Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

That logic is wrong. I've already given you a very good explanation of why the article may not have been used in Titus 2:13,
You did not. As I pointed out, saying that one verse uses a different word doesn't save you from the fact that the construction I showed you is the same and the word is in the same class of usage as σωτήρ.
and 1 Tim 1:1 discloses the justification for my view, where Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν is applied to the Father to the exclusion of the Son (again without the article).
What good do you think that does you? σωτῆρος clearly refers to Christ in Tit. 2:13?
Obviously II Tim. 1:5 is talking about unique familiar relations, of which only one can exist, which isn't the case with σωτήρ.
It doesn't matter, the construction is the same. If the familial relations are specified and make it clear that more than one individual is in view (not that I think this is the purpose of the article but it seems to be the supposition that most of you have) there is even less need for the article which makes its presence especially noteworthy.
I guess 1 Tim 1:1 (τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ) is also the authority for why the Socinian interpretation of Titus 2:13 (τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ) is wrong (because there would have been no need for Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν if Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν was being related to Θεοῦ - obviously).
Off topic.
In fact, as others have alluded to, the Trinitarian rendition of Titus 2:13, and so many other Sharpian passages, has to explain why the word καὶ is being used at all. One could have expected τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ had Paul been wanting to make the clear Trinitarian point.
No. Two different titles applied to the same individual will be linked by καί.
That Paul is being made out by Trinitarians to deliver important doctrine in the form of contrived grammar rules involving the use or otherwise of proper names, and his usage of Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, suggests a wrong approach to theology.
As I pointed out, you should also take issue with Winer's contrived grammar rules if you are going to accuse Trinitarians (And why do you continue to discuss theology in every single interaction with me when I clearly stick to the grammar?).
So you're trying to elicit out of me a theological interpretation of Rev 4:11? I should say it is constructed somewhat similar to Matt 28:19, where both God and Christ (as separate persons) are being denoted as one, in the singular. (We know Christ sits on God's throne at the right hand of the Father.)
I couldn't care less about your trash theology. I just wanted to see you admit, as you have, that κύριος is not used exclusively of God the Father.
OK, but my point was there is only one κύριος (Jesus) in the new NT doctrinal convention. In this respect κύριος is most definitely not analogous to σωτήρ but more like mother and father.
And your previous admission alone is enough to have proven you wrong. Your objection doesn't hold water.
I'm not sure I agree with you here that "These things are evident" or even what your position is, except as a dedicated Sharpian. I would definitely refer all Sharpians to CALVIN WINSTANLEY's comprehensive rebuttal of Sharp before anyone seeks to lay down Sharp as grammatical doctrine. CALVIN WINSTANLEY is orthodox BTW. Go and controvert him, if you want something to do.
What are you talking about? I was saying that it should be clear that the grammatical justification for seeing this verse as referring to a single individual is not contrived. Even Winer notes it as a valid possibility. And I have also told you that I am not an adherent of finely categorized and nuanced grammar rules. If you are referring to me as a "Sharpian" you are once again far off the mark.
I can see reasons for not using the article with σωτήρ - sometimes it is applied to Christ, sometimes to the Father.
You cannot see any reasons for it. You can't even read Greek. Enough with your false statements.
As Stephen Avery has pointed out, inserting Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν of itself shouldn't change the construction.
Steven Avery has so far had the good sense to drop the conversation with me when he knew he didn't have an answer for the points I raised, though he may well jump back in now. You should follow his example.
And as Winer has pointed out, "no grammatical obstacle to our taking the clause καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ by itself, as referring to a second subject" when Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν is associated with a proper name (or monadic noun - the article is omitted before words which denote objectsof which there is but one in existence, and which therefore are nearly equivalent to proper names).
It is your rejection of the other interpretation as a grammatical possibility that you were called out for. It isn't "contrived" as you called it.
Meaningless ad hominem, as is your want.
No. You slandered the EFs, and you denied a valid possibility just as I said. It's too much to expect you to stop making false statements. You make them even after your errors have been pointed out to you.
 
This Winer analysis, the definite part, I saw by instinct. And John Milton gave an attempted analogy in response that really does not work. He would have to indicate where the definite article should be in Titus 2:13 in an alternate text and whether it would connect to Saviour or Jesus Christ. And I look forward to his possible attempt in that regard.
I missed this earlier. I don't guess you had the good sense to keep your mouth closed after all.

