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

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.

You present strawman caricatures of my arguments half the time . So half the time you are not even engaging my actual arguments, lie alone “running circles around” them. Just a slick charlatan.
 
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..."

No one is denying that it is a “title,” what I am saying is that it is functioning like a proper name in that verse. Do you not understand simple English?

For instance do you agree that Χριστός ( a title) took on the status of a proper name in the NT pastorals ? Yes or No ? Second request.
 
No one is denying that it is a “title,” what I am saying is that it is functioning like a proper name in that verse. Do you not understand simple English?

For instance do you agree that Χριστός ( a title) took on the status of a proper name in the NT pastorals ? Yes or No ? Second request.
Christ isn't a proper name. Neither is Lord. They are both titles that are applied to Jesus. Son of God isn't a proper name either. Neither is God. Not in English, Not in Greek. Why is this so difficult?
 
Christ isn't a proper name. Neither is Lord. They are both titles that are applied to Jesus. Son of God isn't a proper name either. Neither is God. Not in English, Not in Greek. Why is this so difficult?

It is often treated as a proper noun in the GNT. Here is something after a quick internet search:

(Christianity) A title given to Jesus of Nazareth, seen as the fulfiller of the messianic prophecy; often treated as a personal name.
 
It is often treated as a proper noun in the GNT. Here is something after a quick internet search:
Who personally addressed or would address Jesus as "Christ"? They may write about him as the Christ but it's still a title denoting the Messiah.
Romans 10:8-13 When we call on Christ for salvation, we call his name, Jesus. At least "Christ " denotes the same person, always. Whereas ό Θεός doesn't.
 
Last edited:
Who personally addressed or would address Jesus as "Christ"? They may write about him as the Christ but it's still a title denoting the Messiah.
Romans 10:8-13 When we call on Christ for salvation, we call his name, Jesus. At least "Christ " denotes the same person, always. Whereas ό Θεός doesn't.
Only because you say so. Jesus only used ό Θεός in relation to his Father.
 
I don't think he called himself Ἰησοῦς in the text either...
Edit: I don't think he did in the gospels.
I thought you said he (Jesus) spoke Greek?

But as you repudiate Paul the apostle's own words ἡμῖν εἷς Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ (1 Cor 8:6), and so aren't included in his ἡμῖν, why should it matter what you think?

The world of Paul was dominated by Paul's ideology. If you want to argue with him, then critique him for saying what he said.

Paul didn't need a trinity to show the deity of Christ. Such was sufficiently proven by calling him "Lord" a recognized deific title from the LXX and Hebrew alike. This is the real argument against socinianism. No socinian can properly call Christ "Lord" as it would be blasphemous to them.
 
Last edited:
I thought you said He spoke Greek.
Do you often refer to yourself in the third person...?
As you repudiate Paul the apostle's own words ἡμῖν εἷς Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ (1 Cor 8:6), and so aren't included in his "ἡμῖν," why should it matter what you think?
Which of the two of us do you think that people would be more likely to believe is a follower of Christ, cjab? Does that question ever occur to you? It is a far more important question than the junk you bring to this forum.
 
Do you often refer to yourself in the third person...?

Which of the two of us do you think that people would be more likely to believe is a follower of Christ, cjab? Does that question ever occur to you? It is a far more important question than the junk you bring to this forum.
Oh I am sure that are millions of people in the USA who will credit you with being a follower of Christ, just because you assert yourself a Trinitarian. Unfortunately you (and they) have yet to learn that theology isn't a democracy, nor the province of those who are wise in their own eyes.

Ps 8:2 "From the mouths of children and infants You have ordained praise."

As for me, it seems you have little idea what I believe, just as those who longed for God the Son and God the Holy Spirit to reward them in Jesus' day had little idea what Christ believed.
 
Oh I am sure that are millions of people in the USA who will credit you with being a follower of Christ, just because you assert yourself a Trinitarian. Unfortunately you (and they) have yet to learn that theology isn't a democracy, nor the province of those who are wise in their own eyes.

Ps 8:2 "From the mouths of children and infants You have ordained praise."

As for me, it seems you have little idea what I believe, just as those who longed for God the Son and God the Holy Spirit to reward them in Jesus' day had little idea what Christ believed.
I don't think JM was talking about theology.
 
I don't think JM was talking about theology.
No I don't think he was either. He was breaking board rules yet again in yet another ad hominem rant, for which he has been flagged, and not for the first time in recent days.
 
