Synoptic

I boxed and even considered going pro in my early 20s. I did not think I was going to be a name fighter or anything, but could have been a journeyman and made some side cash.

My advice would be against taking fights for the first time at the age of 39. The risk of injury is high and there is no upside other than saying you’ve done it. Much easier ways to get in shape, if that’s what you’re after.

One bad punch can change your life. Even in fights I did well, I got hit, would see stars, lose consciousness for split second, etc. Pro fighters make it look like nothing, but even punches that look like nothing cause damage.

I believe in the orthodox Christian view as given in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

What is your view? Are you Mormon or do agree with the Mormon view on the nature of God and Jesus? If not, what is your belief or position on the topic?

If you cannot be transparent on your views on the topic, then there is no point in the discussion as it is inherently in bad faith. There is no good reason for not being willing to share your base position. That is hallmark behavior of cult members. They either hide their beliefs for as long as possible to avoid scrutiny and appear legitimate, or they believe their beliefs are for a select few and one must earn (i.e. pay for) access to the special knowledge.

We don’t agree on the literal meaning of John 1:1. You think an indefinite article should be added because… well you don’t really know the grammar rules involved, so I guess based on your own aesthetic preferences. I agree with the vast majority of people who know how to read koine Greek and think the standard translation is correct. These people span the range of belief systems, and many are agnostic and atheist.

You don’t even know which century the council of Nicea and council of Constantinople occurred until 10 minutes ago, but now you are an expert on what was codified at each. That tracks with your overall delusional confidence to understanding ratio.

In sounds like you subscribe to a type of Arianism, so this makes the discussion much more straight forward. To make the discussion clearer, instead of using divinity I will use “the essence of God.” So I will make a few claims:
(1) A being is God if and only if it has the essence of God
(2) If a being is created, then it does not have the essence of God
(2a) If a being has the essence of God, then it is not created (follows from 2)
(3) Angels are created
(4) Angels do not have the essence of God (follows from 2 and 3)
(5) If in scripture a being is said to be uncreated, is described as having the quality of God, performs functions that are said to be the role of God, and is referenced by phrases used to reference only God, then that being has the essence of God
(6) The Word of God has the essence of God (from 5 and the below verses)
(7) The Word of God is neither created nor an angel (from 4 and 6)

John 1:1-3 (NET)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.

You dispute the above translation of verse 1, but as discussed previously, John 1 at minimum describes the Word of God as having the quality of God. You wrote in a previous post “the Logos is divine - a deity in the qualitative sense.”

John 1:3 clearly states the Word of God is not in the category of created beings. All things were created by him, so if he is a created thing then he would have had to create himself.

John 1:18 (NET)
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

Some manuscripts, especially the later ones, have “begotten son” (huios) in place of the phrase translated as “himself God” (Theos). Whether it was originally huios or Theos is debated. However, what is not debated is that the word in question (either huois or Theos) is followed by “ho on,” which means the “the one who is” and is part of the same phrase the Greek Septuagint uses to translate the Exodus 3:14 phrase “I AM WHO I AM.” The Greek phrase used in Exodus 3:14 in the Septuagint is “Ego Eimi ho on.” The phrase following “God” or “son” in John 1:18 is a very clear reference connecting Jesus to exodus 3:14. Throughout John, Jesus often uses the phrase “ego eimi” when discusses himself. This led to threats of violence by the Pharisees as they understood it to be claiming to be God.

John 8:56-59
Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.” Then the Judeans replied, “You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!” Then they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus was hidden from them and went out from the temple area.

Answering the question with and ending the sentence with “I am” (ego eimi) here is an explicit claim of Deity and a clear reference to Exodus 3:14

John 5:17-18
So he told them, “My Father is working until now, and I too am working.” For this reason the Jewish leaders were trying even harder to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God.

It claims here that Jesus was making himself equal with God. The Jewish leaders who were extremely educated on these topics and who knew what he was saying in proper context also understood that Jesus was making himself equal to God, which is why they wanted to kill him.

Mark 14:61-64
Again the high priest questioned him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What is your verdict?”

Jesus again says “I am” (ego eimi) when asked if he is the son of God. The priest understood that he was claiming to be God, hence why he accuses him of blasphemy. It’s not blasphemy to claim to be an angel.

Isaiah 33:22
For the LORD is our judge; the LORD is our lawgiver;
John 5:22
For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,
2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be paid back according to what he has done while in the body, whether good or evil.
James 4:12
There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy.

In the above verses, Christ clearly serves in a role that is a role for God to serve in.

The above scriptures were well understood by the church fathers, which is why the Nicene Creed was written the way it was and why 318 bishops signed it and only 3 refused to sign in. It’s hard to get that much agreement even on fairly uncontroversial statements. The other serious problem with Arianism or the belief that Christ is a created being or some type of super angel is developing a coherent atonement theory. One of the reasons Athanasius opposed Arianism so much was because he understood the significance of the nature of Christ on the atonement and knew it makes no sense from an atonement perspective to think Christ was merely an angel. He wrote a work on the atonement called “On the Incarnation of the Word," which I would highly recommended for anyone interested in this subject.

