If ό Θεός is the NT designate name for God the Father of Jesus....

Perhaps you judge too quickly. “The gods have come down to us in human form!” (Acts 14:11) was the utterance of pagans, not Christians.
When you come to this forum with questions about the Greek, who are you expecting to help you? The only ones I have noticed in this thread who have responded are JM and GM. (TRJM has added a few things.) It looks to me like you are biting off the hand that feeds you.
 
Last edited:
You still don't understand what a name is, but Gryllus couldn't have made it any clearer for you. Even if "ὁ θεός" only refers to God in the New Testament (and it is clear that it does not), it still wouldn't make it a name. "Mr. President" or "the President" is not Joe Biden's name, even though he is referred to in that manner. In a similar way, "ὁ θεός" is not the name of God.

Personally, I am having difficulty understanding why you are continuing this thread when your initial premise is flawed, but here we are. Also, why do you call this phrase a "name" but accept κύριος as a title?
Someone seems to be grasping at straws as they try to argue against the Deity of Christ
 
When you come to this forum with questions about the Greek, who are you expecting to help you? The only ones I have noticed in this thread who have responded are JM and GM. (TRJM has added a few things.) It looks to me like you are biting off the hand that feeds you.
The "hand that feeds me" is not JM. He is the accuser; for he also accuses reputable scholars of incomptence wihout proper grounds. I respect GM's opinions, but am not bound to agree with him or anyone else.
 
It's odd that the Net Bible, in which Wallace had a large part in developing, went with - 18 Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. 18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.
No, it's not odd. The orthodox world of Christianity has always been essentially divided into two camps: those who go with the non-apostolic "God the Son" and "God the Word" nomenclature, as some of the successors to the apostles invented, which seems to have been an early attempt to stave off adoptionist heresies, but which inadvertently introduced the prospect of new heresies along the lines of docetism, modalism and neo-platonism (i.e. denying that Christ was a real man but instead an eternally begotten God/god in human form), and those who stick with the conventional apostolic terminology identifying Jesus as a real man in every sense, yet who came down from God, and went back up to God (John 8:23).

Then there are the adoptionists, socinians, etc who are all de facto followers of Photinus, died 376, who deny that Christ ever came down from heaven at all.

Wallace of course falls into the first category. These are they who desire to justify their "God the Son" and "God the Word" nomenclature by all kinds of contrivances such as Sharp's rule and by μονογενὴς θεὸς in John 1:18.
 
Last edited:
No, it's not odd. The orthodox world of Christianity has always been essentially divided into two camps: those who go with the non-apostolic "God the Son" and "God the Word" nomenclature, as some of the successors to the apostles invented, which seems to have been an early attempt to stave off adoptionist heresies, but which inadvertently introduced the prospect of new heresies along the lines of docetism, modalism and neo-platonism (i.e. denying that Christ was a real man but instead an eternally begotten God/god in human form), and those who stick with the conventional apostolic terminology identifying Jesus as a real man in every sense, yet who came down from God, and went back up to God (John 8:23).

Then there are the adoptionists, socinians, etc who are all de facto followers of Photinus, died 376, who deny that Christ ever came down from heaven at all.

Wallace of course falls into the first category. These are they who desire to justify their "God the Son" and "God the Word" nomenclature by all kinds of contrivances such as Sharp's rule and by μονογενὴς θεὸς in John 1:18.
Sorry, I misunderstood your post. You quoted what Wallace wrote who was quoting Erhman. I thought the last part ” θεός does not “fare well at all."was Wallace commenting. But that was Erhman.
 
Re The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (“the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός ( “the only son”)

"It seems to have arisen from a confusion of the contracted forms of writing, Υ and ΘC. The question, which reading to adopt, is one which, in the balance of authorities, must be provisionally decided by the consideration that as far as we can see, we should be introducing great harshness into the sentence, and a new and strange term into Scripture, by adopting θεός: a consequence which ought to have no weight whatever where authority is overpowering, but may fairly be weighed where this is not so. The “præstat procliviori ardua” finds in this case a legitimate limit." (Alford).

