Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

[brianrw]

You tried to attack and disparage this writing by Ambrosiaster saying it was just an "interpolator of the writings of Ambrose", for which I have seen no references at all. It looks like you just made that up, and never checked the scholarship.

I wasn't trying to disparage the writings of Ambrosiaster, but to emphasize the point that Erasmus mistook him as the Bishop of Milan. You're simply viewing this from a modern lens. But I admit, my wording could have been better by referring to him as a pseudonymous author once attributed to Ambrose.

Erasmus referenced Ambrosiaster, and considered his analysis as superior.

In that passage, Erasmus thought that Ambrosiaster was indeed Ambrose, bishop of Milan. As one of your sources (which I believe was actually one I had given you earlier):

Erasmus follows Ambrosiaster, who virtually alone among the early church Fathers understands the phrase 'our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ' to refer to the Father and Son separately and not just to Jesus. This position involved Erasmus in endless controversy, especially with Lee, Sancho Carranza, and a group of Spanish monks. (Erasmus, Paraphrase... , p. 290)​

​

The misreading of the Greek text happens when viewed through a Latin lens (where there are no articles), and this passage is a prime example of a reading that has been improperly accented. As for the Vulgate, we can be certain of the reading as its translator, Jerome writes,

Where is the serpent Arius? Where is the snake Eunomius? Jesus Christ, the Saviour, is called the great God. Not as the first-begotten of every creature, not as the Word or Wisdom of God, is He so called, but as Jesus Christ--names which belong to Him as having assumed humanity.​

That text is mirrored with little variation in Ambrosiaster, whose translation in the relevant portion is virtually identical (note beati for magni), writes,

Illuxit enim gratia Dei Salvatoris nostri omnibus hominibus, erudiens nos, ut abnegata impietate et saecularibus desideriis, temperanter, et juste, et pie vivamus in hoc saeculo. Donum Dei illuxisse hominibus dicit per Christum, id est, veritatem unius Dei manifestatam in Christo: ut pia professione Creatorem praedicemus in Trinitatis unitate: quod prius latuit humanum genus, nunc autem misericordia Dei eluxit; ut erroris tenebras evitantes, id est, ignorantiam et impietatem mundanorum fugientes, pii inveniamur in parentem omnium Deum, profitentes eum in veritate, quam tradit Evangelium Filii ejus: et ut hujus rei mercedem habere possimus, bona opera faciamus. Quomodo enim illi qui solum Patrem praedicat, spes nulla est, si non profiteatur in eadem veritate et Filium: ita et hujus spes frustra est, qui solam professionem fidei habet sine bonis operibus.​

​

"For the grace of God our Savior has shone on all men, teaching us that, having denied ungodliness and worldly lusts, we may live in this world temperately, and justly, and godly." He says that the gift of God shone on men through Christ, that is, the truth of the one God revealed in Christ, so that by pious profession we may proclaim the Creator in the unity of the Trinity; so that while avoiding the darkness of error--that is, fleeing from the ignorance and ungodliness of worldly things--we may be found pious in God the parent of all, professing him in the truth which the Gospel of his Son delivers. For as to him who preaches the Father alone, there is no hope if he does not profess in the same truth the Son also; so also the hope of this man is in vain, who has only the profession of faith without good works.​

​

Exspectantes beatam spem, et adventum gloriae beati (sic.) Dei, et Salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi, qui dedit semet ipsum pro nobis; ut redimeret nos ab omni iniquitate, et emundaret sibi populum abundantem, aemulatorem bonorum operum. Hanc esse dicit beatam spem credentium; quia exspectant adventum gloriae magni Dei, quod revelari habet, iudice Christo, in quo Dei Patris videbitur potestas et gloria; ut fidei suae praemium consequantur.​

​

"Looking for the blessed hope and the coming of the glory of the blessed (sic.) God and our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and cleanse himself an abounding people, an emulator of good works." He says that this is the happy hope of those who believe; because they await the coming of the glory of the great God, which has to be revealed, judge Christ, in whom the power and glory of God the Father will be seen; that they may obtain the reward of their faith.​

This is a simple case of an improperly accented interpretation, and this is reinforced even more when we find this interpretation virtually along among the fathers.

Calvin Winstanley really destroyed the supposed rules in 1805.

Having no knowledge of the Greek, it would be hard for you to present such an argument from a position of knowledge, seeing as Winstanley's objections have long since been put to rest.

