Election

John Milton

Well-known member
I don't take δοὺς as serving as the one verb.
You said, "If there were one verb for everything up to this point that would be it." This statement couldn't possibly be true, and there is no way anyone who knew Greek would have even hinted at it.
That was what his argument devolved to.
Incorrect.
And you know δοὺς is an independent participle.
I just told you what it was. You're the one who claimed that it was a verb.
You say he's right but he calls all of verse 5 one clause and you know that's wrong.
He used imprecise terminology while likely presuming that he was interacting with an intelligent poster acting in good faith. Unfortunately for him, he was dealing with you...
And if you read my analysis in this thread you will see that I say δοὺς modifies ἄνθρωπος, but he says the present tense verb in clause #1 does.

This is what I wrote:
I saw what you wrote. You mistakenly call an article a "pronoun." You mistakenly call a participial phrase a "relative clause." You mistakenly call the participle δοὺς a "verb." Did I overlook anything else?

At worst TibiasDad is guilty of imprecision. In my estimation even this assertion is entirely unfounded. Since he actually said "whole of the clause/thought," it seems likely that he assumed you would be able to understand what he meant. Instead, you seized on a point of little to no importance as though it were a grave error.

You, on the other hand, have made several errors, not the least of which was trying to pass yourself off as one who actually knows Greek. It should be obvious which of the two of you has made a mistake.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
He has stalked me before. He cannot help himself.
The only reason I saw this is because Johnnybgood tagged me on the biblical language forum. At what point were you going to let the people here know that you don't know Greek if I hadn't done it for you? If you weren't in the habit of lying to people, you wouldn't have any reason to whine about being "stalked."
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member

Would you mind telling me how you define "clause"?
Here is Wallace on the definition of a clause.



Note the ESV:
1 Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all,

This is a paratactic structure.
"For there is one God" is a clause.

"there is one mediator between God and men" is a clause.

You said:
the verb, implicit as it is, is applied to the whole of the clause/thought

You don't understand what a clause is.

"the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all" has its own aorist verb that is rendered into past tense in English. If there were one verb for everything up to this point that would be it. But each clause has its own verb and "there was one God" is ridiculous.
First, you ignore the substance of my post to nick picking over my generalizations of the term "clause". Let me rephrase it: 1 Tim 2:5 as a whole is a singular thought in which the implications verb estin is in force throughout the entirety of the thought. So the message of 2:5 is: There is one God and there is one mediator between God and mankind, and it is the man Christ Jesus...

Now there is a further explanation of the man Christ Jesus in 2:6a, who gave himself (Aorist) a ransom for all... So then the completion of the whole sentence comprising 2:5-6a is essentially saying, "There is now currently one God and one mediator between God and mankind, namely, the man Christ Jesus the same Christ Jesus who previously gave himself as as ransom for all mankind (one of the parties for whom he is currently the singular source of mediation)."

So the present tense implicit verb is applied to "the man Christ Jesus" in 2:5 and the aorist tense of 2:6 is equally applied to "the man Christ Jesus". 2:6 does not, as you suggest, disallow the present tense in 2:5 in relation to "the man Christ Jesus"!


Doug
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
That's rhetorical nonsense.

An grammatical antecedent is a preceding word in the syntax. What you say is not grammar. And identifying with humanity does not make one human any more than a male who identifies with females is really female. Sorry for being politically incorrect.
So what is the direct antecedent to "who"? Christ Jesus! Not anthrpos, "a man"! Further, the meaning of anthrpos is directly informed by anthropon (mankind). Anthrpos is a member of mankind and thus their mediatorial representative.

But to respond directly to your objection, your "a male who identifies with females" is a red herring! First of all, a man does not identify with women, he identifies as a woman because he thinks that is what he is supposed to be! Jesus does not merely identify with humanity, meaning he understands how their situation, he identifies is substance as being them in terms of their physical condition and subject to the limitations of that type of being.


