ECT Our triune God

[Lazy afternoon]

Jesus is a man born from the human race through Mary , fathered by God who is Jesus Father.

not God's fellow creator God or being His own Father, nor returning to what He was before He was born, because He was only thought of in the heart of His Father the only true God.

Jesus is not a third part of any RCC trinity for His Father is greater than He is, and Jesus is the first born of a whole new creation of people.

Few people know Jesus, and their words testify to that fact.

LA

 

[Lon]

Jesus is a man born from the human race through Mary , fathered by God who is Jesus Father.

not God's fellow creator God or being His own Father, nor returning to what He was before He was born, because He was only thought of in the heart of His Father the only true God.

Jesus is not a third part of any RCC trinity for His Father is greater than He is, and Jesus is the first born of a whole new creation of people.

Few people know Jesus, and their words testify to that fact.

LA

Jesus died on the cross for just a couple of you then, you suppose? He must really love the 10 or so of you a LOT!

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Jesus died on the cross for just a couple of you then, you suppose? He must really love the 10 or so of you a LOT!

Yes, He does.

We honor the Father by believing the record that He gave of His son.

LA

 

[Omniskeptical]

No, despite what you think, it is equivalent in English: "My Lord and my God" vs your "My Lord and God." One less mou does nothing for you.

One less KAI would do something for your argument, but it is a lame one indeed.

You are making it up as you are going along and going against not just me, but men who really know this stuff better.

And I told you that there be no choice but to use a passive verb or an active plural verb to complete the sentence. You can't use an active singular.

You can't dismiss this work...

I can dismiss any pile of self-serving rubbish.

English works rather well for word for word translation from Greek.

Then try translating a greek participle noun in all of its cases singular and plural. English compared to greek, despite all of its strengths, has a much smaller number of inflections. I also have a problem with scholarship which assumes Greek is like English, of which it is wholly not.

 

[Lon]

I also have a problem with scholarship which assumes Greek is like English, of which it is wholly not.

Subject, verb, exclamations... Yeah, nothing alike.... h brother:
I'm on page that they are different as well.

One less KAI would do something for your argument, but it is a lame one indeed.

And I told you that there be no choice but to use a passive verb or an active plural verb to complete the sentence. You can't use an active singular.

I can dismiss any pile of self-serving rubbish.

Then try translating a greek participle noun in all of its cases singular and plural. English compared to greek, despite all of its strengths, has a much smaller number of inflections.

You aren't skeptical, you are a conspiracy theorist with no credibility. We all laugh at you and your "aliens abducted me" theology. Nuff said. Next....

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Subject, verb, exclamations... Yeah, nothing alike.... h brother:
I'm on page that they are different as well.

You aren't skeptical, you are a conspiracy theorist with no credibility. We all laugh at you and your "aliens abducted me" theology. Nuff said. Next....

You can almost never give decent answers from scripture when you spent your money on learning theology???

LA

 

[Lon]

You can never give decent answers from scripture when you spent your money on learning theology???

LA

"Never?" Are you being honest or wishful here? Do you read the scriptures in the same poor manner you read and accuse those like me on TOL (we are already answering that question, your answer has to sync)? No, I've spoken about this (and others have as well) 3 times now. The last was a quote from a man who knows his Greek. So, are you being less than honest or arian, or are they both the same thing?

(the gist for the Lazy and/or false accusation):

Even where the nominative is still formally distinguished from the vocative, there is still a tendency for the nominative to usurp the place of the vocative (a tendency observable already in Homer)....Attic used the nominative (with article) with simple substantives only in addressing inferiors...The NT (in passages translated from a Semitic language) and the LXX do not conform to these limitations, but can even say ho theos, ho patêr, etc., in which the arthrous Semitic vocative is being reproduced by the Greek nominative with article....Jn 20:28 (cf., Rev 4:11) (BDF, pp. 81-82). About sixty times in the New Testament a nominative case noun is used to designate the person being addressed. The nominative functions like a vocative....The nominative of address is usually preceded by an article (Young, p. 12). -For an Answer
​

 

[Omniskeptical]

Subject, verb, exclamations... Yeah, nothing alike.... h brother:
I'm on page that they are different as well.

You aren't skeptical, you are a conspiracy theorist with no credibility.

A self-deluded conspiracy is a conspiracy nonetheless.

We all laugh at you and your "aliens abducted me" theology. Nuff said. Next....

Feigning ignorance now?

 

[Lon]

A self-deluded conspiracy is a conspiracy nonetheless.

You realize this backfired on you? Such a statement "nonetheless" essentially agrees with my post :doh:

Are you sure you even know English well enough to be in this debate?

Feigning ignorance now?

If you were really the Greek scholar you purport to be, there is no way you'd be unit-arian. You are trying to make up your own Greek rules as you go along and I highly suspect your caliber to do so. I know I certainly cannot do that.

 

[Omniskeptical]

If you were really the Greek scholar you purport to be, there is no way you'd be unit-arian. You are trying to make up your own Greek rules as you go along and I highly suspect your caliber to do so. I know I certainly cannot do that.

I don't make up any new rules, except I don't believe definite articles and neuters exist in Greek. This is unusual, but considering how the article means nothing except something which could be rendered either way; I am [more] consistent than a syntactical guide on the subject.

 

[godrulz]

I don't make up any new rules, except I don't believe definite articles and neuters exist in Greek. This is unusual, but considering how the article means nothing except something which could be rendered either way; I am for consistent than a syntactical guide on the subject.

the/ho is the definite article....perhaps you mean there is no indefinite....in Jn. 1:1, the anarthrous construction is qualitative and identifies the divine nature of the eternal Word (but does not identify Him as the person of the Father which would be different grammar and Sabellian error).

