You’re splitting hairs. No problem I will use all my God.
Nonsense. I would be a huge mistake on the authors part. First time I ever heard of forcing a grammatical vocative. I do not want to get into what the author should’ve used, if he was going to write X. But he could’ve used in many other nouns to get his point across.Out of all the options he uses Ho Theos. The same when referring to the father. The author is clarifying Psalms 45. In the New Testament Ho Theos when not heavily modified always refers to Almighty God. I find to be without exception.
One of the conventional ways to force a vocative is the article + nominative case. The vocative of theos is hardly ever used, as in classical Greek there was no vocative, and in any event, theos was not a usual term of address to a deity. This is what Winer says of koine Greek concerning the nominative with the article (Greek Grammar - SECT. XXIX.] NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. p.227):
The nominative (with the article) is sometimes used in an
address,
particularly in calling or commanding, thus taking
the place of the vocative,
the case framed for such purposes.
Examples of this usage, which really coincides with that mentioned
in 1 (a), are found in the Ν.T.: Mt. xi. 26, ναι, ό πατήρ
{εξομολογούμαι σοι, ver. 25), οτι οΰτως iyevero'
Η. i. 8, χ. 7 (in
the L X X compare Ps. xiii. 2, xxi. 2); especially with an imperative,
L. viii. 54, ή παις eyeipe' Mt. xxvii. 29, χαΐρε ό βασιλεύς
τ. 7ουδ., Jo. xix. 3, Mk. v. 41, ix. 2δ, E. vi. 1, Col. iii. 18, Rev.
vi. 10. This mode of expression may have originally been somewhat
rough and harsh (Bernh. p. 67), and may even retain this
character wherever it is used by the Greek prose writers; but
in later Greek it is found where there is no special emphasis,
even in very gentle address (L. xii. 32, μή φοβού, τό μικρόν
ποιμ,νίον viii. 54, Bar. iv. 5), and in prayers (L. xviii. 11, H.
X. 7). Jo. xx. 28, however, though directed to Jesus (εϊπεν
αύτω), is yet rather an exclamation than an address:1 such
nominatives appear early and very distinctly in Greek writers
(Bernh. I.e., Kriig. p. 14, Jelf 476. Obs.). Similarly in L. xii.
20 (with the reading άφρων,—also 1 C. xv. 3 6, where there is not
much authority for άφρον); in Ph. iii. 18, 19, πολλοί <γάρ περι-
7τατοΰσιν, ovs ποΧΧάκις εΧεγον . . . τους εχθρούς τού σταυρού
τού Χριστού, ών το τ€λο<? anτώΧεια . . . οί τά επίγεια φρο-
νονντες;'2 and perhaps in Mk. xii. 3 8 - 4 0 , βΧεπετε άπό τιύν
γραμματέων, τών θέλόντων . . . και ασπασμούς . . . και πρω-
τοκαθεδρίας . . , οί κατεσθ ίοντες τάς οικίας' . . . . ούτοι
ΧήψονΤαι περισσότερον κρίμα' though here οί κατεσθίον-
τες might be joined with ούτοι Χήψονται,3 In Rev. xviii. 20
the vocative and the nominative are found in connexion.
What are you talking about in Hebrews 1:8 and 9 he has identified as Ho theos.
The father- son relationship is not of procreation but hierarchy within the Godhead. An eternal being cannot procreate an eternal being.
I was talking about your misidentification of persons - not generation.
Don't think we've got much to discuss - Ps 110:1 is proof that YHWH is the Father. Many others. But only one is necessary.