If Christ is understood to be not fully God but instead some type of super angel, then the whole religion descends into nonsense. God sent an angel to die for our sins? Why? Why is this angel to be glorified and accepts worship when no other angel allows men to bow or worship them as it is understood that worship is for God alone? Why is it prophesized that God will be among His people again and the one to be sent will be called Immanuel (God with us) when it is really not God and just an angel? Why was God the Father and the Holy Spirit directly involved in the Incarnation of Christ if he is not God but merely an angel? Why even come in the flesh if it is not God and man joined together? Just have an angel appear and wander around. Think about Christianity from the perspective of Christ being merely a created messenger or angel and the whole thing starts to make no sense. This is why non trinitarian denominations such as Mormons and JWs don’t seem anything like Christianity.

You claimed “The angels and cherubim and satan and demons and archons and seraphim etc are all divine…” and I told you that neither the trinitarians, the arians, nor in Judaism are angels and demons considered to be divine. That assertion demonstrates no understanding of the fundamental debate.

Since you won’t take my word for it, I put the below questions (in italics) in google and copied the top response. Try it out yourself to verify:

Are angels and demons considered to be divine by trinitarians?

“No, Trinitarian Christians do not consider angels and demons to be divine…Angels are created beings, not part of the divine nature of God. They are often described as messengers or servants of God…[Demons] are also created beings and not divine.”

Are angels and demons considered to be divine by arians?

“No, Arians do not consider angels or demons to be divine. While Arianism acknowledges the existence of angels and demons as created beings, it does not equate them with divinity.”

Are angels and demons considered to be divine in Judaism?

“In Judaism, angels are not considered divine. They are understood as messengers or servants of God, not as deities themselves. Demons, or evil spirits, are also not considered divine.”

As to your claim that “And it’s precisely why it’s an intentional mistranslation. It would most accurately be that the Logos is divine - a deity in the qualitative sense.” I did the below search for you:

Do arians think that Christ is the same quality as God the Father?

“No, Arians do not believe that Christ is the same quality as God the Father.”

It helps to look up topics and attempt to gain a basic level of understanding before arguing at length.

Back to my earlier question, you clearly aren’t a trinitarian, and you presumably aren’t an arian since you do not understand their position or claims at all, so why are you arguing a topic you don’t understand and that you don’t agree with either side? Makes no sense.

I easily determined your comment is false by reading John 1:1 in koine Greek. The absence of the definite article before Theos in the phrase “and the Word was God” in John 1 is significant in Greek grammar, particularly in a predicate nominative construction such as this. A predicate noun that precedes the verb and lacks the definite article often emphasizes the quality, nature, or essence of the subject (the Logos, "the Word") rather than its identity. This is why most translations render it as "and the Word was God" emphasizing that the Word shares the divine nature or essence of God. This has to do with the accepted rules of koine Greek grammar and not belief systems.

The New World Translation used by Jehovah’s Witnesses insert an indefinite article ("and the Word was a god"), arguing that the lack of the definite article suggests an indefinite or qualitative sense. This interpretation is not widely accepted among mainstream biblical scholars, regardless of their belief system. Not all biblical scholars are Christian (Many are agnostic or atheist). Koine Greek does not have an indefinite article, and so it is the Jehovah’s Witnesses who have added a word not in the original Greek to fit their beliefs.

In any case, all of this seems a bit pointless for one to argue if they don’t believe in any of it and are arguing from a point of Internet atheism and “ha, re-LIE-gion”, which seems to be the case for you because you make statements such as:

“The angels and cherubim and satan and demons and archons and seraphim etc are all divine but not equal to god the Father, wouldn’t you say?”

Your posts contain very crude and blatant misunderstandings of basic concepts like this one, presumably because you don’t actually care about these things and you only seek to learn enough to argue (but not enough to really know what you’re talking about). For example, in this case you are conflating divine with spiritual or supernatural. You are giving bad faith arguments from a position of extreme ignorance regarding the language and concepts that are central to the topic.

Do you read and write koine Greek?

The consensus among most scholars is that the anarthrous Theos in “the Word was God” underscores the divine nature of the Word, not a lesser or separate deity.

*Edited the greek letters

Wasn’t trying to condescend. Thought you were looking for physics discussion.

To your comment on the three possibilities, the second one is closest.

The idea of electron orbitals “slowing down" doesn't apply directly, as electrons don't have definite trajectories. However, the relativistic motion of the atom can shift the energy levels of orbitals.

Regarding orbital shape, the shape of electron orbital clouds does not change in the atom's rest frame, regardless of its speed. However, for an observer at rest, the orbitals appear contracted along the direction of motion due to Lorentz contraction when the atom approaches the speed of light. This is a relativistic effect on the observed spatial distribution, not an intrinsic change to the orbitals themselves.

Anyway, none of this is meant to correct you or “one up” you or anything. You seem interested in the topic so thought I would discuss.

Understood. “Repent” comes from the Latin word “paenitere” and not from Greek. They are different words and one does not come from the other. If your point is that the greek word in the New Testament has a different connotation/meaning than the English word often used to translate it, then I agree. But that doesn’t mean the word repent comes from a Greek word.

Use of pyramid structure is easy to explain. It is conceptually the easiest, most robust way to build a tall structure. Comparatively little math and commonly available materials are required to build them and have them stand for many years. Things like gothic cathedrals are much more complex to design and build. A pyramid is mostly just brute force. And once built, they last forever. And so we have lasting examples of them all over the world.

It’s most often given starting with 0, 1

LINK

Some sources start it with 1,1. You can start a sequence the same rule (Xn = Xn-1 + Xn-2 for n greater than 2) with any pair of integers, and as long as they are not both zero the sequence will have many of the same properties as the original Fibonacci sequence.