Hardly. I follow the best Greek scholars and commentators. As for you: who knows where you get your delusions from?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
GNT grammar does not support “ God the son”
- Thread starter The Real John Milton
- Start date
John Milton
Well-known member
The best Greek scholars agree with me, even the one you cited in this thread.Hardly. I follow the best Greek scholars and commentators. As for you: who knows where you get your delusions from?
Then you are seriously deluded, even mentally ill, as you expressly conceded disagreeing with them over O Theos relating to the person who is God. You can't maintain agreement and disagreement at the same time. That is schizophrenic.The best Greek scholars agree with me, even the one you cited in this thread.
Last edited:
John Milton
Well-known member
No. I clarified my statement. His remarks were correct if they were limited, as was likely intended, to the passage he was dealing with. If he meant the remarks to hold true for the entire New Testament as you were implying that he was, then he would be incorrect. You are distorting what I said because you are trying to make me look bad or because you aren't able to follow what was said. Either way, you're the one with egg on your face. All you have is false assertions and name calling. It's been clear for three pages that you've lost the argument, and you've certainly never had anything to offer.Then you are seriously deluded, even mentally ill, as you expressly conceded disagreeing with them over O Theos relating to the person who is God. You can't maintain agreement and disagreement at the same time. That is schizophrenic.
It is still schizophrenic to suppose that God could mutate between one thing and another,No. I clarified my statement. His remarks were correct if they were limited, as was likely intended, to the passage he was dealing with. If he meant the remarks to hold true for the entire New Testament as you were implying that he was, then he would be incorrect.
Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."
Malachi 3:16 "For I am [YHWH] I change not."
If no-one is changing, why are you constantly changing the definition of God? Or is that you have only a Sabellian God, with different modes?
For if the Father who is YHWH (see Ps 110:1) changes not, and Jesus Christ changes not, then how come "God" is ever changing? Or if he doesn't, it's because you're a modalist.
You don't understand Koine Greek, or the difference between subject and predicate, or the difference between the articular and the anarthrous, or the difference between heaven and earth, or the difference between God and the Word of God, and or the difference between agent and principal, or the difference between sender and sent, or the difference between Son and Father, or between New Testament terminology and Old Testament terminology, or between God and Logos.
You have not adduced an argument that I could credit as being an argument. What you call an argument is mere dogmatism on your part. You seem to be unable to deal with more than a few verses. You can't build a theology on just a few random verses. You have to take "everything" into account, including the verses you don't like, such as John 10:34-36.You are distorting what I said because you are trying to make me look bad or because you aren't able to follow what was said. Either way, you're the one with egg on your face. All you have is false assertions and name calling. It's been clear for three pages that you've lost the argument, and you've certainly never had anything to offer.
Malachi 3:16 "For I am [YHIf no-one is changing, why are you constantly changing the definition of God? Or is that you have only a Sabellian God, with different modes?
For Malachi 3:6 notice it begins with the word "for." This points back to verse 5 in which God will not change in His condemnation and judgment of the sins listed.
Your go to meaningless charge of Sabellianism fails (again).
John Milton
Well-known member
The same author who told us that Jesus “is the same yesterday and today and forever” also told us that he “laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning”. There is nothing “schizophrenic” about Jesus being in to different forms. What do you think happens to the dead?It is still schizophrenic to suppose that God could mutate between one thing and another,
Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."
Malachi 3:16 "For I am [YHWH] I change not.
As I demonstrated above, your premise is flawed. You need to revisit your assumptions.If no-one is changing, why are you constantly changing the definition of God? Or is that you have only a Sabellian God, with different modes?
Same as above.For if the Father who is YHWH (see Ps 110:1) changes not, and Jesus Christ changes not, then how come "God" is ever changing? Or if he doesn't, it's because you're a modalist.