However Wallace avoided dealing with the substance of his writing, with the use of very selective extracts and ellipsis "...."

An omission which, when restored, added nothing substantive.

I'm not sure if you're grasping Winer's point, and I'm not sure I understood your point.

Winer makes it clear that his point is based primarily upon dogmatic conviction.

 

[John Milton]

I'm not sure if you're grasping Winer's point, and I'm not sure if I understood your point.

I grasp Winer's point just fine, and I made my point clear enough, I think, in what I wrote. Try rereading first, then I'll explain again if I need to later this afternoon.

Winer's point was the necessity for the article to be linked to σωτήρ, not χριστός Ἰησοῦς, which doesn't need the article as a proper name with appositive.

No. He is saying that a noun followed by a genitive in certain instances may omit the article.

There might have been a good reason for not using an article here with σωτήρ, because Jesus being σωτήρ couldn't exclude the Father from being σωτήρ also.

That's stupid. No one thinks (Well, I guess you do, so I should say "should think.") about the word that way. Context makes the meaning.

May be Paul didn't want to exclude the Father. So he felt Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ was the right nuance.

Or maybe aliens wrote it. Do you see how pointless speculation is?

Contrariwise, Jesus is definitely o κύριος, to the exclusion of the Father. Hence the distinction.

So you think Rev. 4:11 refers to Jesus. Gotcha. Then why are you arguing over Tit. 2:13?

 

[cjab]

I grasp Winer's point just fine, and I made my point clear enough, I think, in what I wrote. Try rereading first, then I'll explain again if I need to later this afternoon.

No. He is saying that a noun followed by a genitive in certain instances may omit the article.

Exactly my point.

That's stupid. No one thinks (Well, I guess you do, so I should say "should think.") about the word that way. Context makes the meaning.

Or maybe aliens wrote it. Do you see how pointless speculation is?

The thing is, grammatical rules aren't so hard as you're making out. You can't invent rules of grammar just to satisfy your trinitarian bias.

So you think Rev. 4:11 refers to Jesus. Gotcha. Then why are you arguing over Tit. 2:13?

Rev 4:11 says "our Lord and God." 1 Thess 3:11 says "The Lord Jesus." Tit 2:13 says "Our Savior Jesus Christ." All use different words, different contexts, different nuances. To insist on a fixed grammar rule applying to all three passages is your problem. Greek grammar I am sure was sufficiently flexible to allow various nuances.

The problem for SharpeI I guess is that he sought to over-engineer the grammar to force it to dictate things it wasn't really dictating.

Such is how the ECFs credited Trinitarianism in all these passages, because they interpreted them all in a certain way, which wasn't the theologically correct way, or even the contextually apposite way, but which may have been permitted under the wide ranging rules of grammar.

 

[Steven Avery]

But I admit, my wording could have been better by referring to him as a pseudonymous author once attributed to Ambrose.

Thanks!

And why not acknowledge you were wrong calling him an interpolater?
And is that something you just made up?
It was very curious, and nicely prompted me to seek out the truth.

You do realize, I hope, that Erasmus is the scholar who assigned the name Ambrosiaster. I pointed this out earlier, and here is another reference.

This next footnote is on the Paraphase of James. The Paraphrases are fairly early, c. 1520.

Erasmus means 'Ambrosiaster' the name which he was later to give to the author of the commentary on the thirteen Epistles of Paul, but at this date he had not yet distinguished the anonymous commentator from Ambrose, the bishop of Milan. See CWE 42 138 m3.
https://books.google.com/books?id=HrdtK45DK_8C&pg=PA320

And I think you are mixed up a bit, maybe commentaries and the Erasmus texts, because Erasmus used the new name Ambrosiaster when writing about Titus 2:13. Ignore the English commentary about Ambrose and Mill.

ERASMUS

■ τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος. Id ita legi po test ut utrumque pertineat ad Christum, Dei, et Servatoris: aut prius pertineat ad Patrem, posterius ad Christum.

Chrysostomus ac Theophylactus utrumque tribuunt Christo, et item Hieronymus, exultantes adversus Arianos, ceu victores, cum sermo plane sit anceps: imo magis pro illis facere videatur quam pro nobis. Primum negari non potest quin Sermo Graecus sit ambiguus, et ex aequo pertinens ad sensum utrumlibet. Quid autem agas adversus haereticum ex loco prorsus ancipiti? Quod si illos urgeas interpretum consensu, certe Ambrosius vir summus et Episcopus orthodoxus" (this great Bishop is, however, no other than the poor Deacon whom we have seen Dr. Mill treating so contemptuously) "divisim accipit, ut magni Dei referatur ad Patrem, Servatoris ad Christum. Ipsius verba subscribam.

