I wrote:

> In verse 4 there is an anarthrous predicate noun at the beginning of
the
> sentence ("murderer")

Bob Felts wrote:

>It isn't the beginning of the sentence.

Yes, my bad. That doesn't change the fact we have an anarthrous
predicate noun preceding the verb and subject just like in John 1:1

And neither is "god was the Word" at John 1:1 the "beginning of the
sentence" it is part of 1:1a. "In the beginning was the Word and the
Word was with God, and the Word was a god"

> as
>well as the monotheistic Jewish culture. No observant non-Trinitarian
>Jew would ever say that Jesus is "a god", unless they said that He was
>"a false god."

That is incorrect. I quote Jesus:

John 10:34-36 "Jesus answered them: "Is it not written in your Law,
'I said: "You are gods"'? If he called 'gods' those
against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be
nullified, do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched
into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, I am God's Son?"

a quote from Psalms 82:1,6. The Jews understood the semantic range of
"God" in Hebrew and Greek. It is English that is more stringent.
Faithful Jews believed in the existance other "gods" or "mighty ones"
but worshipped only one "true God" (John 17:3).

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

I've totally missed your point.

Are you attempting sarcasm?

If so, what does this have to do with the statements in my original
post? Are you trying to illustrate, through sarcasm, that you believe
that we must hold to our interpretations of scripture even when our
experience speaks otherwise, lest we have an open door to interpret
scripture in any way way we please?


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

Sorry a typo below.
"Gary McNees" wrote in message
news:140.35.10.05.042549000@srcbs.org...
>
>
>
> "Bart Goddard" wrote in message
> news:139.59.11.05.907135000@srcbs.org...
> >
> >
> > gkmcnees@comcast.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I still do not agree. On the one hand some Calvinists state the
> > > man is RESPONSIBLE for his actions, but on the other hand,
> > > they also believe that God causes all his actions.
> >
> > This is not a logical contradiction. You're using an
> > axiom which says "A being can responsible only if he has
> > freedom." I don't agree that the axiom is a good one.
> > I can't think of any reason why it ought to be true,