 

[Omniskeptical]

the/ho is the definite article....perhaps you mean there is no indefinite....in Jn. 1:1, the anarthrous construction is qualitative and identifies the divine nature of the eternal Word (but does not identify Him as the person of the Father which would be different grammar and Sabellian error).

There is no anarthrous or qualitative construction of the article in Greek. The is article on and article off. I honestly believe the greek article is an indefinite article.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

I honestly believe the greek article is an indefinite article.

:rotfl:

 

[godrulz]

There is no anarthrous or qualitative construction of the article in Greek. The is article on and article off. I honestly believe the greek article is an indefinite article.

Why is the Greek article translated 'the' in hundreds of places? It does not function exactly like English, but it is definite, not indefinite.

I did not say there is an anarthrous/qualitative function of the article, but I did say that Jn. 1:1c is anarthrous (without the definite article) and functions in a qualitative sense (it shows that the eternal Word is of the nature/quality of the Father, but not the person of the Father which would require 'the God was the Word'/Sabellian instead of what is there 'God was the Word'. In the other phrases, 'ho theos' identifies the person of the Father (but it is also used of the Son elsewhere, contrary to JW logic).

 

[Lon]

I don't make up any new rules, except I don't believe definite articles and neuters exist in Greek. This is unusual, but considering how the article means nothing except something which could be rendered either way; I am for consistent than a syntactical guide on the subject.

Which isn't good scholasticism. Context drives all language conveyance. In English you know this to be true: "Bad" can mean "cool" and not bad at all. We must know how authors themselves use language. John, for instance, used a lot of imagery when he was speaking of God/Jesus. He consistently uses Word, Light, and Truth for both interchangeably.

the/ho is the definite article....perhaps you mean there is no indefinite....in Jn. 1:1, the anarthrous construction is qualitative and identifies the divine nature of the eternal Word (but does not identify Him as the person of the Father which would be different grammar and Sabellian error).

Why is the Greek article translated 'the' in hundreds of places? It does not function exactly like English, but it is definite, not indefinite.

I did not say there is an anarthrous/qualitative function of the article, but I did say that Jn. 1:1c is anarthrous (without the definite article) and functions in a qualitative sense (it shows that the eternal Word is of the nature/quality of the Father, but not the person of the Father which would require 'the God was the Word'/Sabellian instead of what is there 'God was the Word'. In the other phrases, 'ho theos' identifies the person of the Father (but it is also used of the Son elsewhere, contrary to JW logic).

▲Agree with GR here. There are equivalents between Greek and English and other languages (even Modern Greek) as he rightly says here.▲

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Jesus is a man born from the human race through Mary , fathered by God who is Jesus Father.

not God's fellow creator God or being His own Father, nor returning to what He was before He was born, because He was only thought of in the heart of His Father the only true God.

Jesus is not a third part of any RCC trinity for His Father is greater than He is, and Jesus is the first born of a whole new creation of people.

Few people know Jesus, and their words testify to that fact.

LA

Keep up speaking the truth from the Bible.

This is absolutely right, good work.

LA

 

[Lon]

Jesus is a man born from the human race through Mary , fathered by God who is Jesus Father.

not God's fellow creator God or being His own Father, nor returning to what He was before He was born, because He was only thought of in the heart of His Father the only true God.

Jesus is not a third part of any RCC trinity for His Father is greater than He is, and Jesus is the first born of a whole new creation of people.

Few people know Jesus, and their words testify to that fact.

LA

Keep up speaking the truth from the Bible.

This is absolutely right, good work.

LA

:doh: This is neurotic.

Its another good reason to be a trinitarian: Unitarians are careless and neurotic.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

:doh: This is neurotic.

Its another good reason to be a trinitarian: Unitarians are careless and neurotic.

Just more evidence that you are the one who does all the bickering.

Most of your fellow trinitarians do not do that, at least they put forth scripture, but you argue with meaningless words having woven in insults like the thread you started about are unitarians perverted.

LA

 

[Lon]

Just more evidence that you are the one who does all the bickering.

Most of your fellow trinitarians do not do that, at least they put forth scripture, but you argue with meaningless words having woven in insults like the thread you started about are unitarians perverted.

LA

I don't get you at all LA. I really don't. You just don't make any kind of sense to me. This thread, in particular, is full of scriptures I've given. Granted there are a few of them I posted from others too, but I've agreed with them. I don't understand your lack of scripture comment here at all.

You quoted yourself and complimented yourself :doh:

Please, seriously, tell me how complimenting and quoting yourself isn't careless or neurotic. Tell me. If you make these kinds of mistakes, what keeps you from doing so with the scriptures? Why should I follow your advise? Why would you rely on your own prowess if you are so confused? Why wouldn't you go to someone who doesn't make these mistakes and get some corrective input? Because they are part of the majority and you don't like them? I honestly don't know why, I'm asking.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

I don't get you at all LA. I really don't. You just don't make any kind of sense to me. This thread, in particular, is full of scriptures I've given. Granted there are a few of them I posted from others too, but I've agreed with them. I don't understand your lack of scripture comment here at all.

You quoted yourself and complimented yourself :doh:

Please, seriously, tell me how complimenting and quoting yourself isn't careless or neurotic. Tell me. If you make these kinds of mistakes, what keeps you from doing so with the scriptures? Why should I follow your advise? Why would you rely on your own prowess if you are so confused? Why wouldn't you go to someone who doesn't make these mistakes and get some corrective input? Because they are part of the majority and you don't like them? I honestly don't know why, I'm asking.

You are not being honest, Lon.

LA