Doug
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
You said, "If there were one verb for everything up to this point that would be it." This statement couldn't possibly be true, and there is no way anyone who knew Greek would have even hinted at it.

Incorrect.

I just told you what it was. You're the one who claimed that it was a verb.

He used imprecise terminology while likely presuming that he was interacting with an intelligent poster acting in good faith. Unfortunately for him, he was dealing with you...

I saw what you wrote. You mistakenly call an article a "pronoun." You mistakenly call a participial phrase a "relative clause." You mistakenly call the participle δοὺς a "verb." Did I overlook anything else?

At worst TibiasDad is guilty of imprecision. In my estimation even this assertion is entirely unfounded. Since he actually said "whole of the clause/thought," it seems likely that he assumed you would be able to understand what he meant. Instead, you seized on a point of little to no importance as though it were a grave error.

You, on the other hand, have made several errors, not the least of which was trying to pass yourself off as one who actually knows Greek. It should be obvious which of the two of you has made a mistake.

I was speaking functionally. The article starting verse 6 has the function of a relative pronoun (See GGBB 213) and the participle has the function of a verb.

There are no bible translations that furnish a present tense verb for 1 Ti 2:5c and it is not it's own clause. It's dependent on verse 6 and the aorist participle functioning as a verb, not being dependent on a finite verb.

As a result the description of Jesus as a man is described as in the past when he gave his life.

@TibiasDad
 
Last edited:

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
So what is the direct antecedent to "who"? Christ Jesus! Not anthrpos, "a man"! Further, the meaning of anthrpos is directly informed by anthropon (mankind). Anthrpos is a member of mankind and thus their mediatorial representative.

But to respond directly to your objection, your "a male who identifies with females" is a red herring! First of all, a man does not identify with women, he identifies as a woman because he thinks that is what he is supposed to be! Jesus does not merely identify with humanity, meaning he understands how their situation, he identifies is substance as being them in terms of their physical condition and subject to the limitations of that type of being.


Doug
My illustration was not intended to be made to walk on all fours.

And one who identifies with humanity is not the same as one who identifies as humanity.

The word "with" distinguishes Jesus from humanity.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I was speaking functionally. The article starting verse 6 has the function of a relative pronoun (See GGBB 213) and the participle has the function of a verb.
You made multiple mistakes. This is nothing more than a vain attempt to wiggle out of one of them.
There are no bible translations that furnish a present tense verb for 1 Ti 2:5c and it is not it's own clause.
As I explained to you above, I Timothy 2:5c tells who the one mediator is. It depends on/modifies 2:5b.
It's dependent on verse 6
No. See above.
and the aorist participle functioning as a verb, not being dependent on a finite verb.
The aorist participle is adjectival and modifies ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς. It isn't acting as a verb nor is it dependent upon a finite verb. Since it doesn't depend on a verb, the participle it should be understood aspectually, not temporally. It tells us that Jesus's giving of himself for us is a completed action, not a continuous one. Since it is a completed action, it is logically understood as a past event. However, there is no grammatical reason why his giving of himself must refer to the giving of his life as a man. It could just as easily refer to the totality of his incarnation, for instance, when Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἁμαρτωλοὺς σῶσαι (Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; 1:15 ). In such a conceptualization, his entire earthly life would be in view.
As a result the description of Jesus as a man is described as in the past when he gave his life.

@TibiasDad
The text doesn't say he gave his life. It says that he gave himself.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
I doubt that but I will read it for entertainment .
Dan Wallace is an accepted Greek Scholar. His resume in Greek is extensive.


As with all things Christian, he has critics. I have enormous respect for him.

Given the nonsensical posts that we tried to combat for days and days, it's easy to see that most who have no knowledge of Greek, should leave it to those who do.

God Speed.
 

SovereignGrace

Well-known member
Dan Wallace is an accepted Greek Scholar. His resume in Greek is extensive.