I gave you the answer to this question earlier. You just didn't know it happened because you can't read Greek and have to be spoon fed. Try to answer the question, and you should see where the article would go.
σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
τῇ μητρί σου Ἐυνείκῃ
What do you think is different?
It was you who never responded.
 
I missed this earlier. I don't guess you had the good sense to keep your mouth closed after all.

I gave you the answer to this question earlier. You just didn't know it happened because you can't read Greek and have to be spoon fed. Try to answer the question, and you should see where the article would go.

It was you who never responded.

You have to show that Saviour alone can sensibly have both the possessive and the definite article. Maybe you can show something very analogous, but your example had two nouns, the possessive pronoun and the definite article before each one.

Or you have to place the definite article with Jesus Christ. Which would be highly unusual for New Testament writers, and would disconnect Saviour from Jesus Christ, no longer one connected title, changing the meaning.

Remember, I basically have Winer as my authority on this point. Although I found that out after our earlier back-and-forth.

And I did ask you before.

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.
 
As Stephen Avery has pointed out, inserting Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν of itself shouldn't change the construction.
Steven Avery has so far had the good sense to drop the conversation with me when he knew he didn't have an answer for the points I raised, though he may well jump back in now. You should follow his example.

First you did not respond to the substance, why should inserting Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν radically change the meaning?
Try to give a direct and sensible answer.

And you did not really respond to this mind-reading problem, so I addressed it to brianrw, and he gave a totally irrelevant answer about how two words can be very significant.

If you are a Sharpian, you have to conjecture that Paul likely struggled with adding "our Saviour" because he was painfully aware of the Sharpian grammar dilemma, knowing that in Titus 2:13 the exact same phrasing without "our Saviour" was the normal word order flow of the verse, while with "our Saviour" he was declaring Jesus the great God. All based on a lay grammarian 1740 years later.

So why would you believe such an absurdity?
 
You have to show that Saviour alone can sensibly have both the possessive and the definite article.
You mean like II Tim. 1:10?
διὰ τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ,
Maybe you can show something very analogous, but your example had two nouns, the possessive pronoun and the definite article before each one.
The only difference besides the use of the article between my example and that found in Tit. 2:13 is the case that was used. It is clear looking at Winer's example for Jude 4 (τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν) that he did not consider the case to be of consequence since it was in the accusative case and not the genitive. My example proved conclusively that the reasons he gave for the omission of the article do not prohibit the use of the article. And as I pointed out earlier, the reasons he gave for why the article was omitted in Tit. 2:13 could also be used to explain why it was used in II Tim. 1:5. They are remarks without any significance.
Or you have to place the definite article with Jesus Christ. Which would be highly unusual for New Testament writers, and would disconnect Saviour from Jesus Christ, no longer one connected title, changing the meaning.
You don't know the language. If you aren't quoting a source, you shouldn't really be commenting on how you think the language is used. You have no idea what you are talking about. If you did, you wouldn't have needed me to tell you where the article would go. Why do you think people refer to these constructions as TSKTS or TSKS?
Remember, I basically have Winer as my authority on this point.
Although I found that out after our earlier back-and-forth.

And I did ask you before.
I've handled Winer, and you've not had any answer for it. At least he had the integrity to admit that his position was a theological one. You had to have cribbed your remarks from someone, but I believe you don't know who you borrowed it from. I don't think you care whether or not a grammarian agrees with you, and you have already demonstrated that you will uncritically accept anything that agrees with you.
 
First you did not respond to the substance, why should inserting Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν radically change the meaning?
Try to give a direct and sensible answer.
There was no substance. "Inserting Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν" doesn't change the meaning.
And you did not really respond to this mind-reading problem, so I addressed it to brianrw, and he gave a totally irrelevant answer about how two words can be very significant.
What mind-reading problem are you referring to?
If you are a Sharpian,
I've already told you I'm not. I think his efforts and Wallace's are equally misguided.
you have to conjecture that Paul likely struggled with adding "our Saviour" because he was painfully aware of the Sharpian grammar dilemma, knowing that in Titus 2:13 the exact same phrasing without "our Saviour" was the normal word order flow of the verse, while with "our Saviour" he was declaring Jesus the great God. All based on a lay grammarian 1740 years later.

