John 20:28 and the Trinity
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
Greetings again Apple7,
Kind regards
Trevor
Jesus is Divine as He is the Son of God. There is One God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. We have considered Psalm 110:1, Philippians 2:1-11 and many passages on other occasions. I mainly joined this thread to briefly draw attention to your erroneous exposition of Psalm 8:5, not to go over all your treatment of the various passages that you "use" in support of your favourite subject, as witnessed by your avatar.
Kind regards
Trevor
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Please stop lying to us, and please stop stonewalling against the questions I've asked you.
Has Satan ever blinded people's minds? Yes or No?
Did Satan stop blinding people's minds? Yes or No?
If Satan stopped blinding people's minds, when did he stop, and why did he stop?
Does Satan blind people's minds nowadays? Whose?
If Satan blinds people's minds, against what truth(s) does Satan blind people's minds?
Has Jesus ever blinded people's minds? Yes or No?
Does Jesus blind people's minds nowadays? Yes or No?
If Jesus blinds people's minds, whose minds does He blind?
If Jesus blinds people's minds, why does Jesus blind people's minds?
If Jesus blinds people's minds, against what truth(s) does Jesus blind people's minds?
If Jesus blinds people's minds against a certain truth(s), why does He do it?
Copy/pasting Greek text which, for all we know, you cannot even read, and pretentiously chanting meaningless slogans like "exegesis" and "Context is always king", as you do, does not answer these questions. Go ahead--keep on trying to divert attention away from the questions you have not answered, and cannot answer. Your pretense to expertise with Greek is useless, insofar as you are incapable of thinking, or refuse to think, systematically. When you can't harmonize together the things which you affirm, nor harmonize them with Scripture, knowledge of Greek is not worth a dime. It's a-ok by me, though, if you'd like to keep stonewalling against the questions I've asked you (although, you and I both know very well that you hate the fact that you are driven to do so); I can keep asking you them as often as you stonewall against them.
You haven't even, so far as I can tell, disclosed whence you lifted the idea that Paul was referring to Jesus, rather than to Satan, as "the god of this world". But, you did say that the truth that Paul was referring to Satan, rather than to Jesus, as "the god of this world" is a "popular modern belief":
Now, you are you saying that it is popular, and modern, because Jean Calvin, in the 16th century, affirmed it in his commentary on 2 Corinthians? Is Calvin modern to you? John Wesley, in the 18th century, in his sermon called On Satan's Devices, referred to Satan as "the god of this world". Is Wesley modern to you? What about Origen, who died in the 3rd century? In his commentary on Matthew, Origen spoke of "him who is deified by the sons of this world"--clearly NOT Jesus--referring to this personage as "the god of this world". Do you consider Origen modern? I've already, in another post, asked you the time period you were referring to as "modern", but, so far, you've not answered that question, either. At any rate, those guys, at least, opposed your claim.
So, if you, yourself, in the late 20th/early 21st century, have invented the idea that you've been claiming, viz., that Paul referred to Jesus, rather than to Satan, as "the god of this world", then you're making a spectacle of yourself in disparaging, as "modern", the truth that Paul was referring to Satan, rather than to Jesus, as "the god of this world", since that truth has had weighty exponents for at least 1,800 years. And, those guys were actual Greek scholars--not computer keyboard forum champions, like you. But, I don't really think that you could have invented the idea that you've been poorly championing, because I don't take you for a powerful, original thinker. You claimed that you came up with it by "simple exegesis":
Which, of course, is garbage.
1. You didn't arrive at it by means of exegesis,
2. You made up some nonsense, calling the nonsense you made up "exegesis".
I don't even accuse you of arriving at it by means of eisegesis. Whoever did invent it did, of course, invent it by means of eisegesis. But it wasn't you. You just read it somewhere, seized on it, and started trying to beat others over the head with it, so as to say, essentially, "Hey, look at me, everybody! I'm smarter than you all, because I don't subscribe to your modern popular belief, and I can copy/paste snippets of Greek text and pretentiously use fancy slogans!"
So, go ahead and tell us in what author(s) you found the idea.
Last edited:
Apple7
New member
Apple7
New member
No.
He never started, to begin with.
Yes.
As God, Jesus blinds per His good pleasure.
