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

cjab

Well-known member
...then Sharp's rule has no Trinitarian application in the NT, as ό Θεός is a proper name.

Sharp's rule contains an inbuilt exception for proper names. In places like 2 Peter 1:2, John 1:1b, ό Θεός is directly contrasted with Jesus and the Word, and clearly denotes the one whom Jesus addressed as Father.

2 Peter 1:2
χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν.

John 1:1b
καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν

How then can a rule of grammar be allowed to subvert this essential truth? The Trinitarian application of Sharp's rule to ό Θεός is predicated on assuming that ό Θεός isn't the designate name for God. As such, Trinitarians merely assume what they endeavour to prove by grammar, and so end up proving nothing,

ό Θεός is not related to any other god or idol in the NT but the Father of Jesus alone.
 
Last edited:
...then Sharp's rule has no Trinitarian application in the NT, as ό Θεός is a proper name.

Sharp's rule contains an inbuilt exception for proper names. In places like 2 Peter 1:2, John 1:1b, ό Θεός is directly contrasted with Jesus and the Word, and clearly denotes the one whom Jesus addressed as Father.

2 Peter 1:2
χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν.

John 1:1b
καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν

How then can a rule of grammar be allowed to subvert this essential truth? The Trinitarian application of Sharp's rule to ό Θεός is predicated on assuming that ό Θεός isn't the designate name for God. As such, Trinitarians merely assume what they endeavour to prove by grammar, and so end up proving nothing,

ό Θεός is not related to any other god or idol in the NT but the Father of Jesus alone.
John is a name. Jesus is a name. Peter is a name. Paul is a name. θεός is a noun. Some nouns can be modified with an article and/or adjectives to refer to a single person like the word "president" is being modified in the phrase "the president of the USA," but it doesn't mean that "president" is a name. It doesn't matter how many times some wackadoodle claims otherwise, θεός is not a name. Therefore, your remarks here are a waste of time. End of thread.
 
John is a name. Jesus is a name. Peter is a name. Paul is a name. θεός is a noun. Some nouns can be modified with an article and/or adjectives to refer to a single person like the word "president" is being modified in the phrase "the president of the USA," but it doesn't mean that "president" is a name. It doesn't matter how many times some wackadoodle claims otherwise, θεός is not a name. Therefore, your remarks here are a waste of time. End of thread.
As a trinitarian would say it. However well wide of the mark and you've fallen at the first hurdle in making that initial presumption that θεός cannot entail a name.

I am talking about "ό Θεός" and not "Θεός".

In fact "ό Θεός" has no direct English equivalent, because we never say "the God" when referring to God in heaven.

Moreover there is no other name for God other than "ό Θεός" in the Greek NT, Father being a term of address.

Does God continue to have a name, or does he not? Is this prayer meaningless "Ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου·" (Matt 6:9)?

What about people who say "God" flippantly? Are they taking Gpd's name in vain? Of course, because that is God's de facto name in English.

How much more "ό Θεός" in the Greek, which has no other meaning apart from the Father of Jesus (John 20:27 - "ὑμῶν καὶ Θεόν μου καὶ Θεὸν ὑμῶν" - NB: the article is dropped when a pronoun is used).
 
As a trinitarian would say it. However well wide of the mark and you've fallen at the first hurdle in making that initial presumption that θεός cannot entail a name.

I am talking about "ό Θεός" and not "Θεός".

In fact "ό Θεός" has no direct English equivalent, because we never say "the God" when referring to God in heaven.

Moreover there is no other name for God other than "ό Θεός" in the Greek NT, Father being a term of address.

Does God continue to have a name, or does he not? Is this prayer meaningless "Ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου·" (Matt 6:9)?

What about people who say "God" flippantly? Are they taking Gpd's name in vain? Of course, because that is God's de facto name in English.

How much more "ό Θεός" in the Greek, which has no other meaning apart from the Father of Jesus (John 20:27 - "ὑμῶν καὶ Θεόν μου καὶ Θεὸν ὑμῶν" - NB: the article is dropped when a pronoun is used).
It seems that any ridiculous claim about Greek on this forum comes exclusively from those, like yourself, who don't know the language. That's why you keep weirdly capitalizing θεός, and that's why you keep making claims that lack textual support. Your ridiculous distinction between "Father" being a term of address and "God" being a name is an artificial one. They are both examples of the same usage. Your claim about John 20:27 is off both because you surely meant John 20:17 "πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν" and because the critical text does not have the capital letters you have added (Because, you know, God is not a name.). This is demonstrated conclusively in Phil. 3:9 where "God" (as a name) is clearly not the meaning "ὧν ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία" and likewise in John 20:28 where Jesus is addressed as "ὁ θεός".

