Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

Your intuition is just as bad as your ability to tell the truth.

Christ is God. I've said that all along. Christ is the not the Father. I've also said that all along. The Father is God. I've said that all along. The Holy Spirit is God. I've said that all along. I don't know how you could've been unclear on these things.

Unfortunately for you, contemporary witnesses saw Christ as being a man:

Jhn 4:29 "Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?"
Rom 5:15 "....by the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."
1Ti 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

As this point in time, your assertion that Christ is "God" who is invisible (I Timothy 1:17) is ludicrous.

Greek: ἄνθρωπος = MAN

Strongs: a human being, whether male or female

 
Last edited:
You're again placing a theological meaning on the usage or absence of an article, which is a bad practice.

Oh, the irony!

Of course there is a theological meaning to the article. Even Greeks themselves concede it. If John 1:1c had had θεός with the article, Sabellianism would have been scriptural.

The irony is the immense theological significance that brianrw sees for the inclusion or omission of the article in his Granville Sharp Rule confusions and obsessions.
 
Last edited:
We can even credit Julian the Apostate's critique of them, when he insinuates that they manipulated grammar any which way they chose.

.....

Julian the Apostate "Against the Galileans".

"But you are so misguided that you have not even remained faithful to the teachings that were handed down to you by the apostles. And these also have been altered., so as to be worse and more impious, by those who came after. At any rate neither Paul nor Matthew nor Luke nor Mark ventured to call Jesus God."

So this must have been common knowledge even way back (showing that Sharp's rule doesn't have any application to the NT in respect of ὁ Θεὸς).

Is there another quote from Julian specifically (insinuating) about manipulating grammar?
 
I did no such thing.
Then the following is an unfortunate sentence:

“You don't think that what constitutes a proper name/quasi-proper name/title, etc. is open to the interpretation of the commentator?”

We can use a forward slash to indicate that two (or more) things have a close relationship or are in opposition to each other. For example,

  • Those two had a love/hate relationship.
  • Currently, I work out of my apartment/home office/makeshift art studio.
  • I don’t know what to think about the Star Wars/Star Trek feud. I like both!
 
Is there another quote from Julian specifically (insinuating) about manipulating grammar?
No, not in words. Here is some more critique of Trinitarians from the same source:

"If the reading of your own scriptures is sufficient for you, why do you nibble at the learning of the Hellenes?"

"But you have thought it a slight thing to diminish and to add to the things which were written in the law; and to transgress it completely you have thought to be in every way more manly and more high-spirited, because you do not look to the truth but to that which will persuade all men."

A lot of contempt for the "God the Word" doctrine, which Julian assumes wrongly was originated by John, but in fact not so originated. (ὁ Θεὸς Λόγος came inter alia by Athanasius et al.). E.g. "Why then do you add to this that "No man hath seen God at any time"? For ye have indeed seen, if not God the Father, still God who is the Word."
 
No, I didn't. I said that Χριστός was originally a title but became used as a proper name. I believe John Milton said the same thing. So I declined to attribute Deity to Christ in the passage at Ephesians 5:5 (as Chrysostom, others do), preferring to err on the side of caution even though I tend to believe it is a monadic title. But you couldn't let it go, and still can't let it go.

And I will use this as another example of the absurdity of the necessary Granville Sharp apostolic New Testament author mind-reading, if there is supposed to be a Rule. The earlier example examined "our Saviour Jesus Christ" in Titus 2:13, compared to just "Jesus Christ."

Notice the flexibility. Brian can choose his categories, in order to end up with the "right" verses standing. (Like shooting arrows and then moving the target to make the bulls-eye!) This built-in selectivity was noted by Stephen Carlson on the B-Greek forum thread that discussed the GSR. Lots of goodies in that thread. Stephen Carlson saw that Daniel Wallace adjusted categories to end up with just Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 remaining from Sharp's original verse contingent. Plus he saw the frustrating and distressing Trinitarian-induced exceptionalism.

In the fallacy world, that is classic special pleading and cherry picking. There may even be a more specialized name for carefully arranging evidences in the precise way that will reach the conclusion desired from the beginning.