Apple7
New member
Copy/pasting Greek text which, for all we know, you cannot even read, and pretentiously chanting meaningless slogans like "exegesis" and "Context is always king", as you do, does not answer these questions. Go ahead--keep on trying to divert attention away from the questions you have not answered, and cannot answer. Your pretense to expertise with Greek is useless, insofar as you are incapable of thinking, or refuse to think, systematically. When you can't harmonize together the things which you affirm, nor harmonize them with Scripture, knowledge of Greek is not worth a dime. It's a-ok by me, though, if you'd like to keep stonewalling against the questions I've asked you (although, you and I both know very well that you hate the fact that you are driven to do so); I can keep asking you them as often as you stonewall against them.
In the time that you've spent whining and moaning about why you can't be bothered with the study of the original languages, you could have actually been learning about what you are lambasting.
Apple7
New member
I've shown plenty of exegesis, even in this thread.
Address that, if you can....good luck...
Please show the exegetical reasoning of each and every person that you mentioned....as we know that you, yourself, most assuredly cannot.
Waiting...
Rosenritter
New member
Do you believe the cosmos pre-existed God? Or was it made? Because he that we call Jesus made all things that were made. This isn't difficult math here. Yes, Jesus created the cosmos, the same cosmos described in Genesis 1:1 and repeated in John 1:3.
John 1:1-3 KJV
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Genesis 1:1 KJV
(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
It's a very simple statement and made very easy to understand on purpose. Perhaps you could explain to us how John could have gotten this so wrong, in your opinion?
You should tell the apostle John so that he can correct his gospel where he told us that the Word that became flesh created all things that were ever created.
Please explain how this is supposed to contradict? My hand is the servant of my body, but my hand is not apart from my body. John assures us that Jesus is the same as Jehovah, but you seem to have a very emotional resistance against this simple equation.
"I am the first and the last" is a VERY direct statement.
Considering that you are in stark denial of Jesus identifying himself (four times) as "the first and the last" as being a "direct statement" I don't think you have room to cast aspersions on others of brainwashing.
Isaiah 44:6 KJV
(6) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Revelation 1:17-18 KJV
(17) And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
(18) I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Apparently you think it is subtraction. Because, you SUBTRACTED the context! There are VERY specific limitations on that "all things";
Col 1:15-18 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
1) So, Jesus is the IMAGE of God ... not God. No one is an "image" of themselves!
2) Jesus is the "firstborn of every creature" .... which includes Jesus as a "creature" .... and "creature"=something created... Jesus was created.
3) The "all things" mentioned in verse 16, is modified by several statements; things that ARE (currently) in heaven, and that ARE (currently) in earth, visible and invisible ..... WHETHER THEY BE THRONES, OR DOMINIONS, OR PRINCIPALITIES, OR POWERS. THIS is the context! Paul and his audience already KNEW Jehovah/YHVH God is the creator of the universe, and Jesus is the Creators "holy servant/child".
Nope. Both of those references discuss Jehovah\YHVH God speaking (LOGOS) the universe into existenceRosenritter said:
Both of these are Jehovah/YHVH God ..... NOT Jesus.Rosenritter said:
John didn't get it wrong ... early trinitarians got John's statements wrong, and over the last 18 centuries the error has compounded.Rosenritter said:
The contradiction is obvious. You are merely pretending not to see it ..... kind of the opposite of "the Emperor's new cloths".Rosenritter said:
In a sense this is true .... but the REST of the Scriptural information about the "Jehovah/His servant" renders your attempt to explain this away irrelevant.Rosenritter said:
Isa 42:1-8 Behold, My servant, whom I uphold; My chosen, in whom My soul delighteth: I have put My spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the Gentiles.
2 He will not cry, nor lift up his voice, nor cause it to be heard in the street.
3 A bruised reed will he not break, and a dimly burning wick will he not quench: he will bring forth justice in truth.
4 He will not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set justice in the earth; and the isles shall wait for his law.
5 Thus saith God Jehovah, He that created the heavens, and stretched them forth; He that spread abroad the earth and that which cometh out of it; He that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
6 I, Jehovah, have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thy hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
7 to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house.
8 I am Jehovah, that is My name; and My glory will I not give to another, neither My praise unto graven images.
Acts 4:24-30 And they, when they heard it, lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, O Lord, thou that didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that in them is:
25 who by the holy spirit, (by) the mouth of our father David thy servant, didst say, Why did the Gentiles rage, And the peoples imagine vain things?