You constantly reveal your lack of integrity. You can say whatever you want as many times as you want, but it will never make it true.You don't understand Koine Greek, or the difference between subject and predicate, or the difference between the articular and the anarthrous, or the difference between heaven and earth, or the difference between God and the Word of God, and or the difference between agent and principal, or the difference between sender and sent, or the difference between Son and Father, or between New Testament terminology and Old Testament terminology, or between God and Logos.
I take the authors of scripture at their word. John called the Logos “theos.” He then identified the Logos as Jesus. Near the end of the gospel he calls Jesus “theos.” This is all very straightforward.You have not adduced an argument that I could credit as being an argument. What you call an argument is mere dogmatism on your part. You seem to be unable to deal with more than a few verses. You can't build a theology on just a few random verses. You have to take "everything" into account, including the verses you don't like, such as John 10:34-36.
You, as I’ve already pointed out, ignore these two facts and try to force the entire story to conform to the events and thoughts in the middle. I shouldn’t have to tell you how stupid that is.
As this is the biblical languages forum, I have to point out that the Hebrew word translated "for" is a primitive conjunction with many variant shades of meaning. "For" is somewhat arbitary here. It could be translated with a whole range of different English conjunctions. Yet even if a conjunction denotes the continuation of a preceding context, it is capable of introducing a completely new strand of thought. Therefore there is nothing to suggest an "interpretation" by what precedes it. Only a contextualization is demanded. The words "I am YHWH I change not" are hardly capable of interpretation.For Malachi 3:6 notice it begins with the word "for." This points back to verse 5 in which God will not change in His condemnation and judgment of the sins listed.
Your go to meaningless charge of Sabellianism fails (again).
So I conclude your attempt to restrict the natural meaning of Malachi 3:6 by quibbling falls flat on its face.
YHWH changes not. YHWH didn't "change" at the incarnation either. So you are either a modalist or a polytheist (probably both as the fancy take you).
Last edited:
John Milton
Well-known member
And I have to point out that you don’t know Hebrew.As this is the biblical languages forum, I have to point out that the Hebrew word translated "for" is a primitive conjunction with many variant shades of meaning.
It certainly renders a continuation of the thought. It introduces the reason why the Lord is going to do the things he’d just said."For" is somewhat arbitary here. It could be translated with a whole range of different English conjunctions. Yet even if a conjunction denotes the continuation of a preceding context,
No one said it did except you.it is capable of introducing a completely new strand of thought.
They certainly need interpretation to be properly understood.Therefore there is nothing to suggest an "interpretation" by what precedes it. Only a contextualization is demanded. The words "I am YHWH I change not" are hardly capable of interpretation.
And once again you reached the wrong conclusion.So I conclude your attempt to restrict the natural meaning of Malachi 3:6 by quibbling falls flat on its face.
This is true.YHWH changes not. YHWH didn't "change" at the incarnation either.
Why not stick to the argument? Your inability to stay on topic is tiresome.So you are either a modalist or a polytheist (probably both as the fancy take you).
If what I said is true, then I do know "some" Hebrew (more than you if you're trying to contradict me).And I have to point out that you don’t know Hebrew.
As you said yourself "It introduces the reason". A reason is a new strand of thought. So you're contradicting yourself.It certainly renders a continuation of the thought. It introduces the reason why the Lord is going to do the things he’d just said.
No one said it did except you.
What you mean is: the scriptures can only be understood with the benefit of JM's eisegesis. You won't even tell us where your eisegesis originates from (probably extremist kind of Lutheranism - Nietzsche was also the son and grandson of Lutheran pastors and offered his own eisegesis of the bible). In any case, your name "John Milton" shows you just like impersonating other people: no-one can credit an impersonator. One who wears a mask is not a trustworthy person.They certainly need interpretation to be properly understood.
Once again, you rely on the vanity of dogmatizing and not on demonstrated reasons.And once again you reached the wrong conclusion.
And you have forgotten the topic, which is "GNT grammar does not support “ God the son”."This is true.
Why not stick to the argument? Your inability to stay on topic is tiresome.