Ephesians 5:5 (AV)
For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person,
nor covetous man, who is an idolater,
hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

The real issue, if there was to be a grammatical "Rule", is not whether J. Edward Komoszewski, Rob Bowman, brianrw or John Milton or Daniel Wallace think Christ is a proper noun. That tells us nothing, is subjective selectivity, and leaves us with no correct and accurate Bible text.

The issue, by Granville Sharp Fantasy Theory (GSFT), is what was in the mind of Paul!

And the modern interpreter has to dig deep into the mind of Paul (and Peter and Jude, et al.) to know what they were thinking. And each writer might have their own personal, unique grammatical formulations!

Paul had to stop and look up his handy-dandy Proper and Common Nouns and Names and Titles and Plurals and Persons grammar book. Paul had to think,

"hmmm, if I write Christ, will I hit the identity trip-wire, claiming Christ is "God"? Is that what I want?"

The whole mishegosh is total absurdity.
 
Last edited:
Since the first church of your sect was established in 1774, England …

If TRJM wants to contest this dating, he might go to:

A History of the Corruptions of Christianity (1871 - orig 1782)
Considerations in Evidence that the Apostolic and Primitive Church was Unitarian
by Joseph Priestley
https://books.google.com/books?id=E5IPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA319

While I generally avoid Priestley, he is interesting on the topic of the early centuries, Ebionites, Nazarenes, the Tertullian quote and more.
 
Brian has a habit of placing in quotes (like the one from Christopher Wordsworth about thousands of phantom references) that he must know, or at least suspect, are specious or even totally false. It looks impressive and helps dupe those not familiar with the material, like John Milton. Here Harris amazingly lists Winer as the only grammarian in footnote 54! Even Daniel Wallace bemoaned the many grammarians who agreed with Winer, who Wallace tried to paint as the grammatical bogey-man. (Wallace was following an earlier Sharpian in this portrayal, it was not an original attempt.)

There is lots of info from Ezra Abbot, Huther, and others that would give him more grammarians and large numbers of additional excellent commentaries (not just “some”.)

By the grace of the Lord Jesus I plan to show some of this corrective info shortly.

This is a bit of a project.
Let’s start with the grammarians marshaled by Murray Harris, against the supposedly lone Winer.

Thomas Fanshaw Middleton 393-96;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._F._Middleton
The Doctrine of the Greek Article: Applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament (1833 edition)
http://books.google.com/books?id=0LfTEuP9cV0C&pg=PA393
https://archive.org/details/doctrinegreekar00masogoog/page/392/mode/2up

Hugh James Rose footnote contra Winstanley in Middleton 393;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_James_Rose

Bernard Weiss, "Gebrauch" 365;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Weiss

James Hope Moulton, Prolegomena 84;
(1863-1917)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hope_Moulton
A Grammar of the New Testament Greek - Prolegomena (1908)
https://books.google.com/books?id=L2JQAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA84
“We cannot discuss here the problem of Tit 213 for we must, as grammarians, leave the matter open : see WM 162, 156 n.”
Note: William Fiddian Moulton translates Winer:
https://books.google.com/books?id=rpUCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA162

Archibald Thomas Robertson, Grammar 786;
A Grammar of the Greek New Testament
http://books.google.com/books?id=sRojAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA786
Archibald Thomas Robertson, “Article" 186-87;
https://archive.org/stream/s8expositor21londuoft#page/186/mode/1up
(1863-1924)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Thomas_Robertson
"Winer has exerted a pernicious influence"

BDF §276.(3);

Zerwick, Greek §185
(the single article “seem(s) to suggest the divinity of Christ"; cf. his Analysis 488);
Maximilian Zerwick - (1901-1975)
http://books.google.com/books?id=0aFEgzaZlhwC&pg=PA59

C. F. D. Moule, Idiom Book 109-10;
C. F. D. Moule, Origin 137 (“probably");
Charles Francis Digby Moule (1908-2007)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._F._D._Moule

Nigel Turner, Insights 15-16; cf. his Syntax 181.
Grammatical Insights
http://books.google.com/books?id=WZaS56aEkjgC&pg=PA15
Nigel Turner
http://www.cslewis.org/ourprograms/thekilns/scholars/ntlibrary_bytitle/

In this small group, about 3 are heavy-duty Sharpians and three immediately have qualifiers like “probably”, which indicates that Murray Harris was struggling. One or two might be questioned as grammarians.

