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

The Real John Milton said:
Good. You will recall that even a deprived individual like that was able to see that John 1:1c isn’t calling Jesus God. That leaves you behind him in the pecking order, and rightly so, — for you indulge in polytheism and idolatry. He on the other hand can claim to not to, since he denies the existence of God altogether.
Click to expand...
Deprived or depraved? Prefer depraved myself, if such were the case. But I will continue to confess the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and eternity will see who's right.
 
Gryllus Maior said:
You think that's funny? Κύριος is the regular translation of יהוה throughout the LXX and the GNT where it quotes the OT.
Click to expand...
Not “translation” silly. It is a replacement word or a substitute / stand-in word, because יהוה is untranslatable . Why Κύριος? Because the vowel points of יהוה in many places are reflective of אֲדֹנָי.
 
Gryllus Maior said:
Deprived or depraved? Prefer depraved myself, if such were the case. But I will continue to confess the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and eternity will see who's right.
Click to expand...
Probably both,?
But I will continue to confess the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and eternity will see who's right.
Click to expand...

Lol, that’s three gods ( and false ones). Can’t you count to three ?
 
Gryllus Maior said:
It seems that unitarianism goes by increments of 100. You seemed to make the claim that θεός renders יהוה in LXX Ps 5, where it clearly does not. It renders אלוהימ. Now of course אלוהימ can refer to יהוה, but that's not the same thing. But the way you shift your claims and move goalposts is legendary.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are accusing me of. Listen to my actual argument and deal with it. Here:

I’m saying that at Psalms 5 יהוה and אֱלֹהִים are interchangeable. Therefore ὁ θεὸς in Psalms 5:2 = יהוה and therefore is the functional equivalent of a proper name. Do you disagree?
 
Last edited:
The Real John Milton said:
Not sure what you are accusing me of. Listen to my actual argument and deal with it. Here:

I’m saying that at Psalms 5 יהוה and אֱלֹהִים are interchangeable. Therefore ὁ θεὸς in Psalms 5:2 = יהוה and therefore is the functional equivalent of a proper name. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...
If I wished to attain to the same level of illogic then I would agree.
 
I went to see my oncologist, Dr. O'Hara. In the course of our conversation, the doctor told me that we were making good progress in the treatments.

Doctor = doctor O'hara and is therefore a proper name?
 
Also check out out Isaiah 49:5 where κυρίου (יהוה) is restated as "ο θεός μου"
 
Gryllus Maior said:
I went to see my oncologist, Dr. O'Hara. In the course of our conversation, the doctor told me that we were making good progress in the treatments.
..
Click to expand...

"The doctor" (with the article) in your sentence cannot refer to anyone else. It is not functioning as a mere title but is the functional equivalent of a proper name since it is interchangeable with Dr. O'Hara.

Doctor = doctor O'hara and is therefore a proper name?
Click to expand...

I think you know that your have no case, that is why you are trying to argue against a caricature of the actual position. Not "doctor = doctor O'hara." But "the doctor = doctor O'hara and is therefore the functional equivalent of a proper name." Notice bold above.
 
Gryllus Maior said:
If I wished to attain to the same level of illogic then I would agree.
Click to expand...
It's not just about logic, but it is also about the grammar.

An example of how some titles took on the status of proper names, Χριστός in the NT letters. Do you at least acknowledge that in the NT letters, Χριστός is a proper name or the functional equivalent thereof ? The same is true with ο θεός in the Psalms LXX.
 
The Real John Milton said:
"The doctor" (with the article) in your sentence cannot refer to anyone else. It is not functioning as a mere title but is the functional equivalent of a proper name since it is interchangeable with Dr. O'Hara.



I think you know that your have no case, that is why you are trying to argue against a caricature of the actual position. Not "doctor = doctor O'hara." But "the doctor = doctor O'hara and is therefore the functional equivalent of a proper name." Notice bold above.
Click to expand...
You really don't understand how the English works, and you double-down on your ignorance. Go out and find any English teacher who would agree with this.
 
Gryllus Maior said:
You really don't understand how the English works, and you double-down on your ignorance. Go out and find any English teacher who would agree with this.
Click to expand...
Why are you engaging in charlatanry yet again ? I was using the articular noun in your example, which I assumed you offered as a parallel to the Greek of Psalm 5:1-2, to explain to you what would be happening in the Greek . Weren’t you using “the doctor” in your sentence as a parallel to ὁ θεός in Psalm 5:2 ? Or did you present an irrelevant example to divert the readers’ attention from the actual issue at hand, much like a magician does before he tricks his audience ?
 