Scholars who opt for υἱός consistently point out the apparent isolation of θεός in the Alexandrian form of text. In fact, Ehrman argues that because “virtually every other representative of every other textual grouping—Western, Caesarean, Byzantine—attests to υἱός,” θεός does not “fare well at all." (Wallace)

In any event those who opt for μονογενὴς θεός (without the article) - these being the Trinitarian hardliners who credit "God the Word, God the Son etc" (and who first arose in some of the successors to the apostles) - are put into the position of having to disapply Sharp's rule to θεός, as they must accept their own biblical intepretation that θεός is μονογενὴς. Or is it that they are greedy and want to have their cake and eat it?
1:18 μονογενὴς θεός (only God) {B}


When scholars became aware of the readings of 𝔓66 and 𝔓75 in the mid-1950s (see the discussion concerning the Alexandrian Text in “The Practice of New Testament Textual Criticism”), the external support for the reading μονογενὴς θεός was considerably strengthened. The reading μονογενὴς υἱός (only son), followed by RSV and NJB, is certainly the easier reading, but it seems that copyists wrote this under the influence of John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9. There is no reason that copyists would have omitted the definite article before the noun θεός; and when υἱός replaced θεός, copyists would have added it. The shortest reading, ὁ μονογενής, may seem to be original since it would explain the rise of the other readings, but the manuscript support for this reading is too limited.


Some modern commentators take μονογενής as a noun and punctuate so as to have three distinct designations of him who makes God known (μονογενής, θεός, ὁ ὦν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός). The reading in the text has been translated “It is God the only Son” (NRSV) and “but God the One and Only” (NIV). If the reading in the text is followed, Beasley-Murray (John, p. 2, n. e) says that “θεός must be viewed as in apposition to μονογενής and be understood as ‘God by nature’ as in v 1c.”


Omanson, R. L., & Metzger, B. M. (2006). A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: an adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual commentary for the needs of translators (p. 165). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
 
Anyone who epouses Winer or Alford is cast by you as either a heretic or a hypocrite.
I've never said anything like this. You have either misunderstood me or are libeling me. Either way, you now stand corrected. You shouldn't repeat this claim without evidence.
 
The "hand that feeds me" is not JM. He is the accuser; for he also accuses reputable scholars of incomptence wihout proper grounds. I respect GM's opinions, but am not bound to agree with him or anyone else.
Push back isn't always a bad thing. It can help you rethink your position either to strengthen it or abandon it. JM showed your thesis to be false and you have yet to concede.
 
Last edited:
I've never said anything like this. You have either misunderstood me or are libeling me. Either way, you now stand corrected. You shouldn't repeat this claim without evidence.
Because the only position I have ever adopted is that of Winer and Alford, and so you stand accused of libelling them through me. Or else show me how I have deviated from their sentiments on the application of Sharp's rule.
 
Because the only position I have ever adopted is that of Winer and Alford, and so you stand accused of libelling them through me.
I haven't called anyone a heretic, and stating that a certain grammarian is wrong on a grammatical point (I honestly don't know what these men have said on the matter) is not the same as accusing them of incompetence. You are widely off the mark.
Or else show me how I have deviated from their sentiments on the application of Sharp's rule.
I have already destroyed your remarks about Sharp's rule, because the phrase you are referring to as a name is not a name. That book is closed.
 
He's demonstrated nothing except conceit.
JM proved this part of your thesis to be false. "If ό Θεός is the NT designate name for God the Father of Jesus...." with John 20:28 and Heb 1:8 making the second part of your thesis on Sharp's rule irrelevant.

For what its worth, I thought it was an interesting thesis.
 
Last edited:
I haven't called anyone a heretic, and stating that a certain grammarian is wrong on a grammatical point (I honestly don't know what these men have said on the matter) is not the same as accusing them of incompetence. You are widely off the mark.