Winer, Smyth, Goodwin are not seen.

Next we should see the adversaries of Titus 2:13 identity grammar, beyond Winer.

This was put together while at a free outdoor music concert at a church in Pleasant Plains. Just finished with Michael Row Your Boat Ashore. :)
 
Last edited:
If TRJM wants to contest this dating, he might go to:

A History of the Corruptions of Christianity (1871 - orig 1782)
Considerations in Evidence that the Apostolic and Primitive Church was Unitarian
by Joseph Priestley
https://books.google.com/books?id=E5IPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA319

While I generally avoid Priestley, he is interesting on the topic of the early centuries, Ebionites, Nazarenes, the Tertullian quote and more.
(y).. It seems to me that some posters wear their ignorance as a badge of pride at Carm.

In truth, it is Trinitarian "Christianity" which came relatively late, at least 300 years after the death of Christ. The Earliest Christians were the Unitarians (the apostles, the first converts, the Ebonites, etc..)
 
Not to mention all the OT prophets ( including Abraham, Issac and Jacob) who were also Unitarians. The God of Israel is their God for a very good reason. And Moses himself, another Unitarian.
 
This thread has gone completely off the rails.

Is there another quote from Julian specifically (insinuating) about manipulating grammar?
We can even credit Julian the Apostate's critique of them, when he insinuates that they manipulated grammar any which way they chose.
Maybe my eyes are failing me. Julian in the quotation I see you've provided does no such thing. You seem to have backtracked since making the comment...

Julian the Apostate "Against the Galileans".

"But you are so misguided that you have not even remained faithful to the teachings that were handed down to you by the apostles. And these also have been altered., so as to be worse and more impious, by those who came after. At any rate neither Paul nor Matthew nor Luke nor Mark ventured to call Jesus God."
Is this the new champion of Unitarianism and Oneness? Julian was raised as an Arian Christian under the tutelage of Eusebius of Nicomedia. He abandoned that creed for paganism, and sought to stamp out Christianity, labeling Christianity as an apostasy from Judaism. That work was thoroughly refuted by Cyril of Alexandria (in ten books), Gregory Nazianzus (2 invectives), etc. Gregory of Nyssa's address Against Eunomius and a host of early Christian writings could be leveled against this type of statement.

Why not add the narrative that follows that quotation in Julian's account? Because Julian continues to write:

But the worthy John, since he perceived that a great number of people in many of the towns of Greece and Italy had already been infected by this disease, and because he heard, I suppose, that even the tombs of Peter and Paul were being worshipped ----secretly, it is true, but still he did hear this,----he, I say, was the first to venture to call Jesus God. And after he had spoken briefly about John the Baptist he referred again to the Word which he was proclaiming, and said, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." But how, he does not say, because he was ashamed. Nowhere, however, does he call him either Jesus or Christ, so long as he calls him God and the Word

You three find him to be a credible source? But in reality, John was refuting the error of Cerinthus, whose teachings were plaguing the churches of Asia Minor, in his opening chapter and throughout the book.

If TRJM wants to contest this dating, he might go to:
...Pulls out a specious article claiming the early Christians were "Unitarians"...
(y).. It seems to me that some posters wear their ignorance as a badge of pride at Carm.
In truth, it is Trinitarian "Christianity" which came relatively late, at least 300 years after the death of Christ. The Earliest Christians were the Unitarians (the apostles, the first converts, the Ebonites, etc..)
It didn't and maybe you and Steven can take some time reading them firsthand instead of making vague generalities. It was Arianism, not Trinitarianism, that sprung up in the fourth century. Its founder, Arius was a fourth century Deacon of Alexandria.

The Ebionites were heretics and exposed as such by the disciples of the Apostles and their students after them.

Ignatius, Polycarp (Lat., in dominum nostrum et deum Iesum Christum), Barnabas, Mathetes, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Pseudo-Clement, Tatian, Melito of Sardis, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyon, Athenagoras of Athens, Clement of Aelxandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus of Rome, Origen of Alexandria, Gaius of Rome, Novatian, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Commodian, Dionysius of Alexandria, Dionysius of Rome, Arrnobius of Sicca, Methodius of Olympus, Alexander of Alexandria, and Eusebius of Caesarea all attribute Deity to Christ, calling him "God." We can infer that this was likely also the case of Theognostus of Alexandria, based upon surviving fragments.

Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Novatian, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius of Alexandria, Dionysius of Rome, Methodius of Olympus, etc. specifically speak of the "Trinity" long before your timeline allows.
 
Last edited:
...Pulls out a specious article claiming the early Christians were "Unitarians"...

It didn't and maybe you and Steven can take some time reading them firsthand instead of making vague generalities. It was Arianism, not Trinitarianism, that sprung up in the fourth century. Its founder, Arius was a fourth century Deacon of Alexandria.

The Ebionites were heretics and exposed as such by the disciples of the Apostles and their students after them.

You are not following. Jospeh Priestley pulls out quotes, material from Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, Jerome and others, to show that large segments of the early believers were non-Trinitarian. Thus he was involved in a very fascinating dispute with Samuel Horsley. The translations given by Horsley were less accurate that those of Priestley, although some material of Priestley was considered to be tweaked improperly by Edward Burton.

While most Ebionites rejected the virgin birth, and thus can easily be considered as heretics, this is NOT the focus of the study. Thus you would like the Ebionites to be a diversion. And your diversion to Arianism is even more irrelevant, an attempt to avoid the issues.

Joseph Priestley (1733-1804)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Priestley

Samuel Horsley (1733-1806)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Horsley

Edward Burton (1794-1836)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Burton_(theologian)

Andrews Norton (1786-1853)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrews_Norton

And I found that this section:

General Repository (1812)
AN ACCOUNT OF THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN DR. PRIESTLEY AND DR. HORSLEY; THE MONTHLY REVIEWER, AND OTHERS.
likely by - Andrews Norton, Editor
https://books.google.com/books?id=aFYoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA257
p. 257-288

Is very helpful in showing many of the quotes used by Priestley, and how they were seen by Priestley, Horsley and others. (Horsley is the bishop who labored unsuccessfully to show that Isaac Newton was a Trinitarian.)

For a larger picture of the controversy.

A History of Unitarianism: In Transylvania, England, and America (1945)
Earl Morse Wilbur
https://books.google.com/books?id=G5U9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA303

But the most important controversy was that which now ensued in England between Priestley and Horsley, and lasted for some eight years, to be again revived by Horsley’s son thirty years later.

Samuel Horsley,28 born in the same year as Priestley, and like him a fellow of the Royal Society, had received various preferments in the Church, and had become Archdeacon of St. Albans in 1781, where he was esteemed an able preacher and a vigorous administrator. He at once realized the importance of counteracting a teaching that struck at the very root of the orthodox theology, and the next spring he made this the burden of a charge to his clergy, which was at once accepted by the orthodox as a crushing triumph for their view; though it proved to be only the opening action in a spirited controversy between the two champions.29 The battle was in fact preceded by a spiteful attack funder the guise of a review), in the Monthlv Review, by an anonymous writer30. (continues)

28 Priestley’s part of the controversy is found in his Works, vols. xviii, xix; but the items on both sides may be most conveniently consulted in the two opposed collections: by Priestley, Letters to Dr. Horsley, etc., in three parts (Birmingham, 1783-86; by Horsley, Tracts in Controversy with Dr. Priestley (Glocester, 1789). A partisan abstract of the controversy is given in an Appendix to Thomas Belsham, Calm Inquiry into the Scripture Doctrine concerning the Person of Christ (London, 1811), pp. 422-446. Cf. also Belsham, Claims of Dr. Priestley in the Controversy, etc. (London, 1814), reprinted from Monthly Repository, viii, ix (1813-14), passim; (Andrews Norton), ‘An Account of the Controversy between Dr. Priestley and Dr. Horsley,’ etc., General Repository (Boston), i, 26-58, 229-237; ii, 7-38, 257-288; iii, 13-124, 250-299 (1812-13).

The first two sections are in:

The General Repository Volume 1 (1812)
https://books.google.com/books?id=6IgAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA26

Not sure if iii is available, with the last two sections.
 
