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.