Say whatever else you want to say, lick your wounds, and move on.
 
It seems that any ridiculous claim about Greek on this forum comes exclusively from those, like yourself, who don't know the language. That's why you keep weirdly capitalizing θεός, and that's why you keep making claims that lack textual support. Your ridiculous distinction between "Father" being a term of address and "God" being a name is an artificial one.
No, it's not artifical. Jesus never uses θεός, as a term of address.

They are both examples of the same usage.
"ό θεός" is used exclusively of only one person in the entire Greek NT, being the Father of Jesus.

Whereas "ό πατήρ" is used of others besides God, e.g. Abraham in James 2:21.

Your claim about John 20:27 is off both because you surely meant John 20:17 "πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν"
OK, my bad
and because the critical text does not have the capital letters you have added (Because, you know, God is not a name.).
Such is irrelevant.
This is demonstrated conclusively in Phil. 3:9 where "God" (as a name) is clearly not the meaning "ὧν ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία"
I think you meant Phil 3:19, and that the translation is "whose God is the belly."

Here evil doers are being ridiculed as having a substitute God. That is, they had mistaken their belly for God.

So what? I don't see the name referent of "ὁ θεὸς" as being violated. Paul could have said "for evildoers, YHWH is their belly." It would not affect the name meaning of YHWH.

and likewise in John 20:28 where Jesus is addressed as "ὁ θεός".
Where Jesus had previously said to his disciples "he who has seen me has seen the Father," it is evident that only in this sense was ὁ θεός being used.

Say whatever else you want to say, lick your wounds, and move on.
Try again.
 
Last edited:
I think you meant Phil 3:19, and that the translation is "whose God is the belly."
Right. Thanks for correcting my typo. Here's another one for you, II Cor. 4:4 "ἐν οἷς ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἐτύφλωσεν τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ." Now, feel free to continue your ignorant assertions if you wish.
 
Last edited:
Right. Thanks for correcting my typo. Here's another one for you, II Cor. 4:4 "ἐν οἷς ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἐτύφλωσεν τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ." Now, feel free to continue your ignorant assertions if you wish.
"The god of this age" - arguably not within context, as "ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος" is distinguishable from "ὁ θεὸς".

Remember that I am specifically referring to "ὁ θεὸς" without qualifiers, which a linked genitive would obviously falsify by its very nature. So Paul might have alluded "the God of the pagans" which would also disqualify.

Where in the New Testament does "ὁ θεὸς" not qualified by a genitive demonstrably and directly not refer to the Father of Jesus Christ?
 
"The god of this age" - arguably not within context, as "ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος" is distinguishable from "ὁ θεὸς".

Remember that I am specifically referring to "ὁ θεὸς" without qualifiers, which a linked genitive would obviously falsify by its very nature. So Paul might have alluded "the God of the pagans" which would also disqualify.

Where in the New Testament does "ὁ θεὸς" not qualified by a genitive demonstrably and directly not refer to the Father of Jesus Christ?
The fact that it has to have context or qualifiers to have that meaning is proof that it is not a name. That is the point I made in my first post, and the answer that I gave is definitive: ὁ θεὸς is not a name.
 
The fact that it has to have context or qualifiers to have that meaning is proof that it is not a name. That is the point I made in my first post, and the answer that I gave is definitive: ὁ θεὸς is not a name.
I don't think that is reasonable, because of the parallel English usage. If someone says "God of the pagans" we would distinguish God with small 'g' as in "god." We would instantaneously know from the context that other that the true God was being alluded to. And this is key: the name of the true God has a recognizable form and grammatical context: ὁ θεὸς. and where no other name for God exists for all practical purposes.

John 17:3 αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν

That said, why would a rule of grammar be applied to make ὁ θεὸς refer to someone/something else?

If you do that, then the monad designator has no identifiable person referent. The Father is "unpersoned" and subject to Trinitarian cancel culture.

In Trinitarianism, ὁ θεὸς means anyone with the necessary attributes of divinity (i.e. as if θεὸς was anarthrous).

Hence the Son of God becomes his own God. Were it not for the other designator "Father," the Father would disappear from the NT due to Trinitarian cancel culture.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that is reasonable, because of the parallel English usage. If someone says "God of the pagans" we would distinguish God with small 'g' as in "god." We would instantaneously know from the context that other that the true God was being alluded to. And this is key: the name of the true God has a recognizable form and grammatical context: ὁ θεὸς. and where no other name for God exists for all practical purposes.