In that passage, Erasmus thought that Ambrosiaster was indeed Ambrose, bishop of Milan. As one of your sources (which I believe was actually one I had given you earlier):

Erasmus was not calling him Ambrose there. He coined the name Ambrosiaster to show that it was another writer, with some similarity to Ambrose, at least in time and language, but a totally different writer.

It would be nice if you pulled all this together properly, including acknowledging directly that you made an error calling him an interpolater

 

[Steven Avery]

The misreading of the Greek text happens when viewed through a Latin lens (where there are no articles), and this passage is a prime example of a reading that has been improperly accented. As for the Vulgate, we can be certain of the reading as its translator, Jerome writes,

Where is the serpent Arius? Where is the snake Eunomius? Jesus Christ, the Saviour, is called the great God. Not as the first-begotten of every creature, not as the Word or Wisdom of God, is He so called, but as Jesus Christ--names which belong to Him as having assumed humanity.​

That text is mirrored with little variation in Ambrosiaster, whose translation in the relevant portion is virtually identical (note beati for magni), writes,

Illuxit enim gratia Dei Salvatoris nostri omnibus hominibus, erudiens nos, ut abnegata impietate et saecularibus desideriis, temperanter, et juste, et pie vivamus in hoc saeculo. Donum Dei illuxisse hominibus dicit per Christum, id est, veritatem unius Dei manifestatam in Christo: ut pia professione Creatorem praedicemus in Trinitatis unitate: quod prius latuit humanum genus, nunc autem misericordia Dei eluxit; ut erroris tenebras evitantes, id est, ignorantiam et impietatem mundanorum fugientes, pii inveniamur in parentem omnium Deum, profitentes eum in veritate, quam tradit Evangelium Filii ejus: et ut hujus rei mercedem habere possimus, bona opera faciamus. Quomodo enim illi qui solum Patrem praedicat, spes nulla est, si non profiteatur in eadem veritate et Filium: ita et hujus spes frustra est, qui solam professionem fidei habet sine bonis operibus.​

​

"For the grace of God our Savior has shone on all men, teaching us that, having denied ungodliness and worldly lusts, we may live in this world temperately, and justly, and godly." He says that the gift of God shone on men through Christ, that is, the truth of the one God revealed in Christ, so that by pious profession we may proclaim the Creator in the unity of the Trinity; so that while avoiding the darkness of error--that is, fleeing from the ignorance and ungodliness of worldly things--we may be found pious in God the parent of all, professing him in the truth which the Gospel of his Son delivers. For as to him who preaches the Father alone, there is no hope if he does not profess in the same truth the Son also; so also the hope of this man is in vain, who has only the profession of faith without good works.​

​

Exspectantes beatam spem, et adventum gloriae beati (sic.) Dei, et Salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi, qui dedit semet ipsum pro nobis; ut redimeret nos ab omni iniquitate, et emundaret sibi populum abundantem, aemulatorem bonorum operum. Hanc esse dicit beatam spem credentium; quia exspectant adventum gloriae magni Dei, quod revelari habet, iudice Christo, in quo Dei Patris videbitur potestas et gloria; ut fidei suae praemium consequantur.​

​

"Looking for the blessed hope and the coming of the glory of the blessed (sic.) God and our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and cleanse himself an abounding people, an emulator of good works." He says that this is the happy hope of those who believe; because they await the coming of the glory of the great God, which has to be revealed, judge Christ, in whom the power and glory of God the Father will be seen; that they may obtain the reward of their faith.​

First, Ambrosius preceded Jerome and his Vulgate. Ambrosius used the Old Latin which could have lots of variations. And he has nothing like Jerome's "the Saviour, is called the great God.", the key element,

Thus Ambrosius is against the identity theory, as Erasmus pointed out. Erasmus did acknowledge that Jerome had the identity translation.

And calling Jesus Christ the great God is a doctrinal disaster, since that is a term for God the Father. This may have contributed to Jerome being accused of being Sabellian.

 

[Steven Avery]

Such is how the ECFs credited Trinitarianism in all these passages, because they interpreted them all in a certain way, which wasn't the theologically correct way, or even the contextually apposite way, but which may have been permitted under the wide ranging rules of grammar.