In being unsupported by scripture, the contention is that "God the Son" is either polytheism or modalism, and I think we can see from Mal 3:6 that the Hebrew doesn't support "YHWH the son" but only "YHWH who does not change" and "I (first person singular) am YHWH" so that YHWH refers to one person who is .... not the son (see Ps 110:1 and all the words of Jesus Christ).
Last edited:
John Milton
Well-known member
If you insist that a reason is a new strand of thought, I disagree. The conjunction indicates a continuation of the same thought. I am at an A2 level in modern Hebrew. That’s very basic, but still much better than you from what you’ve shown.If what I said is true, then I do know "some" Hebrew (more than you if you're trying to contradict me).
As you said yourself "It introduces the reason". A reason is a new strand of thought. So you're contradicting yourself.
I am affirming what the apostles wrote. I’m scarcely interpreting anything. Even in the Malachi passage I’m only telling you what the grammar is doing. You are the one arguing with what they wrote. Your position about John’s gospel requires you to reimagine what the authors said.What you mean is: the scriptures can only be understood with the benefit of JM's eisegesis.
It’s just me informed by people who’ve made the most persuasive arguments.You won't even tell us where your eisegesis originates from (probably extremist kind of Lutheranism - Nietzsche was also the son and grandson of Lutheran pastors and offered his own eisegesis of the bible).
Lol. Okay “cjab”In any case, your name "John Milton" shows you just like impersonating other people: no-one can credit an impersonator. One who wears a mask is not a trustworthy person.
The conjunction links the verses. That is the reason. You should’ve recognized that.Once again, you rely on the vanity of dogmatizing and not on demonstrated reasons.
It is a topic best forgotten. It is a meaningless claim based on a profound misunderstanding of how language use conveys meaning. For example, Greek grammar doesn’t support the claim that we shouldn’t worship the President either. Yet, it coneys this thought in other ways. In short it is an argument made and found convincing only by the ignorant.And you have forgotten the topic, which is "GNT grammar does not support “ God the son”."
See above.In being unsupported by scripture, the contention is that "God the Son" is either polytheism or modalism,
See above. Also, you still haven’t dealt with the argument I made about the Hebrew author’s statements about Jesus.and I think we can see from Mal 3:6 that the Hebrew doesn't support "YHWH the son" but only "YHWH who does not change" and "I (first person singular) am YHWH" so that YHWH refers to one person who is .... not the son (see Ps 110:1 and all the words of Jesus Christ).
I said a new strand of thought, not a new original thought. May be you need to pay more attention to detail.If you insist that a reason is a new strand of thought, I disagree. The conjunction indicates a continuation of the same thought. I am at an A2 level in modern Hebrew. That’s very basic, but still much better than you from what you’ve shown.
??????????I am affirming what the apostles wrote. I’m scarcely interpreting anything. Even in the Malachi passage I’m only telling you what the grammar is doing. You are the one arguing with what they wrote. Your position about John’s gospel requires you to reimagine what the authors said.
Who are those people?It’s just me informed by people who’ve made the most persuasive arguments.
You said "I take the authors of scripture at their word. John called the Logos “theos.” He then identified the Logos as Jesus. Near the end of the gospel he calls Jesus “theos.” This is all very straightforward."Lol. Okay “cjab”
The conjunction links the verses. That is the reason. You should’ve recognized that.
It is a topic best forgotten. It is a meaningless claim based on a profound misunderstanding of how language use conveys meaning. For example, Greek grammar doesn’t support the claim that we shouldn’t worship the President either. Yet, it coneys this thought in other ways. In short it is an argument made and found convincing only by the ignorant.
See above.
See above. Also, you still haven’t dealt with the argument I made about the Hebrew author’s statements about Jesus.
It's not in the least "straight forward." First, John does not name the pre-incarnate Logos "Jesus:" that much is clear. Secondly, neither does John himself ever refer to Jesus as "God" but always the Son of God. That much is also clear. As for Thomas: he was taken by surprise. He couldn't be imputed with an utterance of Johannine doctrine: indeed his utterance seems to lie outside the ambit of Johannine teaching, and rather belongs to the Old Testament school of theology, as exemplified by Jesus in John 10:34-36. Moreover its seems apparent that Thomas used "theos" in a personal/agency sense, just as the Old testament patriachs & Moses used YHWH where referring to angels of YHWH.
