Well gentlemen, after waiting for you guys to attempt that little assignment and instead seen the excuses and endless stories you've used as cover-ups, let me oblige you some answers.

stimulus:

Which of these Greek terms between theos (θεος) and theon (θεον) were used in the following texts:

[list] John 3:16 John 8:41
John 14:1 John 3:17
John 21:19 John 3:21[/list]

These verses will help us see the huge gaps in Deedat's arguements!

The verses which use theon (θεον) in that list are:
John 8:41
John 14:1
John 21:19

while the verses which use theos (θεος) in that list are:
John 3:16
John 3:17

But what about John 3:21? Actually, there is another Greek term used for 'God' in that verse - Θεώ - and I have also used it earlier in the example of the statement: 'δόξα εν υψίστοις Θεώ ' ['glory be to God '].

John 3:21 reads as -

[table]
[tr][td]Greek[/td][td]English[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]ο δε ποιων την αληθειαν ερχεται προς το φως ινα φανερωθη αυτου τα εργα οτι εν θεω εστιν ειργασμενα[/td][td]But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.[/td][/tr][/table]

. . . and you can see the word 'θεω' in that verse is translated 'God' in English.

Now, it is remarkable that Deedat argues that  'theos' (θεος) could be implying "just any random diety" - which, of course, demonstrates that he never considered any other verse to see what the Greek term "theos" actually means. If 'theos' (θεος) implies just any random deity, then which of those 'random deities' was Jesus speaking about in John 3:16 when He said:

[table]
[tr][td]Greek[/td][td]English[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον ωστε τον υιον αυτου τον μονογενη εδωκεν ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον[/td][td]For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.[/td][/tr][/table]

Was Jesus referring to "just any random deity" when He declared that "God [θεòς - theos] so loved the world"? Notice that in John 3:16, the Greek term for God is 'θεòς' (theos), and we can see that Jesus was not referring to 'just any random deity' in that verse!

However, it is argued by Deedat that when 'theos' is written solely on its own, then it presents a problem as it may be referring to just about any deity (again citing babs787's plagiarized quote):

babs787:

The problem with that verse in Greek is that we see theos being written as just theos (god/diety) and not as o theos or ton theon, which are proper ways of saying God (or the god). . .

So the part which is written solely on its own as "theos", could be implying just any random diety, of course with ton theon written before in the sentence we automatically assume that we're still talking about the same God.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113535.0.html#msg1966760

In other words, what Deedat expected to have found all through the NT is for 'theos' to bear a definite article 'ho' (o) preceding the word before it could “properly” be read as "the God/god". Again, it's amazing that what Deedat was playing at was a huge laugh to confuse his audience and capitalize on their gullibility to believe his rants over the well-established rules of Greek grammar.

When Jesus proclaimed the veracity of the resurrection to the Jews in Mark 12, He mentioned the Greek term 'theos' twice in verse 27 - the first instance with the definite article 'ho', and the second time without the article:


[table]
[tr][td]Greek[/td][td]English - (LITV)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]ουκ εστιν ο θεος νεκρων αλλα θεος ζωντων υμεις ουν πολυ πλανασθε[/td][td]He is not the God of the dead, but God of the living. Therefore, you greatly err.[/td][/tr][/table]

Now, since it is clear that "theos" (θεος) appears in the second instance in that verse without the definite article 'ho', was Jesus referring to "just any random deity" when He referred to "God of the living"? Certainly not! But Deedat would rather have us read "just any random deity of the living" in Mark 12:27! How absurd!

Further, other Greek terms (such as θεου) also appear without the definite article in John’s Gospel; but no one in their right minds would argue long and hard to make such Greek terms translate as "just any random deity" (according to Deedat), for these terms without the definite article actually point to the same God who revealed Himself to the Biblical prophets! A few examples in the same Gospel of John will suffice to show this:

[list]John 1:6
[table]
[tr][td]Greek[/td][td]English[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]εγενετο ανθρωπος απεσταλμενος παρα θεου ονομα αυτω ιωαννης[/td][td]There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.[/td][/tr][/table]


John 1:12
[table]
[tr][td]Greek[/td][td]English[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]οσοι δε ελαβον αυτον εδωκεν αυτοις εξουσιαν τεκνα θεου γενεσθαι τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονομα αυτου[/td][td]But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name[/td][/tr][/table]


John 1:18
[table]
[tr][td]Greek[/td][td]English[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε ο μονογενης υιος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο[/td][td]No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.[/td][/tr][/table]


John 5:44
[table]
[tr][td]Greek[/td][td]English[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]πως δυνασθε υμεις πιστευσαι δοξαν παρα αλληλων λαμβανοντες και την δοξαν την παρα του μονου θεου ου ζητειτε[/td][td]How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?[/td][/tr][/table]


John 6:45
[table]
[tr][td]Greek[/td][td]English[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]εστιν γεγραμμενον εν τοις προφηταις και εσονται παντες διδακτοι θεου πας ουν ο ακουων παρα του πατρος και μαθων ερχεται προς με[/td][td]It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.[/td][/tr][/table]


John 9:33
[table]
[tr][td]Greek[/td][td]English[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]ει μη ην ουτος παρα θεου ουκ ηδυνατο ποιειν ουδεν[/td][td]If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.[/td][/tr][/table][/list]


There are so many such examples running through the NT (besides John's Gospel) that I could go on and list; but the examples above are to help us understand that those Greek terms could be written on their own without the definite articles (ο, η, του, τον) and still correctly be pointing to the very same God who revealed Himself to the Biblical prophets!

