I just addressed this.
A careful reader will recognize that Jesus is God from John 1. He will also realize that if Jesus admitted this to the unbelieving Jews it would result in his death. Therefore, Jesus gives an answer that is true in both senses: he is God in the sense of John 1 (according to his person and not his manifestation) and he is "god" in the sense of the OT quotation. What the people around him will choose to believe about him is a matter of their spiritual awareness. This is a constant theme of the entire book.
Why didn't he refer to himself as "God the Man" then? Would have solved all problems?
I suppose he didn't consider it to be important or he felt it should've been clear enough from what he wrote. Besides, if a son of a man is a "man", then it follows then a Son of God is "God", provided that the terms are used in literal sense.
Oh dear. I suggest you arraign Jesus in a court of heresy and accuse him of conflating "God" and "the/his Father" because he did so constantly e.g. John 20:17.

......and that is where I must end my increasingly pointless dialogue with you, lest I go insane from the BS I am constantly subjected to from you.
You are the one using the term "God" as a constant synonym for "the Father". This is what I'm referring to. Scripture itself (John 1:1, John 20:28) shows that Jesus is also called God, so you cannot correctly assume the term "God" is always synonymous with "the Father". Your claim that Jesus calls the Father, God, therefore Jesus cannot be God is a spectacular example of flawed logic. For one, Jesus said these words while in the form of a man. For another, the beginning of the Gospel already identified Jesus as God as does John 20:28. You give lip service to the idea that
"God" can refer to people/things other than God the Father, but you consistently undermine yourself when you write things like your statement above.

Your penchant for euphemistic profanity and undeniable false statements show whose child you are. Darkness always flees from light.
 
This is not a good-faith critique given that you already know that I don't consider "God," "Word," "Father," "Son," "Lord," etc. to be names. What I meant is that "Word" is one way to refer to the entity that is also called "Jesus".

It says he is God. If God is worthy of being deferred to, it would apply.
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.

See above.

This is a lie. I just addressed this.

I suppose he didn't consider it to be important or he felt it should've been clear enough from what he wrote. Besides, if a son of a man is a "man", then it follows then a Son of God is "God", provided that the terms are used in literal sense.
Jesus never demanded or taught that anyone should refer to himself as "God."
You are the one using the term "God" as a constant synonym for "the Father". This is what I'm referring to.
And why shouldn't I? Are you better than Jesus?

Scripture itself (John 1:1, John 20:28) shows that Jesus is also called God,
It shows nothing of the kind. The use of Θεός as predicate (Jn 1:1c) doesn't give rise to an appellative (cf. also Jn 4:24 and Spirit supra). Your Greek is as atrocious as your theology.

Moreover Thomas said "The God of me" not just "God", indicating only that he recognized the God of Jesus, the Father who was in Jesus, as also his God. Again you are clueless as to the principle divine agency, which you disingenuously pretend to understand, but don't.

so you cannot correctly assume the term "God" is always synonymous with "the Father".
On the authority of Jesus and the apostles, John and Paul and their systematic NT theology, reformulated for the New Covenant era, I can insist that the Father and God are equivalent terms for the Father of Jesus, although Father is inherently personal (more equivalent to YHWH), whereas God (theos/elohim) is etymologically cosmopolitan. But there is no doubt that the two terms are deliberately juxtaposed together and distinguished from "the Lord [Jesus Christ]" in:

Eph 4:4-6 "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

And moreover, and which is an idea I have raised before, if "Jesus [the man] is God", then that makes you a deist, because you have no "Lord" and all you can claim to believe in is a "God called Jesus." But also, it makes you a polytheist, as there is also another God called the Father. And so no amount of BS'ing (except to have recourse to the Sabellian artifice) can derogate from an immediate charge of polytheism against all who say "Jesus [the man] is God" and of bringing Christianity into disrepute (which was noted by Julian the Apostate in Against the Galileans).

Julian's error was to fail to spot that Jn 1:1c denotes divine agency, and not a separate God (ὁ Θεός) called ὁ Λόγος. To confound ὁ Λόγος and ὁ Θεός could be said to be the foundation of all heresies. Jn 1:1b shows they are distinct and distinctive.

And in respect of all the lands where this bunkum theology that you hold forth originated: it is highly significant that they have all been given by God to the moslems (North Africa, Byzantium, Egypt, Syria), as if to show his contempt for it.