Only one passage has substantial early church writer support. Titus 2:13

Ephesians 5:5 had a smidgen of support, arguably two writers, some claim three but I doubt it, and other commentaries were much better, with no intimation of the identity translation.

2 Peter 1:1 has no identity support at all, although there are only a few early references that go to the particular verse. However, the book was used by a large number of commentators, so some would have used the verse if they believed it supported the Jesus is God interpretation.

The other verses claimed by Sharp are a junk pile, and offhand I have not seen any of them with an identity interpretation from the early church writers.

brianrw said I should go to Middleton, but he showed next to nothing. I am getting used to his sloppy referencing, like with Ambrosius above, with error upon error.

 

[Steven Avery]

Calvin Winstanley really destroyed the supposed rules in 1805.

A vindication of certain passages in the common English version of the New Testament: Addressed to Granville Sharp, esq., author of "Remarks on the ... in the Greek text of the New Testament" Unknown Binding – January 1, 1805
Calvin Winstanley

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Winstanley.pdf

Interestingly, in one section Winstanley used the theme I had mentioned earlier, showing constructions that really could not have an article even if they were two subjects.

============================

Daniel Wallace acknowledged Winstanley, e.g.

"The most formidable foe to Sharp's rule was Calvin Winsfanley"
https://books.google.com/books?id=XlqoTVsk2wcC&pg=PA273

However Wallace avoided dealing with the substance of his writing, with the use of very selective extracts and ellipsis "...."

... seeing as Winstanley's objections have long since been put to rest.

An omission which, when restored, added nothing substantive.

This looks like another one of your comedy references, like the recent one to Middleton, that blew up in your face.

Now, you show where anyone properly addressed Calvin Winstanley's objections.
A good test case would be the one I highlighted, which negates the "Rule".


Calvin Winstanley

There are at least three cases, in which the article cannot be repeated after the copulative, whether the nouns express identity or diversity of persons or things. p. 18

And when you fail to find this and other salient objections addressed, I would expect you to retract your claim.

And some refutations of Sharp in the early church writers were ascribed to "naive modalism" by Daniel Wallace. In other words, you have to have the proper Trinitarian glasses for the Rule to work.

 

[Steven Avery]

About identity in Titus 2:13.

--your interpretation was an innovation of the Socinians in particular.

That is the blunder that still needs correction.

But I never said that, did I? You won't even be able to find any of this in the search because you either have me confused with someone else, or you are flat out lying. I would also not use the name "Socinus," but Sozzini. You can run that through the search also.

I said already both here and in relation to Romans 9:5 that Erasmus was the source. In Titus 2:13, specifically, I noted:

brianrw said:
Robert Witham (1733), Annotations on the New Testament of Jesus Christ, p. 298 (rightly notes Erasmus and Grotius as the instigators

Your blunder was ascribing this as an innovation by the Socinians.
You cannot take two opposite positions simultaneously.

You refuse to correct that, even knowing that Fauso Socinus simply followed Erasmus.
That refusal is how an historical error elevates to a blunder.
Amazing.
And I think this is because you really like to blame almost everything you do not like doctrinally on Socinians and Unitarians, and it does not fit the narrative when Erasmus is the source.

All that is why I pointed out your error.

Steven Avery said:
Socinus simply followed Erasmus, and even used the Ambrosiaster quote, yet you hilariously claim that Socinus was the first one. Bizarro logic.

Steven Avery said:
Similarly with your refusal to place Erasmus before Socinus on the non-identity interpretation of Titus 2:13. This is wacky, since Erasmus strongly preferred the non-identity understanding, and quoted Ambrosiaster. Socinus simply followed Erasmus, and even used the Ambrosiaster quote, yet you hilariously claim that Socinus was the first one. Bizarro logi

 

[Steven Avery]

Excuse me. I said Middleton (who references Wordsworth) but I meant Wordsworth, Six Letters, p. 132:

We might continue our progress still further, but even this brings us into the middle of the 13th century; so that we shall easily be excused for descending no lower. And it may be fairly estimated, what stress is to be laid on this part of the argument, when it shall have been told, that I have observed more (I am persuaded) than a thousand instances of the form ὁ Χριστος και θεος (Ephes. v. 5.) some hundreds of instances of ὁ μεγας θεος και σωτηρ (Tit. ii. 13); and not fewer than several thousands of the form ὁ θεος και σωτηρ (2 Pet. i. 1.) while in no single case, have I seen (where the sense could be determined) any one of them used, but only of one person.​

Keep in mind that Wordsworth had initially set out to disprove Sharp but ended up reversing his position once he had appreciated the weight of evidence.