@Stimulus:

Greek English - (LITV)
ουκ εστιν ο θεος νεκρων αλλα θεος ζωντων υμεις ουν πολυ πλανασθε He is not the God of the dead, but God of the living. Therefore, you greatly err.

If you and the whole of Christendom believe that God is only the God of the living (physically or spiritually dead people) you would have short changed Him. For before those who are dead became dead, they were alive, once. And for those who were spiritually dead became spiritually dead, they must have been at one time not spiritually dead. For one can not be dead unless being alive at a point, in time before the death occured. B

But it is this same God who will judge everyone, those were spiritually dead and those who were spiritually alive. But judgement can not occur unless all are physically dead. But that is another issue that i am sure that you and me can disagree upon. But thats not my reason here. My reason here is to ask you, if your understanding is tht God is not the God of those who are dead, but those who are living, who then is the God of those who are dead (Spiritually dead means in one form or the other denial of God or propper worship of Him; And only He can give the precepts of how to worship Him)?

If that verse above is your bringing about God into trinity, then you have eliminated the dead people from under Trinity authority! You will now realise that all of these verses and incomplete arguments from you, are somehow and glearingly at that just do not do it for you.

Almighty Creator says in His Book that I am your Creator and all that you create.Afterall we need the elements which god created without example to creat whatever we create.

So when Jesus brought about the dead person, the person was already created, lived and died, and jesus only repeated a part of the existence of that persons total life. Yet and finally, the oerson died off again. I am sure that if raising people from death was part of the fukll control of jesus, all those whose people died prior to and after he performed that raising of the dead miracle, would have asked him to raise their people. Thats on one hand and they would have asked him to refuse dead from all of them, if not all mankind.

You see we would have had those people and all their descendants still alive today. What i am saying here and if you can attempt to argue against me on this is that, the way you continue to define God, from the Biblical pronouncement, using Greek or other language, does not do justice to the Majesty of the Most Majestic. To say the dead do es not belong to Him, is to plainly say that He did not creat them. Afterall, He created Bamowolo, Therationa, KAG, Horus and their likes on nairaland, even though they may not accept that premise.

God is also the Creator of those who are physically dead, though they may have been spiritually alive or dead before.

@samba123,

Since your misgivings were related to the issues dicussed here, I’d had to bring them from the other thread so we could all discuss in a neat place. I wonder why you guys continue to scoot off from this thread and go elsewhere to litter the discussions on other topics.

samba123:
STIMULUS you’re diverting the subject to a Greek discussion simply to get some attention that you can convince other to believe in your opinion.

Wrong. Wrong. . . wrong! I'm not seeking attention, nor is my discussion on the Greek text of the NT Gospels a matter of seeking to diverting any subject. I'm not the sort of person who makes so much noise into a calabash like you guys often do, and then grovel and whinge when the huge gaps in your noise are shown up.

When your adulators posted their plagiarized materials from Deedat, none of your said anything - rather, some of you were busy praising and celebrating the otiose adventures and recycling the same materials to litter this forum with! Someone has to stand up some day and take you guys to task on that - and if stimulus had not done it, someone who's far more intelligent than me would have done a better job and zipped up your friends in a neat handbag and thrown the whole lot of you guys outa the forum!

samba123:
You cannot foul people by your philosophy presenting the idea of those two word Ton Theo and Theos in Greek language. Even I am not convince of what you’re presenting.

I wasn't trying to "foul" or fool anyone by my philosophy - and if you care to present yours, I'd be too glad to waste them and show how empty they are! You cannot mangle someone else's language and the celebrate the unfortunate episode like that is what should displace truth. You may not be convinced about my arguments (because you refuse to open your eyes andd see); but at least, have the decency to present your own argument and point out the gaps in mine instead of whinging about what you have no clues on!

samba123:
Dictionary cannot help to configure what exactly the meaning of the word, if we like to find the true meaning we should have the fact in the scripture of the prehistoric time, presented, and construe in their original form.

Can you tell me why Deedat did not wait for your otiose advice before arguing long and hard on how we should read the Greek texts of John 1:1?!? Where were you when your brethren were stealing his materials and re-fabricating them as their own to mesmerize people on this forum?

samba123:
We all know that the Greek Religion are idolatry, any name of the Gods you mention in their different names can be translated by their own language.

