Your previous talking points don't really mean anything now. So provided all of the evidence from the Greek grammar, 1John1:1-3, the Word not being a person in the Old Testament, the anarthrous predicate nominative in John 1:1, and the Word never being God anywhere in the Bible, then there aren't any good reasons to believe your version of John 1:1.
Haha. If I see what anarthrous predicate nominative indicates here, then proper Greek grammar and translation causes all scholars to be wrong? So really? that is your hail mary?
You have provided nothing new and shown no effort to correct your errors. I have pointed out the basic interpretation errors you have reflected in your responses. Learn them.
you wish the world conformed to your imagination of opponents of illogical interpretations. I do not fit your imagined weak opponent. And now you complain that people do not say the pre-existent One called the Word became incarnate as Christ.
I do not respond the same way as others because I am not a clone. You wish to make everyone into some blind adherent to the testimony of scripture about the deity of Christ. I understand that is what you started with but then you did not seek deeper understanding of the deity of Christ.
Yes, there being an anarthous predicate nominative in John 1:1 is proof it the Word isn't a person or God. Let's try this again if you want to add any weight behind the trinitarian perspective. Care you show an example in the Bible where anyone repeated the Word is God?
oh my. Does everyone after to start with a response to Philo's logos and that of the Greek Philosophers? Nooooo. Your question is therefore nonsensical.
No errors on my part. I have provided you the instruction, you've rejected it. Not surprised. Just another year of you playing defense to protect your idol I see.
Doesn't say the Word is God, doesn't say it's Jesus. Try again. Show me something clear and explicit.
I see that if you cannot control the language and force answers that are silly, like Alter2Ego, you get uppity and think you have won an argument.
Nothing about Jesus is ever clear and explicit to you. You just reject it all. If you had an argument against the deity of God, you would have convinced people to your doctrine already. There are plenty of smart people who encounter your arguments.
I think you have sensed I have won and you're playing evasion as that point. So far your responses have mainly been "you're in error" and miscellaneous denials. You won't even engage my question about the Greek grammar rule in John 1:1 that requires that Word be qualitative, not personal.
Instead of directing your focus to find a clear teaching about the Word being God to supplement your points, you look at me as if it's my fault that you cannot find anything. Look at the Bible, look at yourself, stop blaming others for the weaknesses in your religion.
I trust your senses as much as I trust your Greek grammar. Then you fail to remember the discussion already done today on John 1:1, so I must question your memory.
Now you deny the whole religion -- the teachings of Christ and Paul. That is the problem of unitarianism -- it changes meaning of scriptures and gets horrible doctrines from their efforts.
You're just leaning on your programming more than any sort of scholarly analysis of John 1:1 and the supporting points that disprove the Word is God. Your theology about God is fallible. When you're ready to actually engage the grammar of John 1:1 and what this means for your version of God then I will be all eager to work with you.
you keep pushing a grammar phrase that speaks against your view. That is your new fad to push your misconceptions. I also showed how you misconceived the verses that have "godly" in the English translation as being an adjectival use of theos in the Greek. Again, your grammar application was wrong.