John 17:3 αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν

That said, why would a rule of grammar be applied to make ὁ θεὸς refer to someone/something else?

If you do that, then the monad designator has no identifiable person referent. The Father is "unpersoned" and subject to Trinitarian cancel culture.

In Trinitarianism, ὁ θεὸς means anyone with the necessary attributes of divinity (i.e. as if θεὸς was anarthrous).

Hence the Son of God becomes his own God. Were it not for the other designator "Father," the Father would disappear from the NT due to Trinitarian cancel culture.
It doesn't matter if you think what I said is reasonable or not. It is a fact. ὁ θεὸς is not a name.
 
It doesn't matter if you think what I said is reasonable or not. It is a fact. ὁ θεὸς is not a name.
That is an article of Trinitarianism, which is what I said at the inception. It is what Trinitarians must assume, but they assume it wrongly.

For it is contrary to the usage of the NT, and the words of Christ himself, where God = Father.

John 3:16 Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 3:17 οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος δι᾽ αὐτοῦ

"For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him."

John 3:18 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται. ὁ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται, ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ

"Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son"

Conclusion: if "God had a son" then God is a person and ὁ θεὸς is that person.
 
That is an article of Trinitarianism, which is what I said at the inception. It is what Trinitarians must assume, but they assume it wrongly.
Your post started with " If ό Θεός is the NT designate name for God the Father of Jesus". It's not, so the rest of your post is irrelevant.
For it is contrary to the usage of the NT, and the words of Christ himself, where God = Father.

John 3:16 Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 3:17 οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος δι᾽ αὐτοῦ

"For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him."

John 3:18 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται. ὁ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται, ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ

"Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son"
None of this means that ὁ θεὸς is the name of God.
Conclusion: if "God had a son" then God is a person and ὁ θεὸς is that person.
? Ok, now it makes sense. The reason you are so insistent that ὁ θεὸς is a name is because the anarthrous usage of θεός in John 1:1 puts you in a theological bind. Do you think this a declinable name or is it only a name in the nominative case with a nominative article ????
 
Your post started with " If ό Θεός is the NT designate name for God the Father of Jesus". It's not, so the rest of your post is irrelevant.

None of this means that ὁ θεὸς is the name of God.

? Ok, now it makes sense. The reason you are so insistent that ὁ θεὸς is a name is because the anarthrous usage of θεός in John 1:1 puts you in a theological bind. Do you think this a declinable name or is it only a name in the nominative case with a nominative article ????
The reason for the anarthrous θεός in John 1:1 is easily explained as marking the predicate vs. the subject (which is marked with the article, ὁ λόγος). I reject the entire exegetical tradition which sees it as "qualitative."
 
Your post started with " If ό Θεός is the NT designate name for God the Father of Jesus". It's not, so the rest of your post is irrelevant.
Of course it is. There is no other name for that person. This is the problem with Trinitarianism: the Father of Jesus ceases to have a name in the NT. What ceases to have a name soon ceases to exist. I think Trinitarians do have a problem with the Father, historically as well as theologically.

None of this means that ὁ θεὸς is the name of God.

? Ok, now it makes sense. The reason you are so insistent that ὁ θεὸς is a name is because the anarthrous usage of θεός in John 1:1 puts you in a theological bind. Do you think this a declinable name or is it only a name in the nominative case with a nominative article ????
I don't know what you talking about. The grammarians have tied themselves up in knots over John 1:1c. Never has more BS been written, than about John 1:1c.

It is useful to consider the distinctions and similarities between Θεός and άνθρωπος.

"ό άνθρωπος" Unless the reference is to a previously mentioned particular man, the Hellene thinks of all that belongs to the category of "man", but not of beasts, etc., that which distinguishes, demarcates, and defines man from all other categories of creatures, that which belongs to the concept Man. At the same time, the entire group of men (i.e. the whole of humanity) is thought of as a concrete whole.

"ό Θεός" in the NT indicates just the one divine person (don't know what it denotes in pagan literature). I suggest that the NT meaning of "ό Θεός" is rather distinctive. That is, the NT imports a singular context to "ό Θεός" that many don't seem to grasp, just as ό άνθρωπος can mean different things according to the context. I believe it can be treated as a quasi-proper name in the specific context of the NT.