Sorry, but Christianity is not to be confused for "the Greek religion" - and by making such a blooper, you have just demonstrated yet again that you truly have no clues about your own assumptions! You see, samba123, it's an absolute waste of your time and resources trying to lie about a case in order to justify Islam is not going to give you a settled conscience. It's alright to believe whatever harrumph you've been spoonfed by your mullahs; but such idiosyncrasies will not survive in a public forum where you're bound to find people discussing intellectually.

samba123:
If you just defining word and come out with the Trinitarian is doesn’t make any sense at all.

That is what Deedat and others have tried to do - and that is why you guys are so embarrassed that someone stood up to waste his arguments by presenting a detailed analysis of his comical showmanship.

samba123:
Still may question Define your God Ton Theon and Theos?

Is that a question at all? Does "ton theon" or "theos" define any 'God/deity'? If you assume that these words define 'God' at all, you should have been asking Deedat who said that 'o theos or ton theon' are "proper ways of saying God" - have you forgotten that?

Sometimes, you guys give me so much to laugh about! Even the Greeks do not define anybody's 'God' by the Greek terms - and your question is like the incoherent lullaby of a suckling child.

samba123:
We all know that the Bible are mostly altered by the FAKE author and contradiction among them.

Yada-yada. . we've heard this excuse so many times that it has grown out of style to cover-up why you cannot defend the Qur'an in the light of your noise from the mullahs/ulema. For all the accusations that you can trump up, the Bible has always declared the very essential message that we have been discussing about the revelation of the Biblical God - He is known as FATHER; and when Muhammad denied that revelation, he automatically qualified himself as a false prophet.

samba123:
Maybe it just one of the verses of John 1v1 are not alter because they mystified to defined the word.

Are you making any sense at all? John 1v1 is only one verse - so what is this harrumph about "one of the verses of John 1v1" - as if there are several verses in John 1v1?!? Are you guys engaging your thinking faculties at all - or is this type of undergraded IQ the ingredients for holythug's celebrations after you?

samba123:
And now you come to the idea that this secret of the secret can probe be the truth. Ohh come on is that an idiotic ideas.

Haaww-haww! Your verbosity is ginger-ale for the mentally challenged!

@olabowale,

olabowale:
If you and the whole of Christendom believe that God is only the God of the living (physically or spiritually dead people) you would have short changed Him. For before those who are dead became dead, they were alive, once. And for those who were spiritually dead became spiritually dead, they must have been at one time not spiritually dead. For one can not be dead unless being alive at a point, in time before the death occured. B

And what sense have you made now with this boring incomprehensible garboil? How does that relate to your defence of Deedat's rants of the Greek on John 1v1?!?

I cautioned you before - no deflections can help atone for the fact that you guys have been celebrating an illiterate argument from one of your propagandists who thought his duplicity would easily pass unnoticed for eons!

olabowale:
But it is this same God who will judge everyone, those were spiritually dead and those who were spiritually alive. But judgement can not occur unless all are physically dead. But that is another issue that i am sure that you and me can disagree upon. But thats not my reason here.

You sound even more confused by the minute! If that was not your reason here, then why do you make so much effort to be so garrulous about nothing?

olabowale:
My reason here is to ask you, if your understanding is that God is not the God of those who are dead, but those who are living, who then is the God of those who are dead (Spiritually dead means in one form or the other denial of God or propper worship of Him; And only He can give the precepts of how to worship Him)?

You can take that question to the relevant thread, because I will not be teased and patronized to be distracted from the subject of this thread - LOGOS and THEOS! I knew you'd always make every effort to divert this thread; but sorry, it won't avail here - it never does with me.

olabowale:
If that verse above is your bringing about God into trinity, then you have eliminated the dead people from under Trinity authority! You will now realise that all of these verses and incomplete arguments from you, are somehow and glearingly at that just do not do it for you.

You're arguing incoherently now, for sure! I posted those verses as examples of the assignment I left you - to demonstrate that there are several Greek terms for 'God' in John's Gospel; and those which appear without the definite articles (ο, η, του, τον) are all the same referring to 'God' (contrary to what Ahmed Deedat had argued).

Now, olabowale, can you tell me why it took you forever to answer that small assignment (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113535.0.html#msg1976559) - only to barge in here with the unintelligible noise above? If you were confident you had answers, why have you deliberately ducked that assignment forever, only to show up wasting your brains on issues you clearly have demonstrated you just have no clues about?

olabowale:
Almighty Creator says in His Book that I am your Creator and all that you create.Afterall we need the elements which god created without example to creat whatever we create.