So why would you believe such an absurdity?
This is the very opposite of what I have said. Do you even read my remarks?
 
As Stephen Avery has pointed out, inserting Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν of itself shouldn't change the construction.

The AV is generally quite faithful to the Greek word order.

προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

Titus 2:13 (AV)
Looking for that blessed hope,
and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

The Sharpians are not happy with this superb text, and insist that the Greek only shows one "person", Rule 1. Thus, by their logic, there must be another Greek text that would be virtually identical (it would translate essentially as the AV above) and would show two "persons". Simply by adding the second article, Rule 6.

If they really want to make this claim, which is necessity for Sharpian consistency, it is incumbent upon them to produce their specific alternate Titus 2:13 text, with the additional article, not analogies that have substantial differences. They absolutely must give their alternate Greek text.

Benedikt Winer points out two difficulties, we are focusing on the first one today.

the article is omitted before σωτήρος, because this word is made definite by the Genitive ημών, and because the apposition precedes the proper name : of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

A Grammar of the New Testament Dictionary Intended as an Introduction to the Critical Study of the Greek New Testament (1863)
Sixth Edition translated by Edward Masson
https://books.google.com/books?id=SyASAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA142

The Christian Examiner, Volume 67 (1859)
https://books.google.com/books?id=zhEZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA445

In a Review of the latest Winer grammar, p. 443-447 this text discusses the translation by Edward Masson, which according to the editor actually omitted the critical point! (Note that it is in the 1863 edition above, so it may have been a proofreading blooper.) And the writer, likely the editor of the Critical Examiner, makes a beautiful confirming statement for us non-Sharp-Absurdists.

Again, Mr.. Masson, by expunging — whether by design or accident — the clause, "because this word [σωτήρος] is made definite by the genitive ημών,” has taken away by far the most essential part of the sentence; that is. by far the most important reason for the omission of the article before σωτήρος.

So the learned editor picked up on the incredibly salient point from Winer.
 
Last edited:
"Inserting Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν" doesn't change the meaning.

However, the Sharpians claim it does, unless they are denying that Jesus Christ is a proper noun.

(And I believe you made a comment about this changing over time, which really resolves nothing, begging the question with more obscurity. Anyway, I see the Epistles as decades after the Gospels, all before AD 70, so in Titus it would have been a proper noun.)

If you agree that Jesus Christ is a proper noun, and you say:

"Inserting Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν" doesn't change the meaning."

Then you are agreeing that the Sharp identity claim is worthless.

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

btw, unless you give your actual modified Titus 2:13 that fulfills the Sharpian two person Rule 6, your specific Greek text, I will be bypassing your comments on possible analogy verses. While mildly interesting, the real specifics of Titus 2:13 are primary.
 
Last edited:
For the obvious ? Look at the following:

Ἰησοῦς ἦν άνθρωπος

….means “Jesus was a man” NOT “ Jesus was a certain man” NOR “Jesus had the essence of man.”
In the accusative it would mean "a man" for sure, but that isn't like a predicate.

I'm not sure that Ἰησοῦς ἦν άνθρωπος occurs in the NT, or anything like it. As a predicate άνθρωπος would involve an abstraction (properties of a man). Same as Γιος του ανθρώπου (son of one who has all the properties of a man).
 
In the accusative it would mean "a man" for sure, but that isn't like a predicate.

I'm not sure that Ἰησοῦς ἦν άνθρωπος occurs in the NT, or anything like it. As a predicate άνθρωπος would involve an abstraction (properties of a man). Same as Γιος του ανθρώπου (son of one who has all the properties of a man).
You are not kidding, are you ?
As a predicate άνθρωπος would involve an abstraction (properties of a man). Same as Γιος του ανθρώπου (son of one who has all the properties of a man).

Nonsense.
 
So Matthew 8:9
καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν, ἔχων ὑπ’ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας, καὶ λέγω τούτῳ Πορεύθητι, καὶ πορεύεται, καὶ ἄλλῳ Ἔρχου, καὶ ἔρχεται, καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου Ποίησον τοῦτο, καὶ ποιεῖ.