You should be embarrassed to quote Wordsworth here.
A totally absurd comment.

Let's take 2 Peter 1:1.

not fewer than several thousand of the form ὁ θεος και σωτηρ (2 Pet. i. 1.) .... in no single case, have I seen (where the sense could be determined) any one of them used, but only of one person.

So why don't you give us five?

Do you think about what you are writing before you throw out a name or a quote?

===============

Wordsworth was skeptical, but he was not trying to refute Sharp.

Wallace:

"The first really substantial response to Sharp's work was by Christopher Wordsworth, at the time a Fellow of Trinity College in Cambridge, who wrote Six Letters to Granville Sharp, Esq.,, published anonymously in 1802. His interest was piqued by Sharp's canon, though he admitted at the outset of his investigation a great deal of skepticism, even incredulity, over its validity. College in Cambridge, who wrote Six Letters to Granville Sharp, Esq.,, published anonymously in 1802. "

 

[Steven Avery]

And I have simplified this to make it easier for brianrw, he does not have to work on the phrases for God and Spirit.

Without thinking about Bible verses, here are some of the words and phrases that have to be determined to be proper names, or not, for the Granville Sharp construct to have any potential viability in deciding the interpretative intent of the New Testament authors.

Jesus
Christ
Savior
Master
Jesus Christ
Lord Jesus
Lord Jesus Christ
Saviour Jesus Christ
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ

Indicate every one that is a proper name.
Explain how you determine how each word or phrase is or is not a proper name.

And preferably test them out with Rule 1 and 6, if following Sharp.
Ok, that might be asking too much!
Folks tend to forget that Sharp had an inverse rule.

======================

If Brian can not give us his methodology on these nine terms/words/titles, then he has no methodology at all for his Sharpian canon.

And it is all special pleading, smoke and mirrors.
Moving the target to match where the Identity-Deity arrows fall.

First establish the methodology. Then work on the assertions. Logic 101.

 

[Steven Avery]

I don't. But as Steven Avery appeared to misrepresent Chrysostom as taking an opposite position than he held, I quoted Chrysostom. Since Steven has already been informed on Chrysostom's position multiple times, it was already disingenuous to pretend otherwise. He's done this sort of thing in other forums as well.

Yet another fabrication, followed by bogus accusations.

I was doing a study on ANY exegesis that discussed the article, in any context, and Chrysostom came first, and Alcuin and Euthymius Zigabenus were also mentioned. And I even dedicated the study to brianrw, knowing you might be able to use it for your argumentation.

Is honest scholarship so hard for you to understand?
This is looking for references in the scholarship before Augusinus Dalthus and Erasmus and Beza and Salomon Glassius.

Is study simply for the sake of learning foreign to you?

 

[Steven Avery]

Let's use a little classical ad hominem approach (to the man, allowing his arguments).

Paul is writing to Titus and he begins in an early draft:

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and Jesus Christ;

Paul stops, checks his Sharpian grammar book and thinks...
"wait, because Jesus Christ is a proper noun, this will not mean that Jesus is the great God"

So Paul decides to change the text, he adds words, "our Saviour".

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Now, Paul says,
wonderful it is saying that Jesus Christ is the great God, because the added two words totally change the meaning!

Reductio ad absurbum
- if you really believe Paul wrote and thought in this manner, then you should be buying up a lot of bridges.

And if you really think the two possible texts above have totally different meanings, you have a very fundamental logic problem.

================

Oh, Paul would never actually call Jesus Christ the great God, an ultra-Sabellian distortion.
That is the additional problem.

 

[John Milton]

The thing is, grammatical rules aren't so hard as you're making out.

I haven't said anything about grammatical rules. Winer gave reasons for the omission of the article in Tit. 2:13 that don't work, and the very first example I provided to Steven (II Tim. 1:5) illustrated that point.

You can't invent rules of grammar just to satisfy your trinitarian bias.

Again. I haven't given any rules of grammar, and I have not claimed to be a Trinitarian. I'm an agnostic on the issue, of sorts, but I'm definitely not oneness/JW. Those two groups can't possibly be right given the evidence we have in the text.

Rev 4:11 says "our Lord and God."