"άνθρωπος" Man is presented as impersonal, i.e. anyone who is a man [i.e. who shares in all that makes up a human being]

"Θεός" I agree with Gryllus. It isn't qualitative (that would open the way to substituting the noun Θεός with the adjective θείος). It is similar to anarthrous "άνθρωπος": God considered as impersonal. Jn 1:1c "God was the Word".

Did I answer your grammar question? Forgotten what it was now.

(NB: I made use of material by Prof. Chrys Caragounis for this)
 
Of course it is. There is no other name for that person. This is the problem with Trinitarianism: the Father of Jesus ceases to have a name in the NT. What ceases to have a name soon ceases to exist. I think Trinitarians do have a problem with the Father, historically as well as theologically.
Trinitarianism has nothing to do with this.
I don't know what you talking about. The grammarians have tied themselves up in knots over John 1:1c. Never has more BS been written, than about John 1:1c.

It is useful to consider the distinction between Θεός and άνθρωπος.

"ό άνθρωπος" Unless the reference is to a previously mentioned particular man, the Hellene thinks of all that belongs to the category of "man", but not of beasts, etc., that which distinguishes, demarcates, and defines man from all other categories of creatures, that which belongs to the concept Man. At the same time, the entire group of men (i.e. the whole of humanity) is thought of as a concrete whole.

"ό Θεός" in the NT indicates just the one divine person (don't know what it denotes in pagan literature). I suggest that the NT meaning of "ό Θεός" is rather distinctive.
It's not. It's used in the same manner as other nouns.
That is, the NT imports a singular context to "ό Θεός" that many don't seem to grasp,
I heard a rumor that some of those people needlessly capitalize θεός.
just as ό άνθρωπος can mean different things according to the context. I believe it can be treated as a quasi-proper name.
I believe the word you are searching for is "title".
Did I answer your grammar question? Forgotten what it was now.
I was asking you if you felt that it was only the specific form "ὁ θεός" that functions as a name.
 
Trinitarianism has nothing to do with this.

It's not. It's used in the same manner as other nouns.

I heard a rumor that some of those people needlessly capitalize θεός.

I believe the word you are searching for is "title".

I was asking you if you felt that it was only the specific form "ὁ θεός" that functions as a name.
Let me respond in part to the last point: in "pagan literature" the articular θεός refers to a specific god, but which god that is is dependent on context. It could be Zeus, or Apollo, etc. Under no context is it ever used as a proper name. I see the development for the NT authors as an extension of this general usage, simply that in the NT it most frequently refers to ὁ ἀληθνινὸς θεός μονός. You've already shown the examples in the NT where the articular usage cannot refer to the one true God.

I just realized that you meant the nominative only. The use of the article of course is highly syntactically complicated -- also plenty of examples of anarthrous usages in the NT that refer to the one true God, but those are due to additional syntactical features. To let a bit more theology slip through, I think the name of God is really the triune name found in Matt 28:19, which does not replace יהוה, but brings it up date, so to speak, from a Biblical-theological perspective.

And you know I'm getting tired when I start throwing around technical terminology without definition... So a good night to all.
 
John is a name. Jesus is a name. Peter is a name. Paul is a name. θεός is a noun.

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

Not just “ president,” but “ The President.” This is definitely the functional equivalent of a name depending on context. “The President that got defeated in 2020 cried election fraud .” Who can this refer to but to Trump?
 
Right. Thanks for correcting my typo. Here's another one for you, II Cor. 4:4 "ἐν οἷς ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἐτύφλωσεν τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ." Now, feel free to continue your ignorant assertions if you wish.
Who else can “ the God of this world” (who blinds people to the Gospel truth) refer to except to Satan ? This is the functional equivalent of a proper name of Satan.
 
Let me respond in part to the last point: in "pagan literature" the articular θεός refers to a specific god, but which god that is is dependent on context. It could be Zeus, or Apollo, etc. Under no context is it ever used as a proper name. I see the development for the NT authors as an extension of this general usage, simply that in the NT it most frequently refers to ὁ ἀληθνινὸς θεός μονός. You've already shown the examples in the NT where the articular usage cannot refer to the one true God.

I just realized that you meant the nominative only. The use of the article of course is highly syntactically complicated -- also plenty of examples of anarthrous usages in the NT that refer to the one true God, but those are due to additional syntactical features. To let a bit more theology slip through, I think the name of God is really the triune name found in Matt 28:19, which does not replace יהוה, but brings it up date, so to speak, from a Biblical-theological perspective.

And you know I'm getting tired when I start throwing around technical terminology without definition... So a good night to all.
The same is true in the GNT.
 
Back
Top