John identfies the Logos made flesh, i.e. the Son of God, as Jesus ("Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God."). John's aim is to make it clear that Jesus is the Son of God in the flesh, that he came from God, and went back to God.
But in this age, as in previous ages, we have another strand of teaching: cf. The Second Treatise of the Great Seth "I visited a bodily dwelling. I cast out the one who was in it previously, and I went in."
Here the Logos appropriates the soul of a man (who would otherwise not be Jesus but someone else) and makes it his own, such that the Logos becomes joined with a human soul in a hypostatic union. Here the Son of God is only one half of the hypostatic union. The other half, which predominates, is "God the Logos" or "God the Son." This seems to be your teaching (? from what I can gather) but it isn't scriptural, as neither Paul or John ever refer to Jesus as "God" doctrinally.
Last edited:
John Milton
Well-known member
You are the one dancing around your error, not me.I said a new strand of thought, not a new original thought. May be you need to pay more attention to detail.
I already know you're confused. If you grasped how tragic your handling of John's text was surely you wouldn't understand it in the manner you do.??????????
Too many and too forgotten to name, sadly. So it is with most everyone. We don't know all the people we should credit for helping us along the way.Who are those people?
No. It is very clear, but you don't understand it.You said "I take the authors of scripture at their word. John called the Logos “theos.” He then identified the Logos as Jesus. Near the end of the gospel he calls Jesus “theos.” This is all very straightforward."
It's not in the least "straight forward."
He does. More on your error here below where it makes better sense.First, John does not name the pre-incarnate Logos "Jesus:" that much is clear.
"John" wrote the gospel. He referred to the Logos as theos right out of the gate. It is clear that he had no problem calling Jesus theos because he identified Jesus as the Logos (again more on that below) by the fact that he recorded Thomas having done so. If he didn't feel that Thomas was correct, he didn't have to include it in his gospel.Secondly, neither does John himself ever refer to Jesus as "God" but always the Son of God. That much is also clear. As for Thomas: he was taken by surprise. He couldn't be imputed with an utterance of Johannine doctrine: indeed his utterance seems to lie outside the ambit of Johannine teaching, and rather belongs to the Old Testament school of theology, as exemplified by Jesus in John 10:34-36. Moreover its seems apparent that Thomas used "theos" in a personal/agency sense, just as the Old testament patriachs & Moses used YHWH where referring to angels of YHWH.
This is your root problem. Let's have a close look at your claim. "John" writes in John 1:14 "Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας."John identfies the Logos made flesh, i.e. the Son of God, as Jesus ("Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God."). John's aim is to make it clear that Jesus is the Son of God in the flesh, that he came from God, and went back to God.
The initial clause runs "Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο." Here the subject is "ὁ λόγος". The verb is "ἐγένετο," and the predicate nominative is σὰρξ. The second clause reads "ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν" and it is preceded by the conjunction "καὶ" which links it to the preceding thought. Notice that it does not have a subject so the subject is the same as that of the first clause (ὁ λόγος). It is clear that the subject is ὁ λόγος, and not "the Logos made flesh" as you allege, because flesh is a predicate nominative in the first clause. Your understanding of the passage would require some type of construction where "became flesh" modifies "ὁ λόγος" (ὁ λόγος σὰρξ γενόμενος for one such possibility) and the conjunction "καὶ" would not be needed before the verb "ἐσκήνωσεν." Likewise, "τὴν δόξαν" that "ἐθεασάμεθα" is the glory "αὐτοῦ" which refers back to "ὁ λόγος".
In verse 15 we read "Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων· οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον· ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν." "Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ" does not refer to the glory of the word because "δόξα" is a feminine noun. "αὐτοῦ" must refer to "ὁ λόγος" as well. The same holds true for "οὗτος" later in the verse.