As with all things Christian, he has critics. I have enormous respect for him.

Given the nonsensical posts that we tried to combat for days and days, it's easy to see that most who have no knowledge of Greek, should leave it to those who do.

God Speed.
I've used Dr. Bill Mounce's "Greek for the rest of Us" a little and need to pick it back up. But I'm not stepping into this Greek debate as your pastor once keenly stated, "A little Greek is a dangerous thing."
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
There are no bible translations that furnish a present tense verb for 1 Ti 2:5c and it is not it's own clause. It's dependent on verse 6 and the aorist participle functioning as a verb, not being dependent on a finite verb.
2:5c is the identification/verification of 2:5b's "and one moderator" who is between God and mankind, and the completion of the sentence in 2:6a is dependent on 2:5c.

Didomi, is a verb, when made a participle it is acting as an adjective, which tells us something regarding the nominative noun to which it is dependent on or associated with, in this case, "the man Christ Jesus!"


Doug
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
You made multiple mistakes. This is nothing more than a vain attempt to wiggle out of one of them.

As I explained to you above, I Timothy 2:5c tells who the one mediator is. It depends on/modifies 2:5b.

No. See above.

The aorist participle is adjectival and modifies ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς. It isn't acting as a verb nor is it dependent upon a finite verb. Since it doesn't depend on a verb, the participle it should be understood aspectually, not temporally. It tells us that Jesus's giving of himself for us is a completed action, not a continuous one. Since it is a completed action, it is logically understood as a past event. However, there is no grammatical reason why his giving of himself must refer to the giving of his life as a man. It could just as easily refer to the totality of his incarnation, for instance, when Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἁμαρτωλοὺς σῶσαι (Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; 1:15 ). In such a conceptualization, his entire earthly life would be in view.

The text doesn't say he gave his life. It says that he gave himself.
For the third time, I have been speaking functionally. The name one gives a category does not affect the syntax, it's function does. And as I will demonstrate from the text, while δοὺς may be labeled adjectival it functions as a verb. While the definite article may be an article it functions as a relative pronoun. If you want to say I made a mistake and that makes you feel good so be it. But I will continue to describe the functions and not mere labels.


According to Wallace the participle would be labeled adjectival. No argument here.

Adjectival Participles ExSyn 617–21

This category involves both the dependent and independent adjectival participles (i.e., both the adjectival proper and substantival). For a structural clue, the student should note the article: If it stands before a participle and functions as a modifying article (normal use), then that participle must be adjectival. If the participle does not have the article, it may be adjectival.


In describing the adjectival participle Wallace says:

Second, with reference to its verbal nature: Just because a participle is adjectival or substantival, this does not mean that its verbal aspect is entirely diminished. Most substantival participles still retain something of their aspect. A general rule of thumb is that the more particular (as opposed to generic) the referent, the more of the verbal aspect is still seen. (ExSyn 619–21)


The referent is very particular. It is named as Jesus Christ. The fact that this participle is rendered “gave” and not “giving” attests that it functions as a verb. It does not modify another verb and so it is independent.

The question on this text is something you keep avoiding. Is this implied verb in the first and second clause also to be applied to what follows? That is the position of @TibiasDad.

I will demonstrate that the answer is no.

In the first clause, Εἷς γὰρ θεός (for [there is] one God) the verb must be added. The same is true of the second clause, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων (and [there is] one mediator between God and men).

1 Ti 2:4c is ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς literally man Christ Jesus.

If we use the to-be verb here as you are defending we have a predicate nominative with Christ Jesus is a/the man. That makes Jesus Christ currently a man. But no bible renders it this way for good reason as the participle functions as a verb. That would be Christ Jesus is a man who gave himself…. It would become a complete sentence. It's not a complete sentence.

If the participle were functioning with no verbal aspect it would be rendered “giving.” If we add the implied verbs from the first two clauses as you are defending it gives:

Christ Jesus is a man, the (one) giving himself….

