> I am not playing semantics at this point

Of course you are. Semantics is what counts here. What do the words mean? In your original post you cut and pasted all sorts of semantic arguments about the meanings of the Greek words. But we know that words have to be interpreted correctly and contextually, so semantics is what this entire conversation is about.

you defined "knows" as being equal to.

I am not playing semantics at this point - whether you want to believe he is talking about knowledge, being equal to God, it doesn't matter - it all comes to the same conclusion - What matters is he said No One But (the father) is included.

and yes the example you gave is called an argument from silence, you were accusing me of using an argument of silence, that IS what it is called. But it cannot apply to this situation because Jesus said "no one but"

> its like if he said "no other TV is equal to this price on the internet" ....

its like if he said, There is "no one but" the father in whatever you want it to be, but no matter what you want it to say, it does not include the holy spirit.

> this is called an argument from silence, i go over this in detail on my OP.

It is not. I gave you contextual reasons. I reviewed the Greek terminology in agreement with you, for the most part. I discussed Matthew's theme in the Gospel. I compared it to similar teachings in the Gospel of John. And you agreed with 99& of my post. So how can you claim I made an argument from silence?? That just baffles me.

> the problem here is Jesus said no one knows the son but the father.

That's not a problem in the least. I spent about 6 paragraphs explaining it, and you agreed with me (99%).

> he literally discludes everyone else.

He does not. This must be the 1%, eh? All he is declaring is that he has equality with the Father. The text is about Jesus' identity. The "knowledge" pertains to his authority. We've been over this ground, several times.

In other words, you reject all of what I've said and hang onto "Jesus said no one knows the son but the father," without probing into what he meant by it.

this is called an argument from silence, i go over this in detail on my original post.

the problem here is Jesus said no one knows the son but the father.

he literally discludes everyone else.

if he said, the father knows the son, and the son knows the father THEN you could say well that doesn't mean the holy spirit, but he said no one knows the son except the father, and no one knows the father except the son, and whom the son chooses to reveal him to...

It most clearly does not. Jesus's equality with the Father carries no declaration or even implication that only he is equal with the Father. Jesus is making a statement about Himself and the Father, and the implication of his statement goes no further.

Suppose I go to a store and see a TV on sale. I say, "This price is equal to the price I saw on the Internet." That is true. What it doesn't mean is that this is the only TV equal to that price. It's a statement of equality, not one of exclusivity or uniqueness.

it clearly does. He is claiming he is equal to God the Father, and said nothing else is.

He said, no one "knows" the son except the father. So your saying that he means they are equal, well the holy spirit is not there, he said its only him and the father.

OK, then, um, we're good? The verse doesn't disprove the Trinity doctrine.

this ("What He is claiming is that He is equal to God the Father") combined with this (""the Holy Spirit is not included in this" because Jesus is only talking about His own particular identity, then you are correct.")

It depends what you mean. If by "my point is still valid" you mean that the Trinity is disproved by this verse, no, your point is not valid. Jesus is not claiming He has knowledge that the Holy Spirit doesn't have. What He is claiming is that He is equal to God the Father. But if you are claiming that "the Holy Spirit is not included in this" because Jesus is only talking about His own particular identity, then you are correct.

Well yeah i mean, i believe that to be true.

So when Jesus says none/nothing has this with the son except the father. My point is still valid. The holy spirit is not included in this.