Gryllus Maior said:
Well, the Greek faithfully translates the Hebrew יהוה וֵאלֹהַי. It does not mean that Elohim is a proper name. It's not. It's simply that Yahweh is also "my God."
Click to expand...
I should think that Elohim is really a quasi proper name when applied to the Hebrew God, just because it is unusually in the grammatical plural when denoting a grammatical singular. I agree "el" isn't a proper name but it may be when suffixed with a scriptural designator: El elyon, El shaddai etc: these are all subsumed into the biblical o theos. Similarly Logos has become a de facto proper name for the Word in English. It's easy for words to become proper names in a well defined context.

I think if we do not grasp that the biblical context is well defined and exclusive, we are missing something vital. We can't allow the traditions of paganism to impinge on scripture. Although Paul says there are many gods, for us, there is but one:

1 Cor 8:5,6 "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords) yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.…"
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
I should think that Elohim is really a quasi proper name when applied to the Hebrew God, just because it is unusually in the grammatical plural when denoting a grammatical singular. I agree "el" isn't a proper name but it may be when suffixed with a scriptural designator: El elyon, El shaddai etc: these are all subsumed into the biblical o theos. Similarly Logos has become a de facto proper name for the Word in English. It's easy for words to become proper names in a well defined context.

I think if we do not grasp that the biblical context is well defined and exclusive, we are missing something vital. We can't allow the traditions of paganism to impinge on scripture. Although Paul says there are many gods, for us, there is but one:

1 Cor 8:5,6 "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords) yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.…"
Click to expand...
Even in English, “the doctor” in a statement as follows is the functional equivalent of a proper name, it seems to me:

I went to see my oncologist, Dr. O'Hara. In the course of our conversation, the doctor told me that we were making good progress in the treatments.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t you agree ? I think Gryllus is just not gifted when it comes to grammar, either Hebrew, Greek or English.
 
The Real John Milton said:
In both the Greek and the Hebrew ὁ θεός in Psalms 5:2 is the functional equivalent of a proper name.


There you go. Isn’t יהוה a proper name ?
Click to expand...
No it's not. It's a title referring to the only true God who has a perfectly good proper name. At any rate, I don't know why this is such a big deal for you. It must have something to do with your "theology..."
 
The Real John Milton said:
Even in English, “the doctor” in a statement as follows is the functional equivalent of a proper name, it seems to me:


Wouldn’t you agree ? I think Gryllus is just not gifted when it comes to grammar, either Hebrew, Greek or English.
Click to expand...
So why add the nasty comment above? At the risk of boasting κατὰ σάρκα, I guarantee I can run circles around you when it comes to grammar in any language. You constantly make errors, though they are getting a bit more subtle as you become a better mimic. That's not a compliment, BTW.
 
The Real John Milton said:
Even in English, “the doctor” in a statement as follows is the functional equivalent of a proper name, it seems to me:


Wouldn’t you agree ? I think Gryllus is just not gifted when it comes to grammar, either Hebrew, Greek or English.
Click to expand...
I think context is everything. In a certain context, "my / the doctor" could be a referent to a well defined individual. So many Trinitarians don't understand the scriptural context is that defined in 1 Cor 8:6.

Their problem lies in their disunity with scripture: even if they say "one God in three persons" the reality is that they insist that God can be three (i.e. multiple) persons, which is the pagan context, not the one identified by Paul. If they knew the scriptural context, they wouldn't care about Sharp's rule.
 
cjab said:
I think context is everything. In a certain context, "my / the doctor" could be a referent to a well defined individual. So many Trinitarians don't understand the scriptural context is that defined in 1 Cor 8:6.

Their problem lies in their disunity with scripture: even if they say "one God in three persons" the reality is that they insist that God can be three (i.e. multiple) persons, which is the pagan context, not the one identified by Paul. If they knew the scriptural context, they wouldn't care about Sharp's rule.
Click to expand...
Yep. Common nouns refer to generic things while proper nouns refer to specific things. In that English sentence “the doctor” denotes a specific person, namely “Dr. O’hara.” So clearly it is functioning like a proper name in that sentence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top