There are no bibles that render it this way and it's not permissible to add a supplied verb as you are defending, or at least as TibiasDad argued, and you are defending him.


(NA28) Εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς,
6 ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων,
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
WHO ARE GOD'S ELECT? Rom 8:33

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

No doubt the scriptures teaches that before the world began God sovereignly chose a people whom He foreloved and resolved to save by the vicarious death of his own Son and the powerful grace of his Spirit (John 15:16; Acts 13:48; Rom. 9: 11-23; Eph. 1:4-6; II Tim. 1:9). The purpose of God in election must stand. It cannot be ,conquered ,overcome, or disappointed in any way. All of those who were chosen by the Father are redeemed by the Son, and will be quickened and called by the Spirit. GOD'S ELECT SHALL BE ETERNALLY SAVED, AND NO OTHERS ! 2 Thess 2:13

13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
For the third time, I have been speaking functionally. The name one gives a category does not affect the syntax, it's function does. And as I will demonstrate from the text, while δοὺς may be labeled adjectival it functions as a verb. While the definite article may be an article it functions as a relative pronoun. If you want to say I made a mistake and that makes you feel good so be it. But I will continue to describe the functions and not mere labels.
You definitely made a mistake. You made several. You continue to make mistakes.
According to Wallace the participle would be labeled adjectival. No argument here.
I've already told you this repeatedly. I don't need your confirmation to know I was correct.
In describing the adjectival participle Wallace says:
Everything he says agrees with what I've already told you. You should also note that participles don't have tense: verbs do. (Yes, this is debated, but only one side is correct. My thoughts on the subject should be obvious.)
The referent is very particular. It is named as Jesus Christ.
Yes. I've already explained this to you. Why do you keep presenting things as though you are the one providing the new and correct information?
The fact that this participle is rendered “gave” and not “giving” attests that it functions as a verb.
No. It is rendered "gave" to make a good translation. Participles aren't verbs. Period.
The question on this text is something you keep avoiding. Is this implied verb in the first and second clause also to be applied to what follows? That is the position of @TibiasDad.

I will demonstrate that the answer is no.
I've not avoided anything. I've already told you how the passage is functioning. It's not my fault you don't understand it.
In the first clause, Εἷς γὰρ θεός (for [there is] one God) the verb must be added. The same is true of the second clause, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων (and [there is] one mediator between God and men).

1 Ti 2:4c is ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς literally man Christ Jesus.

If we use the to-be verb here as you are defending we have a predicate nominative with Christ Jesus is a/the man. That makes Jesus Christ currently a man. But no bible renders it this way for good reason as the participle functions as a verb. That would be Christ Jesus is a man who gave himself…. It would become a complete sentence. It's not a complete sentence.
A man, Christ Jesus. No verb needed. Simple apposition. The participial phrase further modifies Christ Jesus.
If the participle were functioning with no verbal aspect it would be rendered “giving.”
"Giving" has aspect. You don't know what you are talking about.
If we add the implied verbs from the first two clauses as you are defending it gives:

Christ Jesus is a man, the (one) giving himself….
"And one [is] mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus." Notice, there is no implied verb for ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς.
There are no bibles that render it this way and it's not permissible to add a supplied verb as you are defending, or at least as TibiasDad argued, and you are defending him.
What translation doesn't render it close to what I have given? Here is the ESV:
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all..."
Everything about it agrees with what I have said.
(NA28) Εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς,
6 ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων,
The best thing you can do, Roger, is stop commenting. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Thank you I see him doing the same thing as seth reading his theology into the passage. He has a false premise since he denies the resurrection like the other poster he reads that into every passage since he believes Jesus in no longer a man , a human being. He just masks it in a more pseudo intelligent way than the other person does and attempts to hide behind the Greek to make it sound like he knows what he is talking about. The one poster hides behind the English and the other behind the Greek but both of them know just enough to be dangerous. I sure wish I knew how to read and translate Greek. Thank you for participating in this thread it has been very helpful in understanding 1 Tim 2:5 and Heb 8:6 on another level.
They do sound alike, but I'm sure they are not the same. I can't argue against him though. I may pop up from time-to-time about Theology and Doctrine, but that's the best I can do...
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
You definitely made a mistake. You made several. You continue to make mistakes.