Yes. So you must think both of those terms refer to Jesus, right? You dodged this point earlier.

1 Thess 3:11 says "The Lord Jesus."

Αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς
No. The underlined part says "our Lord Jesus."

Tit 2:13 says "Our Savior Jesus Christ."

προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
The underlined part says, "our savior Jesus Christ."

All use different words, different contexts, different nuances. To insist on a fixed grammar rule applying to all three passages is your problem.

I've not insisted "on a fixed grammar rule applying to all three passages." You are making things up. The differences among these passages are minor, but feel free to tell me all about them.

Greek grammar I am sure was sufficiently flexible to allow various nuances.

It's funny how you insist that the grammar being flexible or inflexible according to your needs. My position on these matters has been consistent at all points and times. These things are evident.

The problem for SharpeI I guess is that he sought to over-engineer the grammar to force it to dictate things it wasn't really dictating.

This is exactly what Winer is doing, but you don't have the ability to evaluate this claim. It's no matter to you, though. You don't evaluate anything. You just blindly accept whatever supports your position.

Such is how the ECFs credited Trinitarianism in all these passages, because they interpreted them all in a certain way, which wasn't the theologically correct way, or even the contextually apposite way, but which may have been permitted under the wide ranging rules of grammar.

My favorite among part your baseless slander is the underlined part where you express doubt about things that should be clear even to you.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Continued from previous post


The attributive genitive is an established usage of the genitive in the Greek grammars (Wallace, Köstenberger, Merkle, Plummer, Whitacre, al), so I am not "re-inventing the Greek grammar." And it's not that I am unaware of how you are reading it. I said your interpretation involves an oversimplistic view of the construction. An attributive construction involving τῆς δόξης may be found in about two thirds of all instances where it occurs in Paul's writings, so you are vastly overselling your point.

That's a false & deceptive statement. Here is the truth: in one third of the usages in the apostle's writings, it is impossible. In two thirds of the usages in the apostle's writings it arguably is not impossible, but is still highly unlikely to be attributive. Once again, another verse which you claim '"proves" the "Deity" of Christ really does not do so.

 

[The Real John Milton]

The indefinite article (for which, where it seemed necessary
to express it, the Greeks used τῐς) is in particular instances
expressed by the (weakened) numeral εἰς: this usage is found
mainly in later Greek (Winer).
______________
Re Caragounis: his word "essence" is a strange word to use if his argument is that anarthrous θεός is not qualitative. I believe Caragounis retains that word only as a sop to Trinitarians. His main idea is that anarthrous θεός incorporates the properties of God, but I'm not sure if that encapsulated the whole idea.

If θεός is monadic, which it must be if it is sourced from Jewish theology, then θεός
cannot ever be indefinite without an indefinite article, or unless there is an express or implied derogration from the θεός in heaven to something else, i.e. θεός being applied to humans (John 10:24-36), or to a false god.

E.g. in no sense is anarthrous θεός indefinite in Θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ (2 Cor 5:19).

The only transition that anarthrous θεός in heaven could ever be capable of vis-a-vis articular θεός in heaven is God in a state of being or existing as a person (the Father) (articular θεός) to God in a state of doing (anarthrous θεός), just because θεός is monadic. God in a state of doing must retain all the properties of God.

The solution must offer theological coherence. Jn 1:1c would therefore suggest, "God the Father acted through the Word implying that the Word's whole existence is predicated on the Father" which is coherent with other apostolic passages.

τῐς is not the Koine equivalent of the indefinite article. Koine does not have an indefinite article; often the indefinite semantic force is connoted simply by the lack of a definite article. τῐς is an indefinite pronoun.

Here is Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek:

Article. As in English, the Greek article is generally translated "the." The general rule is to translate according to the presence or absence of the article. If the article is present, translate it. If there is no article, do not use "the."

If there is no article you may insert "a" before the noun if it makes better sense in English. For example, ὁ ἄνθρωπος means "the man" and ἄνθρωπος means "man" or "a man."

 

[Steven Avery]

The simplicity of Winer is commanding. (The simplest arguments are always the best, of course.)

Winer p.162

In Tit. ii. 13, επιφάνεια τής δόξης τον μεγάλου θεου και σωτηρος ήμών
Ίησου Χρίστου.....the article is omitted before σωτήρος, because this word is defined by
the genitive ημών, and because the apposition precedes the proper
name : of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.'