In verses 29-30 the words "ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν" from verse 15 are applied to Jesus. Τῇ ἐπαύριον βλέπει τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐρχόμενον πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ λέγει· ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου. 30 οὗτός ἐστιν ὑπὲρ οὗ ἐγὼ εἶπον· ὀπίσω μου ἔρχεται ἀνὴρ ὃς ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν. This is all very simple stuff. Your claim doesn't hold water.
What are you babbling about? Do try to stay on topic.But in this age, as in previous ages, we have another strand of teaching: cf. The Second Treatise of the Great Seth "I visited a bodily dwelling. I cast out the one who was in it previously, and I went in."
Here the Logos appropriates the soul of a man (who would otherwise not be Jesus but someone else) and makes it his own, such that the Logos becomes joined with a human soul in a hypostatic union. Here the Son of God is only one half of the hypostatic union. The other half, which predominates, is "God the Logos" or "God the Son." This seems to be your teaching (? from what I can gather) but it isn't scriptural, as neither Paul or John ever refer to Jesus as "God" doctrinally.
In not a single place in John's gospel or in his epistles in Jesus deferred to as "theos".You are the one dancing around your error, not me.
I already know you're confused. If you grasped how tragic your handling of John's text was surely you wouldn't understand it in the manner you do.
Too many and too forgotten to name, sadly. So it is with most everyone. We don't know all the people we should credit for helping us along the way.
No. It is very clear, but you don't understand it.
He does. More on your error here below where it makes better sense.
"John" wrote the gospel. He referred to the Logos as theos right out of the gate.
It is clear that he had no problem calling Jesus theos because he identified Jesus as the Logos (again more on that below) by the fact that he recorded Thomas having done so. If he didn't feel that Thomas was correct, he didn't have to include it in his gospel.
So the Logos became flesh, not God in a body.This is your root problem. Let's have a close look at your claim. "John" writes in John 1:14 "Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας."
The initial clause runs "Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο." Here the subject is "ὁ λόγος". The verb is "ἐγένετο," and the predicate nominative is σὰρξ.
I didn't allege any such thing.The second clause reads "ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν" and it is preceded by the conjunction "καὶ" which links it to the preceding thought. Notice that it does not have a subject so the subject is the same as that of the first clause (ὁ λόγος). It is clear that the subject is ὁ λόγος, and not "the Logos made flesh" as you allege,
You engage in the fallacy of putting an argument in my mouth that I never made. Also,remeber your argument in Mal 3:6, that a conjunction carries forward an idea: in this case the idea is the "Word made flesh". I acknowledge Jesus as the Logos, but I don't acknowledge that Jn 1:1c describes Jesus the human being. Rather John makes it clear that Jesus is μονογενοῦς παρὰ Πατρός.because flesh is a predicate nominative in the first clause. Your understanding of the passage would require some type of construction where "became flesh" modifies "ὁ λόγος" (ὁ λόγος σὰρξ γενόμενος for one such possibility) and the conjunction "καὶ" would not be needed before the verb "ἐσκήνωσεν." Likewise, "τὴν δόξαν" that "ἐθεασάμεθα" is the glory "αὐτοῦ" which refers back to "ὁ λόγος".
The referent of verse 15 is "him" (αὐτός), a human being, in v.14, who is the word made flesh, "μονογενοῦς παρὰ Πατρός."In verse 15 we read "Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων· οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον· ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν." "Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ" does not refer to the glory of the word because "δόξα" is a feminine noun. "αὐτοῦ" must refer to "ὁ λόγος" as well. The same holds true for "οὗτος" later in the verse.
Contrariwise in Jn 1:2,3 the reference of οὗτος "this" is the Logos in heaven.