How does that answer Deedat's argument of the Greek in John 1:1?!?

olabowale:
So when Jesus brought about the dead person, the person was already created, lived and died, and jesus only repeated a part of the existence of that persons total life. Yet and finally, the oerson died off again. I am sure that if raising people from death was part of the fukll control of jesus, all those whose people died prior to and after he performed that raising of the dead miracle, would have asked him to raise their people. Thats on one hand and they would have asked him to refuse dead from all of them, if not all mankind.

How does that answer Deedat's argument of the Greek in John 1:1?!?

olabowale:
You see we would have had those people and all their descendants still alive today. What i am saying here and if you can attempt to argue against me on this is that, the way you continue to define God, from the Biblical pronouncement, using Greek or other language, does not do justice to the Majesty of the Most Majestic.

It is not "my" definition. I had only one assignment here - and that is to zip your noise on Deedat's otiose arguments and mae sense out of the nonsense he has argued against John 1:1. I've answered the basic questions you guys ferreted from his illiterate arguments; and I went on to challenge you guys to demonstrate your own scholarship on the same John's Gospel by offering a few selected verses. Did you ever attempt to answer those few questions? WHERE? And now you have the temerity to allege that it is "my" definition of 'God'.

What did you say about Deedat's remark by way of his own definition when he stated that "o theos or ton theon" are proper ways of saying "God"?!? Did YOU not repost the same otiose argument in the Trinity thread - here: (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-103159.128.html#msg1966684)?!?

If Deedat was arguing that "o theos or ton theon" properly define "God", then why make that my own definition when as a matter of fact my premise in this thread is to waste his redundant arguments?

olabowale:
To say the dead do es not belong to Him, is to plainly say that He did not creat them.

Did I ever say that the dead did not belong to Him? Or are you beginning to fail badly in your English skills?

olabowale:
Afterall, He created Bamowolo, Therationa, KAG, Horus and their likes on nairaland, even though they may not accept that premise.

I don't see where those discussants have been plagiarizing Ahmed Deedat on the Greek of John 1:1 and celebrating his otiose arguments such as you guys have.

olabowale:
God is also the Creator of those who are physically dead, though they may have been spiritually alive or dead before.

How does that answer Deedat's argument of the Greek in John 1:1?!?

@Stimulus:

Greek English - (LITV)
ουκ εστιν ο θεος νεκρων αλλα θεος ζωντων υμεις ουν πολυ πλανασθε He is not the God of the dead, but God of the living. Therefore, you greatly err.

Now, since it is clear that "theos" (θεος) appears in the second instance in that verse without the definite article 'ho', was Jesus referring to "just any random deity" when He referred to "God of the living"? Certainly not! But Deedat would rather have us read "just any random deity of the living" in Mark 12:27! How absurd!

Further, other Greek terms (such as θεου) also appear without the definite article in John’s Gospel; but no one in their right minds would argue long and hard to make such Greek terms translate as "just any random deity" (according to Deedat), for these terms without the definite article actually point to the same God who revealed Himself to the Biblical prophets! A few examples in the same Gospel of John will suffice to show this:


John 1:6
Greek English
εγενετο ανθρωπος απεσταλμενος παρα θεου ονομα αυτω ιωαννης There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.


John 1:12
Greek English
οσοι δε ελαβον αυτον εδωκεν αυτοις εξουσιαν τεκνα θεου γενεσθαι τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονομα αυτου But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name


John 1:18
Greek English
θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε ο μονογενης υιος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.


John 5:44
Greek English
πως δυνασθε υμεις πιστευσαι δοξαν παρα αλληλων λαμβανοντες και την δοξαν την παρα του μονου θεου ου ζητειτε How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?


John 6:45
Greek English
εστιν γεγραμμενον εν τοις προφηταις και εσονται παντες διδακτοι θεου πας ουν ο ακουων παρα του πατρος και μαθων ερχεται προς με It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.


John 9:33
Greek English
ει μη ην ουτος παρα θεου ουκ ηδυνατο ποιειν ουδεν If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.

Stimulus, i am hoping you will be honest. But that is a very difficult thing for you. I simple responded to your first Biblical verse, both in Greek and its translation in English. In it we find that it claimed that God is God of the living alone. When I challenged you that you have not given full measure to the Creator, you resulted to your usual tactics: Please fish or cut bait. If your Bible make this kind of incomplete opinion about God, dont blame me, if simply point it out, which you blindly presented it in the first place.

In all indication, you can not even impress me about your essays defending Trinity, God or god or gods and John 1;1, yet you contin ue to pile up verses! Whats the purpose of that? Afterall, I am not greek and to tell me go dig up the root word of words in Greek is completely absurd. Considering that your greek Bible verse, when translated to English cuts out God from being the God of the dead. Again, I ask you, who is the God of the dead, apart from God? So according to your Bible verse above, please tell us, because enquiring mind wanna know?

Dude, you are beginning to sound like IR Baboon on "IM Weasel". . .

Wordsmith:

Dude, you are beginning to sound like IR Baboon on "IM Weasel". . .