I've already told you this repeatedly. I don't need your confirmation to know I was correct.

Everything he says agrees with what I've already told you. You should also note that participles don't have tense: verbs do. (Yes, this is debated, but only one side is correct. My thoughts on the subject should be obvious.)

Yes. I've already explained this to you. Why do you keep presenting things as though you are the one providing the new and correct information?

No. It is rendered "gave" to make a good translation. Participles aren't verbs. Period.

I've not avoided anything. I've already told you how the passage is functioning. It's not my fault you don't understand it.

A man, Christ Jesus. No verb needed. Simple apposition. The participial phrase further modifies Christ Jesus.

"Giving" has aspect. You don't know what you are talking about.

"And one [is] mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus." Notice, there is no implied verb for ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς.

What translation doesn't render it close to what I have given? Here is the ESV:
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all..."
Everything about it agrees with what I have said.

The best thing you can do, Roger, is stop commenting. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
Again you ignore the real reason the passage is being disputed in this forum. Everyone can see this.

One side sees this verse as grammatically stating that Jesus Christ is a man at present time. That is the side you are supporting but you won't address that question from the grammar of this verse.

@TibiasDad continues to say that the participle is completely adjectival functionally and that the supplied present tense verb makes the identification of Jesus as a man in present time.

That's just wrong and criticism of my functional approach as opposed to mere labels does not help the erroneous position of TibiasDad that the supplied verb also gets supplied to 1 Ti 2:5c.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I think that is why theology is not important to him because he cannot defend his theology and hides it behind the Greek . That is my observation . The other poster cannot either and tries to hide behind English . I’m seeing posters who know more about Greek and English have refuted both of them but neither one accepts correction. I thought people were here to learn and exchange ideas ?
Have you seen @John Milton say that the present tense verb applies to the end of 1 Ti 2:5? He won't. Don't be confused by his smoke screen.

Get him to go on record as supporting your bore that grammatically the supplied verbs grammatically says that Christ is a man in present time.

He has not and he won't. He deflects my pointed question.

Are you really ok with that?
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
The referent is very particular. It is named as Jesus Christ. The fact that this participle is rendered “gave” and not “giving” attests that it functions as a verb. It does not modify another verb and so it is independent.
Actually, it is ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς; you cannot detach ἄνθρωπος from Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς. They are all nominative nouns.

"it is rendered "gave" because it is an aorist, not a present tense verb. As Wallace points out, it never completely loses its verb function, but it does not act as a regular verb. You are diminishing the adjetival function, if not erasing it completely to make it function the way you want it to function. If it is an adjective, then the primary function is as an adjective, not a natural verb.


Doug
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
@TibiasDad continues to say that the participle is completely adjectival functionally and that the supplied present tense verb makes the identification of Jesus as a man in present time.
@Theo1689, would you kindly check my argument for error. I say that the present tense of 1 Tim 2:5 extends to the ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, while the adjective, δοὺς in 2:6a simply enhances the identity of ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς who is presently the one mediator between God and mankind. Thank you,

Doug
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
I’m witnessing both posters who both deny Jesus present humanity use the same arguments with one from English and the other from Greek but no one so far agreed with either ones analysis . Do you agree with my above viewpoint or perception?

They both come to scripture with a preconceived idea and try and make scripture confirm to their false premise. There is no objectivity only bias.
I would concur with your analysis! (That and a buck-fifty will buy you a cup of coffee! 😂😋😎)

Doug
 
Top