Interesting you should refer to verses 29-30. Note the use of ὁ Ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ (Lamb of God) i.e. no longer "God" but "of God."In verses 29-30 the words "ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν" from verse 15 are applied to Jesus. Τῇ ἐπαύριον βλέπει τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐρχόμενον πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ λέγει· ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου. 30 οὗτός ἐστιν ὑπὲρ οὗ ἐγὼ εἶπον· ὀπίσω μου ἔρχεται ἀνὴρ ὃς ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν. This is all very simple stuff. Your claim doesn't hold water.
You failed to note the transformation from God (Jn 1:1c) to μονογενοῦς (v.14) (and to μονογενὴς υιός in v.18), and from God (Jn 1:1c) to "of God" (Jn 1:29).What are you babbling about? Do try to stay on topic.
Seems you're not paying attention to what is being said.
This is typical of Trinitarians/Modalists/Gnostics (or whatever). They selectively omit many salient details ....
As I said before, Jesus is "The son of God," not God. You'd better believe it.
John Milton
Well-known member
This is clearly false. John 20:28.In not a single place in John's gospel or in his epistles in Jesus deferred to as "theos".
There is no discrepancy according to the author: John 20:28.So the Logos became flesh, not God in a body.
You did. I quoted it above. You are denying that you said what you said.I didn't allege any such thing.
You did. See your remarks above.You engage in the fallacy of putting an argument in my mouth that I never made.
As I explained to you, that is grammatically impossible. O logos is the subject. Not “the worlds made flesh” (and besides didn’t you just claim you didn’t say that?!)Also,remeber your argument in Mal 3:6, that a conjunction carries forward an idea: in this case the idea is the "Word made flesh".
The word and Jesus refer to the same entity. They are different manifestations of the same entity.I acknowledge Jesus as the Logos, but I don't acknowledge that Jn 1:1c describes Jesus the human being.
Yes. He calls Jesus that also. They aren’t either/or assertions.Rather John makes it clear that Jesus is μονογενοῦς παρὰ Πατρός.
Who is also the logos per the author.The referent of verse 15 is "him" (αὐτός), a human being, in v.14, who is the word made flesh, "μονογενοῦς παρὰ Πατρός."
No. I have already explained the passage to you.Contrariwise in Jn 1:2,3 the reference of οὗτος "this" is the Logos in heaven.
Theos properly describes both the Son and the Father. Here it is a reference to the Father.Interesting you should refer to verses 29-30. Note the use of ὁ Ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ (Lamb of God) i.e. no longer "God" but "of God."
Different titles of the same entity.You failed to note the transformation from God (Jn 1:1c) to μονογενοῦς (v.14) (and to μονογενὴς υιός in v.18), and from God (Jn 1:1c) to "of God" (Jn 1:29).
You wish.Seems you're not paying attention to what is being said.
I haven’t omitted anything. You are lying about everything, even about what you’ve previously said.This is typical of Trinitarians/Modalists/Gnostics (or whatever). They selectively omit many salient details ....
I do.As I said before, Jesus is "The son of God," not God. You'd better believe it.
I meant in didactic teaching (obviously). It proves my point that you are reduced to John 20:28. So why would you obtain your theology from an exclamation of Thomas in preference to 22 chapters of didactic teaching from Jesus and John?This is clearly false. John 20:28.
There is no discrepancy according to the author: John 20:28.
You did. I quoted it above. You are denying that you said what you said.
You did. See your remarks above.
Sure: so where it suits you, a conjunction carries forward an idea. When it doesn't, it becomes grammatically impossible.As I explained to you, that is grammatically impossible. O logos is the subject. Not “the worlds made flesh” (and besides didn’t you just claim you didn’t say that?!)
I think I said in another place that you are an arch BS'er. This proves my point.
The point is that the Logos was not manifested except through what was created. Jesus himself as a man was manifested through human birth. As such he was no different to any other man, excepting his personal identity comprising what came from above. To assimilate the two as having an identical "form of God" is rank perversity, even if Jesus possessed the divine nature.The word and Jesus refer to the same entity. They are different manifestations of the same entity.