I tire for the guy!

@olabowale,

olabowale:

Stimulus, i am hoping you will be honest. But that is a very difficult thing for you.

Can you show me where I have been dishonest - anywhere you can point out the same mendacity you celebrated in Deedat's illiterate arguements? Do you care to show fault my debate by correctly interpreting the Greek terms for all to see?

This kind of weasling cough you often make as a cover-up for the fallacies in your arguements are graciously wearing out with age.

olabowale:

I simple responded to your first Biblical verse, both in Greek and its translation in English.

You rather simply plagiarized Deedat's supercillious and functionally illiterate arguments which you posted on the forum.

If you had any confidence of the Greek language (let alone English), why did it take you forever to respond to the single small assignment I left you and repeated in posts #4, #8, #12, #15, #18, #20, #21, #22, and #30? Your repeated evasion and tergiversation did not demonstrate your honesty or scholarship in this thread; and coming back to lay claim that you responded both in Greek and English is frontpage headlines best suited for the "international association of blatant liars". Please don't patronize me with this cowardice.

olabowale:

In it we find that it claimed that God is God of the living alone.

It did not make any such claim. If you ever tried to follow my reposte, in quoting Mark 12:27, I clearly stated that: "When Jesus proclaimed the veracity of the resurrection to the Jews in Mark 12, He mentioned the Greek term 'theos' twice in verse 27" (post #33). That verse never said that "God is God of the living alone" - as it is not an argument of what type of "God" He is!

The verse was a response to the Sadducees who deny that there is any "resurrection" (see from Mark 12:18 onwards and compare with Luke 20:27) - and Jesus made that statement to demonstrate the veracity of the "resurrection" by reminding them that Moses' calling Him the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a clear indication that the patriarchs will be resurrected! Infact, Luke 20:38 makes it clear with these words: "For He is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for ALL live unto him".

olabowale:

When I challenged you that you have not given full measure to the Creator, you resulted to your usual tactics: Please fish or cut bait. If your Bible make this kind of incomplete opinion about God, don't blame me, if simply point it out, which you blindly presented it in the first place.

Your attempt to make this an arguement of what kind of "God" He is, does not arise at all. The thread is not even an argument about whether God is the "Creator", or whether the living and dead were "created" by Him. In both the Gospel of Mark and other verses, we find that He created everyone, whether they be male or female (see Mark 10:6). But because you're looking for every excuse to deflect the topic of this thread, you have tried to gravitate from the discussion of the Greek texts in John's Gospel to an otiose and wasted argument of whether God is the "Creator"! Dear olabowale, that argument is illiterate and irrelevant to this thread!

olabowale:

In all indication, you can not even impress me about your essays defending Trinity, God or god or gods and John 1;1, yet you contin ue to pile up verses!

You refuse to be impressed - and understandably because you are so ashamed of Deedat's illiterate rants! Was he not "piling up verses" in his argument to re-configure the Greek texts of John's Gospel to bend them to say what they never taught? Did you miss the fact that his denial of "logos" (λογος) meaning "word" in ancient Greek has been soundly refuted (post #2)? And his confusion between "theos" and "theon" (post #1)?

Why do you Muslims play this hypocritic games of mewling like kids after your plagiarized arguments have been wasted?

olabowale:

Whats the purpose of that?

Go back to my original post - I stated it there! You should be asking what "purpose" Deedat had in mind when he ventured to attack John 1:1.

olabowale:

Afterall, I am not greek and to tell me go dig up the root word of words in Greek is completely absurd.

Your absurdity is what you're complaining about here! I warned you guys to zip up on arguments that you cannot sustain - and the next we knew, you and holythug had hurriedly reposted the same plagiarized argument from Deedat as your bastion to hold your spine. It makes me wonder that if you guys are that spineless, why then even venture into subjects that you had no clues about in the first place - only to whinge like kids after your celebration of Deedat has been wasted?

olabowale:

Considering that your greek Bible verse, when translated to English cuts out God from being the God of the dead. Again, I ask you, who is the God of the dead, apart from God?

Scroll up and see how otiose your arguments are!

olabowale:

So according to your Bible verse above, please tell us, because enquiring mind want to know?

I have done so.

Now do you mind returning to the Greek terms for 'God' in the NT which Ahmed Deedat demonstrated himself as a functionally illiterate "scholar"?

Wordsmith:

Dude, you are beginning to sound like IR Baboon on "IM Weasel". . .

Abi na Pinky from Pinky and the Brain.

lafile:

Abi na Pinky from Pinky and the Brain.

Na di manifestation of their scholarship!

@olabowale,

The second set of queries I offered earlier is quoted below:

stimulus:

Do you care to demonstrate the true meaning of the following Greek terms:

[list]Θεός,

Θεού,

θεον,

Θεώ,

Θεέ,

θεοίς,

θεοί,

Θεών ?!?[/list]

Do you care to please show me what they mean, and point out the verses in the New Testament where they have been used?