The Centurion is not saying that he is a man, but that he is a human essence under authority ?
 
You had to have cribbed your remarks from someone, but I believe you don't know who you borrowed it from. I don't think you care whether or not a grammarian agrees with you, and you have already demonstrated that you will uncritically accept anything that agrees with you.

EDITED BY MOD My original comments about “our Saviour” getting in the way of a definite article were my own common sense observation. Later that was confirmed by Winer, then the excellent review of Winer in the Christian Examiner of 1859. And I gave every source I found, with urls, and even made an important correction to the cjab quote of Winer, where he had “defined” rather than “made definite.” Nothing at all was “cribbed.”

And you know full well that Winer is excellent as a grammarian, so what he writes is especially important. He is strong on another topic, constructio ad sensum, which comes up in the NT battleground verses, including the heavenly witnesses. 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16, “God was manifest in the flesh…”. Winer is attacked in an ad hominem manner largely because he does not bring Trinitarian presuppositionalism to his table, which has become the norm. Plus he did not have to deal with corruptions from the Wesrcott-Hort recession.

EDITED BY MOD--RULE 22

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

And I believe you are stung by not being able to give us a sensible, solid alternate Titus 2:13 text, with two subjects per Sharp rule 6. EDITED BY MOD
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So Matthew 8:9


The Centurion is not saying that he is a man, but that he is a human essence under authority ?
Essence is the most important part about something, so no the centurion isn't saying that.

Abstraction is concerned with ideas. In Matt 8:9 we aren't interested in his being a man particularly, but in his being a "man under authority."

If you just said "I am a man" you would effectively be saying "I have all the properties of a man."

Thus the anarthrous predicate is an equative abstraction,
 
Essence is the most important part about something, so no the centurion isn't saying that.

Abstraction is concerned with ideas. In Matt 8:9 we aren't interested in his being a man particularly, but in his being a "man under authority."

If you just said "I am a man" you would effectively be saying "I have all the properties of a man."

Thus the anarthrous predicate is an equative abstraction,

Not necessarily , that is a philosophical statement which grammar does not and cannot address. All grammar denotes by the indefinite ἄνθρωπός or “a man” ( be it Greek or English) is that that someone falls within the category of the group defined as ἄνθρωπός even if they have only some of the “properties” of a man. So in LXX Genesis 18:2 when the bible calls three angels ἄνδρες it is not saying “they have all the characteristics of Adam “ anymore than when the bible calls the prophets of God Θεοί in John 10:34 it is saying that they have “all of the characteristics” of the one true God. If you think about it, even Eve (and all other women) did not have “all of the characteristics “ of Adam ( and all other males).
 
Last edited:
However, the Sharpians claim it does, unless they are denying that Jesus Christ is a proper noun.
The only proper noun in all of Tit. 2:13 is the word translated "Jesus". All of the additional descriptors "great", "God", "savior", and "Christ" are common nouns and could refer to Jesus alone. It is also possible that the sentence could refer in part to God the Father and in part to Jesus.

In truth, whether or not Christ is a proper noun is of no consequence to "Sharpians". You don't seem to grasp what the issues actually are.
(And I believe you made a comment about this changing over time,
I made a comment about the English word in religious usage "Christ". It was an accurate statement in that context.
which really resolves nothing, begging the question with more obscurity.
It does nothing of the sort. Feel free to explain your reasoning if you feel otherwise.
Anyway, I see the Epistles as decades after the Gospels, all before AD 70, so in Titus it would have been a proper noun.)
No. It was a common noun and adjective in Greek usage at the time.
If you agree that Jesus Christ is a proper noun, and you say:
Jesus, yes. Christ, no (Greek) in some instances (English).
"Inserting Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν" doesn't change the meaning."
It doesn't.
Then you are agreeing that the Sharp identity claim is worthless.
I wouldn't say "worthless," but I think it is wrong to think that the function of the article can be reduced to a single category of "identity".
btw, unless you give your actual modified Titus 2:13 that fulfills the Sharpian two person Rule 6, your specific Greek text, I will be bypassing your comments on possible analogy verses. While mildly interesting, the real specifics of Titus 2:13 are primary.
It's clear what's going on here, and it has nothing to do with what I have written. You simply don't know enough to comment about.
 
Back
Top