The Logos on earth was not in the same form as the Logos in heaven (cf. Phil 2:6,7). "Form" is intrinsic to deity: the state/rank of being God demands as a minumum the "fullness of deity living in bodily form". This is only possible in heaven. On earth it could only be by the instrument of the Holy Spirit, who was not able to make Jesus omniscient, despite the claims of your sidekick "Fred."Yes. He calls Jesus that also. They aren’t either/or assertions.
Who is also the logos per the author.
No. I have already explained the passage to you.
"O Theos" does not "properly" describe anyone in the form of a man: see John 10:34-36 for what "theos" can mean under the OT convention when applied to human beings (it denotes they have the "Word of God").Theos properly describes both the Son and the Father. Here it is a reference to the Father.
NB: no man was ever called "YHWH" in the OT. Theos in the NT seems to be an amalgamation of YHWH and Elohim. For this reason, we have dispensed with "theos" in relation to human beings.
Word of God isn't synonymous with "God the person" (see Jn 1:1b & c).
The fact that you can't accept John 10:34-36 into your religious schema suggests your overall grasp of the NT is one dimensional. Actually, I'm getting rather tired of debating one-dimensional theologians. I have other things to do.
Exactly so. So why not stick to the Johannine distinction of titles, rather than sow confusion by dispensing with them?Different titles of the same entity.
Well, I think on that point, I am entitled to construe you as not worth the time of day.You wish.
I haven’t omitted anything. You are lying about everything, even about what you’ve previously said.
As TRJM said, you are conceited. Conceit is of satan.
I do.
Last edited:
John Milton
Well-known member
You're wrong. John 1 plainly teaches that Jesus was involved in creation. John 20:28 reinforces what he taught earlier.I meant in didactic teaching (obviously). It proves my point that you are reduced to John 20:28. So why would you obtain your theology from an exclamation of Thomas in preference to 22 chapters of didactic teaching from Jesus and John?
This remark has nothing at all to do with what you quoted of me. The second sentence has nothing at all to do with anything that I've written.Sure: so where it suits you, a conjunction carries forward an idea. When it doesn't, it becomes grammatically impossible.
The fact that you've keep making irrelevant comments about things I've never said proves that I'm making things up? LOLI think I said in another place that you are an arch BS'er. This proves my point.
That does not work for two reasons. 1) As I explained to you a few posts back John identifies the Logos as Jesus. 2) The Logos was present and involved in creation.The point is that the Logos was not manifested except through what was created.
Then you admit he was different from other men.Jesus himself as a man was manifested through human birth. As such he was no different to any other man, excepting his personal identity comprising what came from above.
I didn't say they had "an identical 'form of God'", so why are you acting as though I have?To assimilate the two as having an identical "form of God" is rank perversity, even if Jesus possessed the divine nature.
Again, I never said he was.The Logos on earth was not in the same form as the Logos in heaven (cf. Phil 2:6,7).
That's not supportable from scripture. God has taken many different forms in the Bible."Form" is intrinsic to deity:
It's interesting that you would choose as your minimum similar phrasing to what Jesus was said to have taken on earth in Col. 2:9. It seems like such an obviously foolish play given Paul's explicit teaching about the Christ in Col. 1.the state/rank of being God demands as a minumum the "fullness of deity living in bodily form".
Jesus was called God while on earth. This assumption is flawed.This is only possible in heaven.
You are in dangerous water presuming to know what the Holy Spirit is and is not able to do.On earth it could only be by the instrument of the Holy Spirit, who was not able to make Jesus omniscient, despite the claims of your sidekick "Fred."
You've just contradicted yourself. Besides "O theos" is used of Jesus as you well know."O Theos" does not "properly" describe anyone in the form of a man: see John 10:34-36 for what "theos" can mean under the OT convention when applied to human beings (it denotes they have the "Word of God").
What is NB? And I never said the "Word of God" is synonymous with "God the person." Why is following my remarks so difficult for you?NB: no man was ever called "YHWH" in the OT. Theos in the NT seems to be an amalgamation of YHWH and Elohim. For this reason, we have dispensed with "theos" in relation to human beings.