Last edited:
What I personally concede to you re Titus 2:13: "The glory of the great God" and "our saviour Jesus Christ" have the same referent. Your enterprise consists largely in trying to break up the dependent genitive construction "The appearance of the glory of the great God" using the idea of genitives being "attributive" in order to change this natural, theologically uncontroversial, rendition.

The idea of splitting "glory" from "glory of God" to make glory on its own attribitive of another noun must be seen as the height of perversity, especially given the internal evidence of the gospels, and Jesus' own words, and many Trinitarians take issue with this sophistry, as you have been shown.

Maybe my eyes are failing me. Julian in the quotation I see you've provided does no such thing. You seem to have backtracked since making the comment...
The innuendo in the below is clear: manipulation of grammar is being employed to alter the teachings handed down:

"But you are so misguided that you have not even remained faithful to the teachings that were handed down to you by the apostles. And these also have been altered., so as to be worse and more impious, by those who came after. At any rate neither Paul nor Matthew nor Luke nor Mark ventured to call Jesus God."

Is this the new champion of Unitarianism and Oneness? Julian was raised as an Arian Christian under the tutelage of Eusebius of Nicomedia. He abandoned that creed for paganism, and sought to stamp out Christianity, labeling Christianity as an apostasy from Judaism. That work was thoroughly refuted by Cyril of Alexandria (in ten books), Gregory Nazianzus (2 invectives), etc. Gregory of Nyssa's address Against Eunomius and a host of early Christian writings could be leveled against this type of statement.
I don't doubt that full-on Arianism as was practised by Eusebius of Nicomedia was just as corrupt as hyper-Trinitarianism - I'm certainly not empathizing with either: Julian's critique is scathing in his attacks on the "God the Word" doctrine that was common to hardcore Arians and Trinitarians alike:

"And Hezekiah the king has been represented by |401 them as praying as follows : "O Lord God of Israel, that sittest upon the Cherubim, thou art God, even thou alone." 106 Does he leave any place for the second god? But if, as you believe, the Word is God born of God and proceeded from the substance of the Father, why do you say that the virgin is the mother of God? For how could she bear a god since she is, according to you, a human being? And moreover, when God declares plainly "I am he, and there is none that can deliver beside me," 107 do you dare to call her son Saviour?"

All this is theologically hopeless, and nothing to do with what John wrote. Julian charges the Christians with "nibbling" at pagan doctrines, but in reality they had embraced them.

Why not add the narrative that follows that quotation in Julian's account? Because Julian continues to write:

But the worthy John, since he perceived that a great number of people in many of the towns of Greece and Italy had already been infected by this disease, and because he heard, I suppose, that even the tombs of Peter and Paul were being worshipped ----secretly, it is true, but still he did hear this,----he, I say, was the first to venture to call Jesus God. And after he had spoken briefly about John the Baptist he referred again to the Word which he was proclaiming, and said, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." But how, he does not say, because he was ashamed. Nowhere, however, does he call him either Jesus or Christ, so long as he calls him God and the Word

You three find him to be a credible source? But in reality, John was refuting the error of Cerinthus, whose teachings were plaguing the churches of Asia Minor, in his opening chapter and throughout the book.
I think what Julian wrote is very apposite to the intellectual problems with Trinitarianism. Julian didn't understand the meaning of John 1:1, because he had been misled by Trinitarianians and Arians to credit Jesus as a second God to God the Father. This wasn't what John inferred. Everything in John 1:1 says that the Word isn't in any sense a second God, but completely subordinate to the Father.
 
Last edited:
Not sure if iii is available, with the last two sections.

Here we go, this is the fifth and sixth sections of the series.

General Repository and Review - Volume III (1813)
https://archive.org/details/generalreposito03unkngoog/page/n22/mode/2up
p. 13-124
https://archive.org/details/generalreposito03unkngoog/page/n260/mode/2up
p. 250-299

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

Here is a spot where Joseph Priestley mentions Julian:

An History of the Corruptions of Christianity: In Two Volumes, Volume 1 (1797)
https://books.google.com/books?id=WHA9AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA59

The emperor Julian did not overlook this obvious topic of reproach to Christians. He particularly upbraided them with calling Mary the mother of God, and charges them with contradicting Moses, who taught that there is but one God.

