Wallace is repudiated by Caragounis as to qualitative."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.
You have already admitted that you don't know Greek. You are foolish for commenting on it. Here Wallace confirms what I just said: the translational possibilities are the same for both constructions.
Tedious and untrue, where the context is "true God" John 17:3.We've been over this before. Your memory and your logic are failing you.
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.
As TRJM said (following John), anyone who says that "Jesus the man is God" is an antichrist, because being God precludes being a man (God is Spirit - you might recall from above).My Greek and theology are just fine. I'd suggest you learn the language and stop making false statements.
Deny what the text plainly says is what you have just done, by saying the gentive phrase is immaterial. It is of course vital to the whole sense of what Thomas says: an expression of faith in Christ as the Son of God, and affirmation of his equality with God deriving from Thomas's own perception of who Jesus is. It is an affirmation of faith, and Jesus understood it so.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.
You say that Jesus is man and God which is semantically identical to "Jesus the man is God."Another error on your part.
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.
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.
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.
John 1:1 has nothing at all to do with agency.
Unity between Jesus and his Father did not extend to the use of the masculine in "I and the Father are one (neuter)" in John 10:30, which would have been required per Deut 6:4 where the masculine is used (had Jesus really been possessed of all the properties of God).
John 20:28 says "Lord and God" which isn't the same as "Lord God."
No you are the one making false statements as you said "The word was called "God" in Jn 1:1" (see post 30), but God is not an appellative.You are the one on record making false statements, not me.
Also see above statement as to the refutation of Wallace by Caragounis (which we have been through before) - you seem to be changing your mind here also.
Obviously I know more Greek that I admit to knowing. As for me disagreeing with the commentaries: that is mere fancy on your part. You do engage in an awful lot of conjecture, it seems.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
Anyone who says "Jesus is man and God" when "God is Spirit" and the requirement is to believe that Jesus came in the flesh, has a bigger log that me. As I said to Fred, if that is what you believe, then you're an Appollinarian.You're vision isn't very good. You still haven't removed that log.