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113535.0.html#msg1969896

This is another assignment which I’d left as a challenge earlier for you guys to demonstrate your scholarship in the Greek terms for ‘God’ before applauding your muslim propagandists on their allegations againt the Gospel of John.

Several of you have complained that you do not see the purpose in this. All well and good. You never made that same complaint against Deedat when you celebrated his attack on the Gospel of John; nor did you consider the “purpose” of your recyling the same argument on this forum to push your own allegations against the Greek terms for God in the NT. Since you are convinced that Deedat might have done a splendid job confusing you all the more, it was no big deal for me to directly challenge you guys by throwing open an invitation to examine the Greek in either the Bible or the translation of the Qurân in that language. You have forever ducked and evaded that invitation.

By the time you fail to attend this second set of assignment, you would clearly demonstrated that fallacy of your own arguments and the fact that none of you had a clue of what you were celebrating in Deedat’s rants before seeking to recycle the same material to mesmerize readers in this forum.

Do you care to look into that small assignment once again and attend to it? And please, no long or irrelevant stories and excuses to circumvent this subject – just either deal with the topic of this thread, or save your harrumph and pass silently.

@Stimulus: Demostrate your knowledge, first in your language: Yoruba and then English. You and me only go to the Website to learn Greek. Yet you have never seen a Greek with your own eyes, except on TV. I have many friends who are Greeks. There are many Mus'lims who are Greeks. I bet they know their language better than you and me. You avoided the Trinity dialogue and you are sending me on a wild goose chase.

My man, I no dey fall for that kinda trick. Thats 419 in my book. face reality and thats the only way I will attend to you.

Now STIMULUS is taking us on the Subject about the Theos and theon which he only know the Greek Language by his philosophy to fool people not to argue to him because he can speak and write those language of the Greek. Like you’re talking to a stranger without knowing his/her foreign language of what he/she really explaining because he is only talking by himself. Did everybody in this Site know how to Write and speak Greek so that we can understand what he is trying to explain.? Raise you RIGHT FOOT!!!
How can we discuss in a proper way if you’re talking in French and you’re listeners is a German or Spanish? That illogical approach nobody will listen to you of what are you saying.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Stimulus: Demostrate your knowledge, first in your language: Yoruba and then English.

Another perfect excuse to derail this thread? Baba olabs, I don tell you - as for this particular argument on the Greek, you, holythug, samba123, and babs787: all of una go see pepper! I have dicussed the Yoruba terms of 'God/deity' with YOU olabowale in another thread; so what is this lullaby that you're crying here? Yeye man!

olabowale:

You and me only go to the Website to learn Greek.

You alone and the rest of your camp may go to websites to learn otiose 'Greek', the type of "Greek" that cheats like Deedat becomes your headmaster! As for me, I go straight to the source and read the Greek! That is why I asked you to come along and let's examine the Greek translation of the Qur'an! You have forever ducked that invitation!

olabowale:

Yet you have never seen a Greek with your own eyes, except on TV.

Why you dey lie on top of your injury? I don't boast like a wussy the way you do - but I have lived among the Greeks in several countries. Do you know that there are Greeks (or native Greek-speakers) in South Africa, Turkey, Romania, Italy, and France? At least, I've been to all these countries, mingled with the Greeks in those countries (their babes too fine ). . . and I've actually lived with these Greeks in two of those countries! You can see why I would trash you and Deedat any day and any time!

olabowale:

I have many friends who are Greeks. There are many Mus'lims who are Greeks. I bet they know their language better than you and me.

Put all of them together, and top the list with your best scholars - when you all arrive, I go still trash una well-well on the same Greek!! Please bring your friends and let's examine the Greek translation of the Qur'an! By the time we even go a quarter of the way, you go abandon ship altogether! Yeye man!

olabowale:

You avoided the Trinity dialogue and you are sending me on a wild goose chase.

I still dey on the Trinity subject kampe - that is why I sent you on a small assignment on the same Gospel of John that Deedat sought to attack with his functionally illiterate arguments!

olabowale:

My man, I no dey fall for that kind of trick. Thats 419 in my book.

Good for you! Did you not realize that Deedat was a professional 419 cut-and-run artist when you plagizrized his articles and reposted on Nairaland? Did you complain and whimper this way when the whole lot of you (babs787, olabowale, holythug) reharshed that material to mesmerise readers on this forum? Una never start!

olabowale:

face reality and thats the only way I will attend to you.

You are on the reality hot seat, ma guy! Smart up and let me know when you wake up from your slumber!

@samba123,

Oga samba, you sef dey here? No wahala. A big welcome dey wait for you here!

samba123:

Now STIMULUS is taking us on the Subject about the Theos and theon which he only know the Greek Language by his philosophy to fool people not to argue to him because he can speak and write those language of the Greek.