26 The kings of the earth set themselves in array, And the rulers were gathered together, Against the Lord, and against His Anointed:
27 for of a truth in this city against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together,
28 to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy council foreordained to come to pass.
29 And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants to speak thy word with all boldness,
30 while Thy stretchest forth Thy hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Thy holy servant Jesus.
This language is NOT a body talking to it's hand!!
More I have a Biblical reseistance to your distortions of what John assured us. NEVER does John assure us that Jesus is the same as Jehovah. Nor does Jesus EVER claim to be Jehovah, in fact Jesus emphatically denies that HE is the source of the words (LOGOS) he spoke, but Jehovah emphatically declares that Jehovah Himself gave Jesus the words (LOGOS) which Jesus spoke.Rosenritter said:
Jesus CANNOT be the source of those words ..... and NOT the source of those words.
I realize you have no problem distorting even this obvious, simple, clear proof. But, I am hopeful that some of the readers here have better judgement.
No, it's not. It's a very vague statement. How Jehovah/YHVH God is first and last is very obvious, but one must examine the rest of Scripture, to see how Jesus is "the first and the last".Rosenritter said:
Jesus is the first prophet of the New Testament, and the last prophet "under the Law".
Jesus is the first human given immortality, and the "last man Adam".
The trinitarian doctrine, which had it's seeds in the 2nd century, and reached it's final state in the end of the 4th century, has been hotly debated for about 18 centuries now. The prominence of the doctrine is to some degree the result of violence, or the threat of violence, against those that wouldn't accept it. The historical descriptions of the victims of Church violence frequently list those who rejected the trinity.
There are honest trinitarians who will reluctantly admit that their doctrine is NOT actually stated in the Bible. Here is just one example, taken from "Unger's Bible Dictionary".... which you can see is firmly trinitarian in bias, but is honest enough to admit the obvious;
TRINITY
TRINITY. The term by which is expressed the unity of three Persons in the one God. The Christian doctrine is: (1) That there is only one God, one divine nature and being. (2) This one divine Being is tripersonal, involving the distinctions of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (3) These three are joint partakers of the same nature and majesty of God. This doctrine is preeminently one of revelation. And although it brings before us one of the great mysteries of revelation and transcends finite comprehension, it is essential to the understanding of the Scriptures, and, as we shall see, has its great value and uses.
Scripture Doctrine. Although the doctrine of the Trinity is implicit rather than explicit in the OT, at the same time it is properly held that with the accompanying light of the NT this truth can be found in the OT (e.g., Num 6:24-26; Isa 6:3; 63:9-10, the sanctity of the symbolical number three-the plural form of Elohim, also places in which the Deity is spoken of as conversing with Himself). This is in accord with the gradual development of revealed truth in other particulars. The religion of the OT is emphatically monotheistic. The almost exclusive proclamation of the unity of God was essential as a safeguard against polytheism.
The NT teaching upon this subject is not given in the way of formal statement. The formal statement, however, is legitimately and necessarily deduced from the Scriptures of the NT, and these, as has been suggested, cast a light backward upon the intimations of the OT.
There are honest trinitarians who will reluctantly admit that their doctrine is NOT actually stated in the Bible. Here is just one example, taken from "Unger's Bible Dictionary".... which you can see is firmly trinitarian in bias, but is honest enough to admit the obvious;
TRINITY
TRINITY. The term by which is expressed the unity of three Persons in the one God. The Christian doctrine is: (1) That there is only one God, one divine nature and being. (2) This one divine Being is tripersonal, involving the distinctions of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (3) These three are joint partakers of the same nature and majesty of God. This doctrine is preeminently one of revelation. And although it brings before us one of the great mysteries of revelation and transcends finite comprehension, it is essential to the understanding of the Scriptures, and, as we shall see, has its great value and uses.
Scripture Doctrine. Although the doctrine of the Trinity is implicit rather than explicit in the OT, at the same time it is properly held that with the accompanying light of the NT this truth can be found in the OT (e.g., Num 6:24-26; Isa 6:3; 63:9-10, the sanctity of the symbolical number three-the plural form of Elohim, also places in which the Deity is spoken of as conversing with Himself). This is in accord with the gradual development of revealed truth in other particulars. The religion of the OT is emphatically monotheistic. The almost exclusive proclamation of the unity of God was essential as a safeguard against polytheism.
