>>17931333
I already explained how and the meaning of omnipotence i am using.
>going to be manifestations of God's eternal attribute?
No, I said this repeatedly and explained the difference.
>And your's doesn't?
Obviously we are talking about faulty human translations, not perfect divine ones. The whole stink you are raising is about how words you don't like are just wrong.
>it gives thirty-four additional meanings
Which are all causally related, something you denied.
>Who is "they"?
Ask your handlers to increase your context window, I mentioned the website I used. And independent from any translation I made the case that it should be read that way both in Hebrew and in Greek
>C'mon you know this isn't going to work here.
Why are you pretending to be a physicalist atheist? Christians also have a similar concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous#Eastern_Orthodox I am arguing with a christian, there is no need to start from the basics.
>bound by the laws of logic
I personally believe those to be an attribute of his. I can link you where I have had this discussion before. But anyway no as I said nothing but his will has set the world to be this way. There are no other possibilities as I see it
>What is there to reject?
He is not literally in the Father but there is no point in going over that again because "muh script".
>cease
No because knowledge never left like Jesus claims he did. Also I am not going to get into a discussion about substance–attribute theory with someone who doesn't even care to define what he mean by Jesus being a part.