Na my fault say you and olabowale + Deedat no sabi Greek? Or why is this weasling cough the excuses tyhat you guys are now using as cover-up for your celebrated embarrassment of the illiterate argument of Deedat on John 1:1?

samba123:

Like you’re talking to a stranger without knowing his/her foreign language of what he/she really explaining because he is only talking by himself.

Gbam! That is exactly what Ahmed Deedat did to cheat you guys! And that is why after you all celebrated his redundant trash-talk, I decided to sit you all in this cubicle and upgrade your IQ.

samba123:

Did everybody in this Site know how to Write and speak Greek so that we can understand what he is trying to explain.?

Nobody needs to be a Greek literate, before they understand what I am posting. That is why I post both in Greek and English. If that proves a challenge for you, shebi you talk say you get Greek friend before - oay call am come translate for you now! Why you dey whimper like say you chop red-hot-chili with ogoro to top it?

samba123:

Raise you RIGHT FOOT!!!

Haaawww-haaawww! I no fit laugh! I don talk before - I go repeat am: una go see pepper for this thread!

samba123:

How can we discuss in a proper way if you’re talking in French and you’re listeners is a German or Spanish?

Go and ask Deedat in his grave that same question! How could you be celebrating his attack on the Greek on John 1:1, when you neither had a clue on Greek, Aramaic . . . or even Hebrew?!? I never even start wey olabowale dey "jabo" say make I no threaten am with Hebrew - wetin happen?

samba123:

That illogical approach nobody will listen to you of what are you saying.

Yeye pikin!   Those who came here have seen the rubbish that Deedat made of himself - and that is why you guys, after wandering endlessly on the net and not finding any article to plagiarize, now come back crawling so miserly to weasle your cough here!

Bobo, do me one favour. . . just silently fold yourself away from here, or remain and help your adulators who are stuck on the small assignment I left them! Next time, una go softly thread on areas that are too intellectual for your galivanting holidays!

@holythug,

I salute O! You sef come bail yourpikins comot for here? Relax. . . they are in safer hands than in Deedat's!

holythug:

bware of d greeks & dia gifts language

That is why we need to beware of the translation of the Qur'an into Greek!

holythug:

dnt b deceived. . .

That is why I'm taking down Deedat's deception!

holythug:

i hope there ll b a conclusion on this issue

If you hang with us long enough, you go see a beautiful finish!

@olabowale, samba123, holythug (and any others who have been celebrating Deedat),

When you are done belly-dnacing, could you please refrain from entertaining us with your frantic jokes? Abeg, make una answer this question as asked before - so we can move on from that spot and go on with more intelligent discussions on the same John 1:1? Afterall, Deedat attacked John 1:1 on the same GREEK that I am now discussing here, focusing particularly on his allegations against LOGOS and THEOS. So in this thread, we are examining those allegations. Don't baulk out too earlier - that would be cowardice!

Here is the assignment again:

---

The second set of queries I offered earlier is quoted below:

stimulus:

Do you care to demonstrate the true meaning of the following Greek terms:

[list]Θεός,

Θεού,

θεον,

Θεώ,

Θεέ,

θεοίς,

θεοί,

Θεών ?!?[/list]

Do you care to please show me what they mean, and point out the verses in the New Testament where they have been used?

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113535.0.html#msg1969896

This is another assignment which I’d left as a challenge earlier for you guys to demonstrate your scholarship in the Greek terms for ‘God’ before applauding your muslim propagandists on their allegations againt the Gospel of John.

Several of you have complained that you do not see the purpose in this. All well and good. You never made that same complaint against Deedat when you celebrated his attack on the Gospel of John; nor did you consider the “purpose” of your recyling the same argument on this forum to push your own allegations against the Greek terms for God in the NT. Since you are convinced that Deedat might have done a splendid job confusing you all the more, it was no big deal for me to directly challenge you guys by throwing open an invitation to examine the Greek in either the Bible or the translation of the Qurân in that language. You have forever ducked and evaded that invitation.

By the time you fail to attend this second set of assignment, you would clearly demonstrated that fallacy of your own arguments and the fact that none of you had a clue of what you were celebrating in Deedat’s rants before seeking to recycle the same material to mesmerize readers in this forum.

Do you care to look into that small assignment once again and attend to it? And please, no long or irrelevant stories and excuses to circumvent this subject – just either deal with the topic of this thread, or save your harrumph and pass silently.

---

There!

Please attend to that asignment and don't reharsh the same cowardice of making excuses every time!

Enjoy!

@Stimulus:

He is not the God of the dead, but God of the living. Therefore, you greatly err.

From your Bible quote. (1)

In it we find that it claimed that God is God of the living alone.

It did not make any such claim

Stimulus, should open your eyes that your greek Biblical quotes, when translated to English, either means what it means or you are trying to tell us that it means something else. Either way, I think the above should clear things up. If God is God of the living, only, who si the God of the dead?