The NT teaching upon this subject is not given in the way of formal statement. The formal statement, however, is legitimately and necessarily deduced from the Scriptures of the NT, and these, as has been suggested, cast a light backward upon the intimations of the OT.
Greetings again Apple7,
A babe in the womb. What were you before you were conceived and born?
Kind regards
Trevor
Luke 1:30–35 (KJV): 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
A babe in the womb. What were you before you were conceived and born?
Kind regards
Trevor
Rosenritter
New member
I don't see what you think is a limitation there. It says he is before all things. That's the opposite of a limitation.
Really? I am the image of myself. This here, this Rosenritter profile that is speaking to you? Whose image do you think that is of?
No, it doesn't say he is a creature, it says he is the CREATOR of the creatures. Even if you were going to add to the text in that way, you should take care not to do so in a way that contradicts the same passage.
In the biblical context the firstborn has rank and special significance, being that which comes before the others. Jesus inherits the throne of God which is a privilege belonging to no other.
So your argument is that it means the exact opposite of what it says because (allegedly) the audience already knew better? Seriously? Paul JUST SAID that Jesus created all things (and John affirms this meaning in the first chapter of his gospel) and you would have him contradict himself?
God can speak however he wants in the context of the Father and Son, Lamb and Bread metaphor that he chose to implement. Proverbs 25:2, "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing..." but it is foolishness to reject what God reveals in its time. Verse 5, above, that you quoted, did you notice that Jehovah created all things? So when PAUL and JOHN tell us that the Word and Jesus created all things, how is it that you can fail to put 2 and 2 together? God = Jehovah = the Word = Jesus.
It certainly is, when the role of the hand is to serve the body in a particular function. Don't get lost trying to make literal the metaphor, listen to the inspired gospel writers as they describe what Jesus did and who is actually is, or look to what Jesus says himself at the end of the book.
John 1:1 The Word was God.
You're trying to recycle an argument that GT isn't answering. It's his words.
Luke 9:26 KJV
(26) For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.
Now if I were to strike you with my fist, the striking certainly came from my fist. The source is not merely of the fist itself, the source is of my Greater self that is behind the fist. The first is still me, it's the servant of the greater self. Even that analogy still holds against your criticism.
Your supposed "proof" doesn't hold in the context. Jesus was refuting that he spoke for himself only, under their presumption that he was a "mere mortal" like you presume. God in the flesh is the prophet of God, as being such will always speak for God. The words are not of themselves only (not of a mortal) but of the Father (of God.) If you would attempt objectivity you might realize why your proof is not a proof.
And besides this, all of your "squint the eyes and lean sideways" one-sided interpretation proofs fall flat when Jesus flatly identifies himself as the LORD in Revelation. Regardless of what confusion might have reigned before, you should listen to him when he sets the record straight.
Jesus is the "first and the last" because that's a specific title and reference. Search the scriptures, for they speak of him, he says.
Can you seriously read Revelation and tell me (with a straight face) that Jesus is laying his hand on John in the vision and saying "I am the first and the last prophet of the New Testament?" Because he's not. John the Baptist was the first prophet of the New Testament. John the apostle is the last prophet under the New Testament.
... or are you that desperate that you're willing to invoke the "incomplete sentence" maneuver like with "My Lord and my God?" "The first and the last" is a title of God well established in Isaiah. It isn't used by Jesus randomly for no reason. It's as well established as "The Almighty."
Oh, but wait. He identified himself as the Almighty too.
Revelation 1:8 KJV
(8) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Revelation 1:11-12 KJV
(11) Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
(12) And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
Revelation 1:17-18 KJV
(17) And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
(18) I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Do you have a like argument to neutralize the title "the Almighty" as well? Maybe "sorta mighty" just like "not really the first and the last but only within a scope that I'm inventing right now as I type?"
And yes, it means "GOD."
Revelation 21:6-7 KJV
(6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
(7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
So here's what I don't understand: Why do you fight against this so? Are you of a church background that teaches that they are special because they have a unique "special truth?" Are you trying to distance yourself from bad (or cringeworthy) Trinity arguments? Do you need God to be something so foreign and distant that you will not accept him manifest in the flesh? You're having to argue against so much scripture at every turn and shout "bad translation" or "Trinity bias" (???) or "brainwashing" and it's all over the place...