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

It didn't and maybe you and Steven can take some time reading them firsthand instead of making vague generalities.

Nonsense, no generalities. I gave you a resource that works directly with first person quotes from Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, Jerome and others.

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

Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Novatian, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius of Alexandria, Dionysius of Rome, Methodius of Olympus, etc. specifically speak of the "Trinity" long before your timeline allows.

And they all would be considered heretics today, because they do not speak of three co-equal, co-eternal, consubstantial persons in the Godhead. Even putting aside distinct eternal consciousnesses and the Athanasian Creed.

The word Trinity is extremely elastic. I've seen Priscillian called Trinitarian. And there is always the topic of the economic Trinity. So simply using the word means next to nothing.

Also John Calvin did not use the wonderful word, or the super word persons, in the 1536 Geneva Confession, which led to the heresy charges by Pierre Caroli against Calvin and William Farel.

Michael Servetus did stretch the envelope by his Cerebrus analogy, causing angst.
Yet today, we have similar from William Lane Craig.

========================
 
Last edited:
It was Arianism, not Trinitarianism, that sprung up in the fourth century. Its founder, Arius was a fourth century Deacon of Alexandria.

The idea of God as only one person (namely the Father ) originated / “sprung up” in the fourth century ? But that God is more than one person, preceded that notion ?

I don’t think even you truly believe this upside down nonsense, even though you may be spewing it publicly.
 
Last edited:
I believe the practice of identifying a grammatical tendency in a language and creating a "foolproof" rule for it by compiling, categorizing, and codifying exceptions is a colossal waste of time. The result is rarely more than a sophisticated appeal to statistics and seems to encourage bickering about the wording and content of those exceptions rather than discussion of grammatical/pragmatic features that explain them.

Doing my review, I noticed I missed liking and commenting on this superb John Milton post.

Vasileios Tsialas, Athens, Greek
"Grammar books do not make language; it is language that makes grammar books. In other words, language existed long before grammar books came into existence. So language is a natural phenomenon that cannot be enclosed in a technical enchiridion."
 
Last edited:
The idea of God as only one person (namely the Father ) originated / “sprung up” in the fourth century ? But that God is more than one person, preceded that notion ?

I don’t think even you truly believe this upside down nonsense, even though you may be spewing it publicly.
Actually Aarianism was quite as polytheistic as Trinitarianism: it's just that its Gods/gods weren't of the same substance.
 
So, I find we can view the situation in one of three ways:
  1. Paul didn't write carefully and accidentally created an ambiguity in several places where he could be seen as calling Christ θεός
  2. Paul knew the appropriate rules, and for whatever reason chose to ignore them.
  3. Paul had no qualms about using θεός in reference to Christ because he makes no distinction about their nature.

Thank you.!

This is a confirmation of my posts above that the GSR is really about mind-reading Paul's (and Peter and Jude et al) understanding of theorized grammar ultra-subtleties. As if they were continually aware that the slightest change in the writing about categories like proper nouns could form, or negate, a fundamental Christological assertion! And also trying to apply a 1790 error-laden book over Paul's first century usage.

Absurdity is as absurdity does.
 
TITUS 2:13 and 2 PETER 1:1: What Is the Long-Debated Controversial Granville Sharp Rule?
Edward D. Andrews
https://christianpublishinghouse.co...g-debated-controversial-granville-sharp-rule/

Edward Andrews shows Smyth, Turner, Winer in a spirit of inquiry, unusual for a person who I think is in Trinitarian apologetics.

"Grammarian and textual scholar Dr. Daniel B. Wallace seems to have been highly invested in the defense of Granville Sharp and his rule... "

Some of the text is from Wikipedia, maybe originally from Andrews.
The note about the Wallace misuse of "..." for Winstanley is something I noted earlier.

Good discussion of Winer, Smyth and Turner. He does not fall into the error that we see from Brian and John Milton of wrongly claiming that Winer is not supposed to consider the style and context and consistency of Paul and the NT writers. (E.g. dual addressing is common.) The related error is ignoring or dismissal of Winer's actual writing on the grammar.

Refreshing.

His conclusion is good, clearly he could be more decisive, but you read between the lines. :)
 
Back
Top