Correction:

this word is made definite by
https://books.google.com/books?id=SyASAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA142

This is similar to the point I offered before about the personal pronoun making it difficult to place in an article. Placing an article before Saviour makes it double-definite, and before Jesus Christ is not normative New Testament and separates Saviour from Jesus Christ.

 

[brianrw]

About identity in Titus 2:13.

Brianrw:--your interpretation was an innovation of the Socinians in particular.​

That is the blunder that still needs correction.

You refuse to correct that, even knowing that Fauso Socinus simply followed Erasmus.
That refusal is how an historical error elevates to a blunder.
Amazing.
And I think this is because you really like to blame almost everything you do not like doctrinally on Socinians and Unitarians, and it does not fit the narrative when Erasmus is the source.

I didn't even mention Fausto Sozzini, I mentioned the Socinians themselves. You're misrepresenting me again for a second time now after already being corrected. Erasmus admitted that "This can be read in such a way that both belong to Christ, God and Saviour," though he chose to refer it to two subjects. He writes, "surely Ambrose, a most eminent and orthodox bishop, receives them separately, so that 'the Great of God' refers to the Father, 'Savior' to Christ."

The interpretation espoused by the Socinians, on the other hand, is not merely that two subjects are in view, but that Christ is being called the glory of the great God and Savior, not (as Erasmus, Ambrosiaster) that the Father is "great God" and Jesus Christ is "savior." This argument is taken up in modern times by Gordon Fee. That is The Real John Milton's position, as I understand it.

I hope that clears up your confusion over what I said. I hope next time you can ask politely for clarification.

And I think you are mixed up a bit, maybe commentaries and the Erasmus texts, because Erasmus used the new name Ambrosiaster when writing about Titus 2:13. Ignore the English commentary about Ambrose and Mill.

I quoted Erasmus' annotations on Titus 2:13, which was my original source. And I just quoted it again above. He may have emended the statement elsewhere later, but he was wrong in his annotations. He calls the author Ambrose and says he's an eminent bishop, so there's no reason for saying I am "mixed up a bit."

Yet another fabrication, followed by bogus accusations.

I was doing a study on ANY exegesis that discussed the article, in any context, and Chrysostom came first, and Alcuin and Euthymius Zigabenus were also mentioned. And I even dedicated the study to brianrw, knowing you might be able to use it for your argumentation.

Is honest scholarship so hard for you to understand?
This is looking for references in the scholarship before Augusinus Dalthus and Erasmus and Beza and Salomon Glassius.

Is study simply for the sake of learning foreign to you?

All these are just unnecessary and defamatory comments. We could have constructive conversations, but you'd rather predicate everything with attacks on my credibility and scholarship than actually try and listen to what I am saying.

This looks like another one of your comedy references, like the recent one to Middleton, that blew up in your face.

As I told you earlier, I wrote the wrong name by accident (I had meant to say Wordsworth) and I then proceeded to correct myself and give the precise quote I intended to refer you to. Unfortunately, I can't go back and edit the comments after 30 minutes so I can't just change it. It probably won't be the last mistake I ever make, either. I'm not really sure how that "blew up" in my face?

As for Winstanley, Middleton’s Doctrine of the Greek Article is generally considered the last authoritative word on the matter. As for the grammar, you can see yourself from the Greeks that they understood the passage as calling Christ "great God."

If Brian can not give us his methodology on these nine terms/words/titles, then he has no methodology at all for his Sharpian canon.

And it is all special pleading, smoke and mirrors.
Moving the target to match where the Identity-Deity arrows fall.

First establish the methodology. Then work on the assertions. Logic 101.

I addressed all of these in your forum, I don't know why I have to do it again here. Jesus is a proper name. Christ is a monadic title. Savior is a title. Master is a title. Lord is a title. The rest are comments involving a proper name in apposition to a title.

First, Ambrosius preceded Jerome and his Vulgate. Ambrosius used the Old Latin which could have lots of variations. And he has nothing like Jerome's "the Saviour, is called the great God.", the key element,

I didn't say that Ambrosiaster was using the Vulgate. I said:

As for the Vulgate, we can be certain of the reading as its translator . . . That text is mirrored with little variation in Ambrosiaster, whose translation in the relevant portion is virtually identical (note beati for magni)​

This was simply a comparative reference and there was no reason for accusing me of perpetuating an anachronism.

Now, Paul says,
wonderful it is saying that Jesus Christ is the great God, because the added two words totally change the meaning!