Word of God isn't synonymous with "God the person" (see Jn 1:1b & c).
I fully accept Jesus's remarks in 10:34-36. I also recognize the fact that what he said might be true in both the limited manner by which he justified himself against the charge of blasphemy as well as in a full sense that he kept hidden from the Jews because it was clearly more than they would've accepted and that revealing that truth would've hindered his purpose. And, since the latter idea is only speculation, it is important to reiterate that even if Jesus is saying that he was only a man, this is not problematic since he was clearly more than a man before his incarnation and after his ascension per the testimony of both John and Thomas.The fact that you can't accept John 10:34-36 into your religious schema suggests your overall grasp of the NT is one dimensional. Actually, I'm getting rather tired of debating one-dimensional theologians. I have other things to do.
I'm not sowing confusion by recognizing that John called Jesus theos. I'm confirming what he wrote. You want me to stop because you don't accept what John wrote.Exactly so. So why not stick to the Johannine distinction of titles, rather than sow confusion by dispensing with them?
What you should've done was confirm that what I said was true and apologize to me.Well, I think on that point, I am entitled to construe you as not worth the time of day.
I'm sure that's true to some degree, but it's something that I strive to be free of. However, this observation does not change the fact that it is you who has said things that aren't true, resorted to euphemistic profanity, and engaged in name calling. You've seem to have forgotten about the beam in your eye.As TRJM said, you are conceited. Conceit is of satan.
No, I'm right: "Jesus" only appears as the Son of God in verse 10, and is further identified in verse 14, as the "one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."You're wrong. John 1 plainly teaches that Jesus was involved in creation. John 20:28 reinforces what he taught earlier.
As far as I know, Jesus performed no creative act whilst on this planet (discounting the miracles).
Jesus refers to a man in the flesh: 1 John 4:2 "Every spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God."
You assert contrariwise that "Jesus" refers to one not in the flesh. I am entitled to discredit your teaching as eisegesis. The name "Jesus" was first given to a man in the flesh. Before this event, there was no-one named "Jesus," either in heaven or in earth (even if the Word became Jesus).
You are spreading confusion and gnosticism in every post. If you had any integrity, you would study how many times John calls Jesus the "son of God" and how many times Jesus (and John) refer to his Father as "God," and learn that this consistency in terminology which is common to Paul, John an Jesus is a core feature of both the Johannine and Pauline epistles. Any attempt to subvert it entails a heretical enterprise.I'm not sowing confusion by recognizing that John called Jesus theos.
Whilst it is true that the risen Jesus possesses the deific attributes of the Father, from the Father, we do not confound the Father with the Son by misusing and abusing the term "God" gratuitously, as you do, and as countless heretics have done in the past.
John Milton
Well-known member
You are hopelessly wrong. I just explained to you that Greek Grammar does not allow you to separate the identity of the Logos from the identity of Jesus. They both refer to the same entity.No, I'm right: "Jesus" only appears as the Son of God in verse 10, and is further identified in verse 14, as the "one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."
As far as I know, Jesus performed no creative act whilst on this planet (discounting the miracles).
And the entity that we call Jesus is the same entity that we call the Logos.Jesus refers to a man in the flesh: 1 John 4:2 "Every spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God."
I never asserted that "Jesus" does not refer to one in the flesh, but it certainly doesn't refer to one in the flesh exclusively. What I have said and what I have proven is that "Logos" and "Jesus" are two ways that a single entity is identified in John's gospel. Whether you call him "Jesus" or "the Word" or "the Logos" or "The Son of God" or "μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός" or "the Lord"...It does not matter. They are all different ways to refer to the same entity.You assert contrariwise that "Jesus" refers to one not in the flesh. I am entitled to discredit your teaching as eisegesis.
This does not have any significance whatsoever.The name "Jesus" was first given to a man in the flesh.
And this is just another assertion about things you can't possibly know. (Which is likewise of no significance.)Before this event, there was no-one named "Jesus," either in heaven or in earth.