I have already destroyed your remarks about Sharp's rule, because the phrase you are referring to as a name is not a name. That book is closed.
Whether it is strictly a name, or not, is irrelevant, as it doesn't have to be a name because Sharp's rules can exclude quasi proper names including "kyrios" by common consent even of Trinitarians. So your allegation fails at the first hurdle.
 
Whether it is strictly a name, or not, is irrelevant, as it doesn't have to be a name because Sharp's rules can exclude quasi proper names including "kyrios" by common consent even of Trinitarians. So your allegation fails at the first hurdle.
If the phrase is not a proper name (and thus can be used to refer to other individuals as the words θεός, κύριος, σωτήρ, etc.), then you must demonstrate that the word refers to a certain person. The reason you insist that the word must be a proper name is to circumvent this issue. Your motives are completely transparent.
 
JM proved this part of your thesis to be false. "If ό Θεός is the NT designate name for God the Father of Jesus...." with John 20:28 and Heb 1:8 making the second part of your thesis on Sharp's rule irrelevant.

For what its worth, I thought it was an interesting thesis.
These are both consistent with the article as vocative. In each verse the article is there to express the vocative case, and for no other reason - this being a usual idomatic way to express the vocative at that time.

In any event, John 20:28 demonstrates nothing like what you are maintaining as it was taken as an expression of faith by and in Jesus. Belief must be in both the Father and the Son I John 2:22 "Who is the liar, if it is not the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son." and John 14:7 "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father."

"This is the highest confession of faith which has yet been made" (Alford). A confession of faith as to the Father being in Jesus isn't to be confounded with a doctrinal statement on the Trinity, or as in your case, a statement as to existence of a modalistic God.
 
Whether it is strictly a name, or not, is irrelevant, as it doesn't have to be a name because Sharp's rules can exclude quasi proper names including "kyrios" by common consent even of Trinitarians. So your allegation fails at the first hurdle.
At least now you've abandoned your false allegations against me. I thank you for that courtesy, but you still owe me an apology.
 
These are both consistent with the article as vocative. In each verse the article is there to express the vocative case, and for no other reason - this being a usual idomatic way to express the vocative at that time.
And again, a vocative used to call someone God who you think is not God clearly demonstrates that the phrase is not a name.
In any event, John 20:28 demonstrates nothing like what you are maintaining as it was taken as an expression of faith by and in Jesus. Belief must be in both the Father and the Son I John 2:22 "Who is the liar, if it is not the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son." and John 14:7 "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father."
This is silly. We have no reason to suspect that Thomas ever stopped believing in God. He had stopped believing in Jesus and in what Jesus had testified about himself. The summary of that section makes this clear, "30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." The focus here is exclusively not Jesus, not on the combination of individuals as you erroneously assert. That's why John's gospel so often reports that Jesus urged his disciples to believe in God (which they did) and him.
"This is the highest confession of faith which has yet been made" (Alford). A confession of faith as to the Father being in Jesus isn't to be confounded with a doctrinal statement on the Trinity, or as in your case, a statement as to existence of a modalistic God.
It is an acknowledgement that Jesus is referred to as God as the text says and as I have been telling you all along. I don't know why you think that Alford's remarks aren't in lock step with what I have explained to you.
 
At least now you've abandoned your false allegations against me. I thank you for that courtesy, but you still owe me an apology.
No, you're the one who has been slandering me for being a hypocrite and for failing to substantiate my thesis on the basis that "theos" isn't a proper name, when you never had any valid point to make in the first place on this issue.

You said in your first post here "John is a name. Jesus is a name. Peter is a name. Paul is a name. θεός is a noun. Some nouns can be modified with an article and/or adjectives to refer to a single person like the word "president" is being modified in the phrase "the president of the USA," but it doesn't mean that "president" is a name. It doesn't matter how many times some wackadoodle claims otherwise, θεός is not a name. Therefore, your remarks here are a waste of time. End of thread."

It's taken you 18 pages; and you're still not conceding you've been in the wrong all this time. What a waste of time. If you're not qualified to engage, then don't!
 
Back
Top