Small changes can have the big meaning in a text. If I call Christ, "our Savior" it means he is our Savior. If I say he is "our Lord," he is our Lord. That's one word different, and yet the meaning changes dramatically. I don't know what all of this is trying to prove.

That's deceptive. In one third of the usages in the apostle's writings, it is impossible. In two thirds of all usages in the apostle's writings it arguably is not impossible, but is highly unlikely to be attributive. Once again, another verse which you claim '"proves" the "Deity" of Christ is highly dubious.

There's no reason to say "it is highly unlikely." You would need to substantiate that, as it's only your opinion. It's quite frankly awkward to render passages like, "the freedom of the glory," when it is clear, "glorious liberty" is intended. It is awkward to render passages like, "the gospel of the glory," when it is clear the intended meaning is "glorious gospel."

Paul frequently employs attributive genitive constructions, and this would be quite natural for a Hebrew writer to do. Since the Genitive has myriad usages, it is not uncommon for the genitive usage to vary from scripture to scripture. But least of all, do you have the right to accuse me of inventing Greek grammar, as you did above, since you yourself now have to backtrack because I cited several grammarians against the charge.

 

[Steven Avery]

I didn't even mention Fausto Sozzini, I mentioned the Socinians themselves. You're misrepresenting me again for a second time now after already being corrected. Erasmus admitted that "This can be read in such a way that both belong to Christ, God and Saviour," though he chose to refer it to two subjects. He writes, "surely Ambrose, a most eminent and orthodox bishop, receives them separately, so that 'the Great of God' refers to the Father, 'Savior' to Christ."

The interpretation espoused by the Socinians, on the other hand, is not merely that two subjects are in view, but that Christ is being called the glory of the great God and Savior, not (as Erasmus, Ambrosiaster) that the Father is "great God" and Jesus Christ is "savior." This argument is taken up in modern times by Gordon Fee. That is The Real John Milton's position, as I understand it.

I hope that clears up your confusion over what I said. I hope next time you can ask politely for clarification.

The confusion is all yours. Erasmus preceded Socinus, and thus ALL the Socinians, in offering the non-identity translation. In direct contradiction of your assertion. (Which I expect you will repeat again, since you refuse correction.)

In order to avoid simply acknowledging your error, you go all over the map. The fact that Erasmus allowed the possibility of the identity translation is simply irrelevant, as he clearly favored the normative non-identity translation, like we have in the Authorized Version.

Your new nuance about the glory was not in our original conversation, it is your new cheap diversion way to avoid acknowledging your error.

 

[brianrw]

The confusion is all yours. Erasmus preceded Socinus, and thus ALL the Socinians, in offering the non-identity translation. In direct contradiction of your assertion. (Which I expect you will repeat again, since you refuse correction.)

In order to avoid simply acknowledging your error, you go all over the map. The fact that Erasmus allowed the possibility of the identity translation is simply irrelevant, as he clearly favored the normative non-identity translation, like we have in the Authorized Version.

But I didn't say that the Socinians were the first in "offering the non-identity translation"--there are two in view here, not one. I said they were the ones who originated the interpretation that Christ is the glory of the Great God and Savior which to them is the Father.

So let me ask you a few questions:

In Erasmus annotations, does he not attribute "great God" to the Father, and "Savior" to Christ? Yes, he does.

Does Erasmus refer to Christ as the glory of the great God, etc.? No, he doesn't.

Do the Socinians say that Christ is the glory of the of the great God and Savior? Yes, they do.

Are these the same views?

No.

So you are clearly mistaken here, and we are looking at two different interpretations: one of Erasmus, and one of the Socinians. The honest thing would be to admit you misunderstood and apologize. Apparently, I was wrong in thinking there was any sort of civil exchange to be had here.

Nor should I expect much from someone who responds three minutes after a substantial post was written. You barely even had time to read it. This is why you keep missing the point, and why I have to keep going back and correcting your misrepresentations.

 

[brianrw]

And calling Jesus Christ the great God is a doctrinal disaster, since that is a term for God the Father. This may have contributed to Jerome being accused of being Sabellian.

Isaiah prophesied of Jesus, saying, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God (אֵל גִּבּוֹר), The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6). The Greek μέγας, as we find in Titus 2:13, is one of the words used to translate גִּבּוֹר. How is it, then, a doctrinal disaster to call Christ the very thing it was prophesied he would be called?