Apple7
New member
Being 'born' does NOT mean being 'created'.
There is not a single incarnation verb employed with the Second Person of The Trinity which even remotely invokes the idea of being 'created'.
Jesus was THE WORD, before He was The Son.
John 1.10 - 18
We know that the second person of the Trinity was in the world from the beginning - and He came to His own, but the majority did not know Him, as thus…
He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, yet the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.(Jer 8.9, etc) But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to the ones believing into His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God. And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten from the Father, full of grace and of truth. John witnesses concerning Him, and has cried out, saying, This One was He of whom I said, He coming after me has been before me, for He was preceding me. And out of His fullness we all received, and grace on top of grace. For the Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time; but the unique One, Himself God, who is in the bosom of the Father, that One declares Him. (John 1.10 – 18)
Scripture clearly informs the reader that the Word occupied flesh when He was in the world and that He was beheld as The Glory of God.
That the second person of the Trinity occupied flesh before being born of a woman and being referred to as God The Son, is made crystal clear by John’s proclamation that ‘He coming after me has been before me, for He was preceding me’. This is a full admission that The Son was manifest both before John’s time and after John’s time.
The Second Person of The Trinity has always been.
You can run...but you cannot hide, Trevor...
Greetings again Apple7,
John 1:18 (KJV): No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Matthew 1:20-21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (mg Gr: begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Kind regards
Trevor
When you were born, you were not created either. You partook of the result of your father and mother. Jesus had God the Father for his father and Mary for his mother Luke 1:34-35. I have only read a summary of this some time ago, but when the early church fathers were adopting Platoism, immortal souls and incarnation, there was serious discussion that all immortal souls pre-existed. I am not sure of your position on this, as to when you received your immortal soul, or if you agree with the Mormons. But evidently the councils agreed to drop the pre-existence of all souls except in the case of Jesus.
It flows the other way. The WORD was made flesh. Jesus is the name of the child born Matthew 1:20-21.
Trinitarians in effect deny the begettal and revert to a faulty manuscript obviously altered to remove the term "begotten" and the NIV uses this manuscript, and is extremely biased here, and also in effect removes it from John 3:16. The KJV draws attention to the begettal, where God is the father and Mary the mother:
John 1:18 (KJV): No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Matthew 1:20-21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (mg Gr: begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
When you seriously answer the above we can look at the other references, but we are repeating our previous discussions.
Kind regards
Trevor
excuse me for butting in.
why do you get so offended to be categorized in those group? It is so strange that too many mainstreamers hate being categorized as trinitarians.
Rosenritter
New member
Do you really have to ask why someone would object to being mis-categorized (and prejudged against) as a substitute for fair review of the merits of belief?
I am not Trinitarian, I have never claimed "Trinity" as a description or authority, and when you keep calling me "Trinitarian" it shows that you either don't know or don't care to know what you're talking about. And if you don't care to know what we're talking about then what is the point?
You should care less about arguing against "Trinity" and more about establishing what scripture lays out first. If you reject something just because Trinity teaches it that that is just as bad as those that accept something just because Trinity teaches it.
whatever, good day.
Rosenritter
New member
Ah, "if you don't care to know what we're talking about then what is the point" seems to be applicable here.
Ok, good day.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Oh, I actually have studied Greek a little, here and there, over the years. I like it, and perhaps I'll get a little further in it as the years go by. Perhaps not. It's not my number one priority, by any means, nor am I the least bit obligated to make it so. I'm far more driven toward studying logic, and toward sounding out people's claims against their other claims (as well as against Scripture) to find out whether they are coherent. If somebody comes along and claims things that seem fishy to me, like that which you seem to have made a career out of claiming, you'd better believe I'm going to go all Columbo on them. When you, in the first place, can't make your affirmations harmonize amongst themselves, nor with Scripture, in the vernacular, whatever Greek you have (or pretend to have?) is not going to do an iota of service for you.
Further, again, I say, it's not the least bit clear to me that you have any expertise with Greek; not saying you don't, of course. Perhaps you do. It's just that, in all your posts, the best you've achieved with all your copy/pasting of Greek text is to create a general awareness among forum readers that you're a guy who really enjoys copy/pasting Greek text in forums. But, I get the message you're sending out, loud and clear, and my response to you is, Master, we're not worthy! we're not worthy!