Your claim that Jesus calls the Father, God, therefore Jesus cannot be God is a spectacular example of flawed logic. For one, Jesus said these words while in the form of a man. For another, the beginning of the Gospel already identified Jesus as God as does John 20:28. You give lip service to the idea that
"God" can refer to people/things other than God the Father, but you consistently undermine yourself when you write things like your statement above.
All this is due to the fact that you cannot understand the use of the predicate in Jn 1:1c, because you refuse to be instructed by those who are superior to you. Your teaching is contrary to all sound scholarship, and betrays cultic devotion to the traditions of men, created by the Greeks who sought almost from the inception to hellenize the gospel beyond what the apostles had permitted, leading to innumerable heresies even amongst those proficient in Greek.

Your penchant for euphemistic profanity and undeniable false statements show whose child you are. Darkness always flees from light.
I have seen no light in your theology, which to me is a world of spiritual darkness, chaos and confusion and leaden attachment to deadbeat doctrines whose origin you have no idea of.
 
Last edited:
. Your claim that Jesus calls the Father, God, therefore Jesus cannot be God is a spectacular example of flawed logic. For one, Jesus said these words while in the form of a man. For another, the beginning of the Gospel already identified Jesus as God as does John 20:28. You give lip service to the idea that
"God" can refer to people/things other than God the Father, but you consistently undermine yourself when you write things like your statement above.

Your penchant for euphemistic profanity and undeniable false statements show whose child you are. Darkness always flees from light.
The biblical Jesus was a man, not “in the form” of one. What does that even mean ?
 
I have seen no light in your theology, which to me is a world of spiritual darkness, chaos and confusion and leaden attachment to deadbeat doctrines whose origin you have no idea of.
It’s the Spirit of Anti-Christ, that which denies that Jesus was a human being while on earth:
Many deceivers have gone out over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus Christ came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an anti-Christ.

2 John 1:7
 
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.
"Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός" and "Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος" are equivalent constructions apart from the fact that the tense of the second verb is different from the tense implied in the first. What can be said about one construction could be said about the other. If you assert that the former means "God IS spirit, as a matter of constitution or essence" then you should recognize "The Word was God, as a matter of constitution or essence" as a valid translational option.
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 have already admitted that you don't know Greek. You are foolish for commenting on it.
Wallace GGBB 270 said:
When an anarthrous PN precedes a verbless subject, it will either be qualitative or definite just as would a pre-verbal anarthrous PN.
Here Wallace confirms what I just said: the translational possibilities are the same for both constructions.
Jesus never demanded or taught that anyone should refer to himself as "God."
We've been over this before. Your memory and your logic are failing you.
And why shouldn't I? Are you better than Jesus?
You shouldn't when interpreting the New Testament because "God" is not used exclusively for "the Father". I don't feel like this should be a difficult thing for you to understand.
It shows nothing of the kind. The use of Θεός as predicate (Jn 1:1c) doesn't give rise to an appellative (cf. also Jn 4:24 and Spirit supra). Your Greek is as atrocious as your theology.
My Greek and theology are just fine. I'd suggest you learn the language and stop making false statements.
Moreover Thomas said "The God of me" not just "God", indicating only that he recognized the God of Jesus, the Father who was in Jesus, as also his God.
Thomas called Jesus "God". The genitive phrase has no impact on this fact. All you done here is demonstrated the lengths you will go to in order to deny what the text plainly says.
Again you are clueless as to the principle divine agency, which you disingenuously pretend to understand, but don't.
Another error on your part.
On the authority of Jesus and the apostles, John and Paul and their systematic NT theology, reformulated for the New Covenant era, I can insist that the Father and God are equivalent terms for the Father of Jesus,
This is true. But what you get wrong, as I've repeatedly said, is that you default position is "God" = "the Father" and this gets you into trouble when "God" does not refer to "the Father" in passages like John 1:1 and John 20:28.
although Father is inherently personal (more equivalent to YHWH), whereas God (theos/elohim) is etymologically cosmopolitan. But there is no doubt that the two terms are deliberately juxtaposed together and distinguished from "the Lord [Jesus Christ]" in:

Eph 4:4-6 "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."
According to your logic on John 20:28, wouldn't the descriptive phrase attached "God" here indicate that he is specifying the God "who is over all and through all and in all here"? (Note: I don't actually believe this, but it is the place where your previous assertion should lead you if you were actually trying to be consistent.)

