"Even if et deum were a later addition, it would represent an isolated case, not evidence of widespread manipulation. " - its still manipulation none the less... you cant get around this
"but these are limited to certain instances where people deliberately altered his works. This cannot be generalized to claim systematic corruption across all early Christian texts. " - so you admit tampering with Origens works occurred? because if it happened with Origens what stops them doing it to others? How many people called out this motivation? 2 of how many?
-------------------------------------------------
"which scholar claimed that John 20:28 means precisely that "Oh my God, this is Michael the Archangel, who will come invisibly in 1914 to appoint Russell!" Until you find this, explain to me what the word αὐτῷ means in this verse." -
ok im going to assume this is a joke because we both know what I meant... its not hard to figure out..
look up scholarly articles on thsi subject and you will see how many DENY it affirms anything.
Rahner for one...
The pronoun is easy to explain... its kind of required.
and when did I say it meant "Oh my God"? I didn't, its just interesting its an address not in the vocative form - But all other occurences in the NT Christ is addressed as "kuriee" this being the ONLY exception
see also Rev 7:14 - Where an angel is addressed as "Kuree"
But it is interesting to note that alot of bibles render it as an explanation or doxology rather than a direct address. (Biblehub is the source)
"The problem is that you think of "the scholars" as some universal infallible magisterium who collectively establish The Truth." - I see them as far more reasonable and evidence based than you... you are NOT evidence based at all.. theologically biased and self serving is how I would describe you or atleast is how you come off to me. Your right, everyone else is wrong (1. not true 2. makes you look like a know it all - someone I dont particularly like), what Origen says is NEVER what he meant according to you... why should I beleive you? over many others who know more than you?
Wallace and Robertson are both ones to be "argumentive citers" they will cite examples if they think they can get away with it... I may even email Wallace myself and ask him what he thinks (citing your citations of him to see if he agrees with your portrayal aswell - Which I know is not 100% accurate, I own and have read GGBTB cover to cover)
"The absence of a need to consider alternatives like δεσπότης or θεῖος stems from their unsuitability to convey the same theological weight."- so why does 2 dictionaries I have checked list "δεσπότης " as a synonym to Kurios? check biblehub
notice in the contexts of the relationship specified the word is employed rather than Kurios, because it seeks to convey a certain relationship rather than a more general "authoritative" relationship, which Kurios would serve the purpose of.
"δεσπότης does not carry this association." - Kurious is more a general term. the other is restricted in its usage hence not used, thats your explanation for one.
again a simple google search will explain the others
"Any distinction between the terms must be contextualized rather than assumed to reflect a lower status for Christ." - I look at word usage as that word usage - I dont try to fit my theological agenda around the facts, rather the other way around. That is scholarship
So what does Origen mean when he says the angels are divine? does he mean lower status?
Or "God- by participation"? does he mean lower status? I think he means something else.
""it's kind of godlike, but it's not really that, it’s not a big deal, you know, just like Psalm 82 and Exodus 7:1." " - to say these are not a big deal is undercutting the divine authority Moses had.. and goes against as you would put it "common consensus"
"The rendering "a god" is precisely the explicit denial of this identity" - if I was a trinitarian I would interpret this as "a divine Person"
as is done in other places.