While you globe trot all over the place, the Greek should have lectured you on their language. Afterall, you said God is God of the living and not the God of the dead! I wonder who created the dead and what state were they before they were dead?

STIMULUS I CANNOT TRANSLATE IT IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE I SPEAK GE AND FR. HOW CAN WE GET INTO DISCUSSION IF YOU ALLWAYS KNOW GREEK LANGUANGE AND YOUR AUDIENCE ARE NIGERIAN? ILLOGICAL DISCUSSION?

@stimulus


I was surprised reading through your denial and the way you have been twisting the greek words in John 1 v 1.

I have been very busy but will come online to address this very thread when I read your response.

Since you are using this verse to say that Jesus is God, then we will go into the John 1 v 1, the earlier translation and how God is being written in Greek.

Secondly, we will go into all we need to know about trinity

Lastly, we will check some verses from the bible on the deity of Jesus and I hope at the end of it all, you will not say that Babs is deriding Jesus because everything will be from your same bible.


Till I hear from you,

Cheers

I still waiting the Tranlation of STIMULUS of what he posted for this name of God he is referring, mybe he will appear with he philosophical theory,

I still waiting the Tranlation of STIMULUS of what he posted for this name of God he is referring, mybe he will appear with he philosophical theory,

He will come and give us the meaning of the God used in John 1v 1.

Little wonder Jehovah Witness are not in agreement with them in that area. They used 'a god' and they have been saying that Jesus is a lesser god, 'TON THEON'

I am looking forward to receving his response and if I am not around, I will get it in my mail box when I log in.

He will need to explain the meaning of TON THEON
HO THEOS
and O THEOS

We will also compare

Exodus 7 v 1 where God made Moses god to Pharaoh

Psalm 82 v 6: I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High

and relate the meaning of God therein whether it is TO THEON or HO THEON and has any relationship with that of John 1 v 1

The Greek term used by the anonymous author of the Fourth Gospel for “word” is logos. In doing so, the author identifies Jesus with the pagan logos of Greek philosophy, who was the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.
The concept defined by the term logos is also found in India, Egyptian and Persian Philosophical and Theological systems. (new encyclopaedia Britannica vol.7 p.440)

The idea of the logos in Greek thought may be traced back at least to the 6th-centrury-BC philosopher, Heracleitus, who proposed that there was a logos in the cosmic process analogous to the reasoning power in man. Later, the Stoics(Stoics were philosophers who followed the teaching of the thinker Zeno of Citicum- 4th-3rd century BC) defined the logos as an active, rational and spiritual principle that permeated all reality. they called the logos providence, mixture, god, and soul of the universe. The Greek-speaking Jewish philosopher, Judaeus Philo of Alexandria (15BC – 45 CE), taught that the logos was the intermediary between God and Cosmos, Being both the agent between God and the Cosmos, being both the agent of creation and the agent through which the human mind can comprehend God. According to Philo and the middle Platonists philosophers who interpreted in religious terms the teaching of the 4th- century-BC Greek master Philosopher immanent in the word and at the same time the transcendent divine mind. (new encyclopaedia vol.7p440).
The writings of Philo were preserved and cherished by the Church, and provided the inspiration for a sophisticated Christian philosophical theology. He departed from Platonic thought regarding the logos (word) and called it “the first begotten son of God”.


Another blow to the pagan believes of Christianity the Word “LOGOS”

The Greek term used by the anonymous author of the Fourth Gospel for “word” is logos. In doing so, the author identifies Jesus with the pagan logos of Greek philosophy, who was the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.
The concept defined by the term logos is also found in India, Egyptian and Persian Philosophical and Theological systems. (new encyclopaedia Britannica vol.7 p.440)

The idea of the logos in Greek thought may be traced back at least to the 6th-centrury-BC philosopher, Heracleitus, who proposed that there was a logos in the cosmic process analogous to the reasoning power in man. Later, the Stoics(Stoics were philosophers who followed the teaching of the thinker Zeno of Citicum- 4th-3rd century BC) defined the logos as an active, rational and spiritual principle that permeated all reality. they called the logos providence, mixture, god, and soul of the universe. The Greek-speaking Jewish philosopher, Judaeus Philo of Alexandria (15BC – 45 CE), taught that the logos was the intermediary between God and Cosmos, Being both the agent between God and the Cosmos, being both the agent of creation and the agent through which the human mind can comprehend God. According to Philo and the middle Platonists philosophers who interpreted in religious terms the teaching of the 4th- century-BC Greek master Philosopher immanent in the word and at the same time the transcendent divine mind. (new encyclopaedia vol.7p440).
The writings of Philo were preserved and cherished by the Church, and provided the inspiration for a sophisticated Christian philosophical theology. He departed from Platonic thought regarding the logos (word) and called it “the first begotten son of God”.


Another blow to the pagan believes of Christianity the Word “LOGOS”

Thanks for that.