In article <073.17.13.05.164831000@srcbs.org>, basicallyblues says...
>
>
>
>>No, what is evident is that you do not understand Hebrew.
>
>Obviously I understand it better than you

No, that is not 'obvious' at all. After all, you deny the perpetual Qere. So how
could you understand Hebrew?

>>Rather, as I'm sure your rote teachers have indoctrinated you against
>
>I don't think my teachers- the holy spirit and the Bible- are "rote"
>perhaps your cultic references would say so

It was not the Holy Spirit who taught you to deny the Divinity of Christ.

>>the anarthrous denotes essence.
>
>Certain scholars have pointed out that anarthrous predicate nouns that
>precede the verb in Greek may have a qualitative significance.

MAY, a key word here: MAY.

> That is,
>they may describe the nature or status of the subject.

Again, MAY. And not all agree with them.

> Thus some
>translators render John 1:1: "The Logos was divine," (Moffatt);
>"the Word was divine," (Goodspeed); "the nature of the Word was
>the same as the nature of God," (Barclay); "the Word was with God
>and shared his nature," (The Translator's New Testament).

All neo-Arian translations.

>Does being "divine" or godlike mean that Jesus Christ is himself
>almighty and coeternal with God the Father?

Yes.

>It is true that trinitarians attach special significance to the divine
>status of Jesus. They even employ a special non-Biblical Greek term,
>homoousios ("of one substance," or "of one essence"), in this
>regard.

Yes, 'homoousios' is non-biblical. But so what? It became _necessary_ to use
this new, non-biblical word when shameless equivocators -- like your teachers --
insisted on re-interpreting the Biblical words in a way _clearly_ contrary to
the Biblical meaning. For this is _exactly_ what the hypocrites did with the
Biblical word 'homoiousios'.

> The New Catholic Encyclopedia explains under the heading
>"Consubstantiality," which is an English rendering of homoousios:
>"The consubstantiality defined by [the Council] Nicaea I [325 C.E.],
>then, . . . affirms essentially that the Son is equal to the Father, as
>divine as the Father, being from His substance and of the same
>substance with Him; it follows necessarily that the Son cannot belong
>to the created . . . Because of the absolute unicity, unity, and
>simplicity of God, the identity of the substance is not merely specific
>[as in the case of humans having human nature in common] but absolute,
>or numerical."

And right they were.

>Where, though, in the Scriptures does one encounter such reasoning?

In many places. John 1:1, 5:23, Titus 2:13...

> The
>answer is simple: Nowhere.

A wrong answer