Last edited:
No I don't think he was either. He was breaking board rules yet again in yet another ad hominem rant, for which he has been flagged, and not for the first time in recent days.
He is really not a trinitarian at the moment. He seems to be in limbo, neither here nor there. He may come full circle or he may go off in another direction or he may stay in limbo for awhile longer. It's not up to you tell him what he is or is not.
 
He was breaking board rules yet again in yet another ad hominem rant, for which he has been flagged, and not for the first time in recent days.
I didn't break the forum rules, and I didn't attack you personally. The mods must know this since I have received neither an infraction or a warning for any of the posts that you claim to have flagged in the past few days. Since you don't know the Biblical languages, why don't you just stay in the Trinity forum where your posts belong?
 
Christ isn't a proper name. Neither is Lord. They are both titles that are applied to Jesus. Son of God isn't a proper name either. Neither is God. Not in English, Not in Greek. Why is this so difficult?
In Pauline Literature, Christ is used as a Proper Name. I will probably regret posting this
 
Hi Froggy,

I know Paul uses "Christ" many times in reference to Jesus. I still think Christ is a title. When we call on the NAME of the Lord, I believe we speak out the name of Jesus or Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus Christ, but basically Jesus has to be there. I'm not dogmatic about it.

I was wondering what word a Hebrew NT would use to translate Christ and the online translator keeps giving me "Jesus" in hebrew.

And then I found this:
Christ is the Anglicization of the Greek word χριστος - christos.
Christos comes from the Greek word χρίω - chrio - to anoint, and means 'anointed.' ὁ χριστός ( ho christos) means The Anointed [One].
In Hebrew, 'anointed one' is מָשִׁיחַ - mashiach, and comes from מָשַׁח - mashach - to smear or anoint.
מָשִׁיחַ, in its turn, has been Anglicized to 'Messiah.'
Hence, χριστος is the equivalent of מָשִׁיחַ.
And in English, Christ is the equivalent of Messiah.
מָשִׁיחַ = Māšhîacḥ It has been Anglicized to messiah.

Merry Christmas!
 
Hi Froggy,

I know Paul uses "Christ" many times in reference to Jesus. I still think Christ is a title. When we call on the NAME of the Lord, I believe we speak out the name of Jesus or Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus Christ, but basically Jesus has to be there. I'm not dogmatic about it.

I was wondering what word a Hebrew NT would use to translate Christ and the online translator keeps giving me "Jesus" in hebrew.

And then I found this:
Christ is the Anglicization of the Greek word χριστος - christos.
Christos comes from the Greek word χρίω - chrio - to anoint, and means 'anointed.' ὁ χριστός ( ho christos) means The Anointed [One].
In Hebrew, 'anointed one' is מָשִׁיחַ - mashiach, and comes from מָשַׁח - mashach - to smear or anoint.
מָשִׁיחַ, in its turn, has been Anglicized to 'Messiah.'
Hence, χριστος is the equivalent of מָשִׁיחַ.
And in English, Christ is the equivalent of Messiah.
מָשִׁיחַ = Māšhîacḥ It has been Anglicized to messiah.

Merry Christmas!

It does not have to be. Look at just one example:

εἰ παθητὸς ὁ Χριστός, εἰ πρῶτος ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν φῶς μέλλει καταγγέλλειν τῷ τε λαῷ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν.

I fear Gryllus has deceived you. Χριστός (with or without the article btw) is the functional equivalent of a proper name in not a few passages of scripture.

Having done the deed, notice he is no where to be found lending support to your position, but has deserted you to it.

be well,
 
It does not have to be. Look at just one example:

I fear Gryllus has deceived you. Χριστός (with or without the article btw) is the functional equivalent of a proper name in not a few passages of scripture.

Having done the deed, notice he is no where to be found lending support to your position, but has deserted you to it.

be well,
This would have been a better scripture to support your assertion.
1 Peter 4:14
If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory, and of God, rests upon you NASB
εἰ ὀνειδίζεσθε ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ

I might still say that the name of Christ is Jesus just to be contrary.

Why do you have to be so snarky?
 
I might still say that the name of Christ is Jesus just to be contrary.

Why do you have to be so snarky?
What exactly is that supposed to mean ? Just accept the truth that in some scriptures “Christ” is the functional equivalent of a proper noun. Instead of trying to be “contrary” for no good reason at all.
 
Back
Top