Just as Jesus can be called "God" in distinction to "the Father", so can "the Father" be called "God" in distinction to the Son. The unity of the Father and Son is still an established fact.
And moreover, and which is an idea I have raised before, if "Jesus [the man] is God", then that makes you a deist, because you have no "Lord" and all you can claim to believe in is a "God called Jesus." But also, it makes you a polytheist, as there is also another God called the Father. And so no amount of BS'ing (except to have recourse to the Sabellian artifice) can derogate from an immediate charge of polytheism against all who say "Jesus [the man] is God" and of bringing Christianity into disrepute (which was noted by Julian the Apostate in Against the Galileans).
You've raised it, but it is just as silly now as it was then. Besides, I've never claimed that "Jesus [the man] is God." I've pointed this out to you repeatedly, and yet you continue to make the false claim.
Julian's error was to fail to spot that Jn 1:1c denotes divine agency, and not a separate God (ὁ Θεός) called ὁ Λόγος. To confound ὁ Λόγος and ὁ Θεός could be said to be the foundation of all heresies. Jn 1:1b shows they are distinct and distinctive.

And in respect of all the lands where this bunkum theology that you hold forth originated: it is highly significant that they have all been given by God to the moslems (North Africa, Byzantium, Egypt, Syria), as if to show his contempt for it.
John 1:1 has nothing at all to do with agency.
All this is due to the fact that you cannot understand the use of the predicate in Jn 1:1c,
You are the one on record making false statements, not me.
because you refuse to be instructed by those who are superior to you.
I've always wondered what goes through your mind as you read commentary after commentary on John 1 and John 20:28 and find none of them make the wackadoodle claims that you do. I really don't know what "superior" you are referring to, since your claims seem to be entirely your own. This is an especially important question since you've admitted you don't know Greek. Since no one else is making the claims you make and you don't know Greek, it's fair to say you are just saying whatever suits your fancy.
Your teaching is contrary to all sound scholarship, and betrays cultic devotion to the traditions of men, created by the Greeks who sought almost from the inception to hellenize the gospel beyond what the apostles had permitted, leading to innumerable heresies even amongst those proficient in Greek.
It's in line with most everyone.
I have seen no light in your theology, which to me is a world of spiritual darkness, chaos and confusion and leaden attachment to deadbeat doctrines whose origin you have no idea of.
You're vision isn't very good. You still haven't removed that log.
 
The biblical Jesus was a man, not “in the form” of one. What does that even mean ?
You should know that things can be talked about in different ways without contradiction, but apparently you don't. Since Jesus was God before his incarnation divinity is his true identity. His incarnation, then, was a manifestation of himself while divested of that divinity. The phrase "in the form of" doesn't mean that he wasn't truly a man any more that "God" must be a reference to "the Father". You've only provided yet another example of penchant for twisting my words. Whether it is because you lack the ability to understand what is said or because you are doing so intentionally with malicious intent, you should be more careful.
 
You should know that things can be talked about in different ways without contradiction, but apparently you don't. Since Jesus was God before his incarnation divinity is his true identity. His incarnation, then, was a manifestation of himself while divested of that divinity. The phrase "in the form of" doesn't mean that he wasn't truly a man any more that "God" must be a reference to "the Father". You've only provided yet another example of penchant for twisting my words. Whether it is because you lack the ability to understand what is said or because you are doing so intentionally with malicious intent, you should be more careful.
The problem is not with any particular "contradiction" per se but in the first instance with your biblical eisegesis . To be "a man" is not the same thing as to be in the "form of" one ; the latter designation would be appropriate for an already existing being (like an angel) who assumes the guise or shape of a man, as in Genesis 18. But scripture quite clearly and irrefutably says that Jesus was really a human being, someone with human DNA (σπέρμα of Abraham ) : τούτου ὁ Θεὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ σπέρματος κατ’ ἐπαγγελίαν ἤγαγεν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ Σωτῆρα Ἰησοῦν,

He just didn't look like a man / have the form of a man , he actually was one. Show us where scripture says Jesus was "in the form" of a man ?
 
Back
Top