Kenosis Heresy

cjab

Well-known member
Since when does role or rank play a part in ones nature ?
When did I infer it?

Does a woman is submission to her husband make her any less human ?
?

Are you any less human than the CEO, CFO. COO of your company because they have a higher rank over you ?
I wasn't aware God had a rank. But you're right in one sense. In Jn 1:1b it is said "The Word was with God" not "the Father was with God." Have you figured out why?
 

civic

Well-known member
When did I infer it?


?


I wasn't aware God had a rank. But you're right in one sense. In Jn 1:1b it is said "The Word was with God" not "the Father was with God." Have you figured out why?
I don't need to know why God exists as a multi Personal Being. The fact is God is more than One Person and in many places the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are identified as God. John 1:1-4 make it clear that more than 1 Person is being identified as God and responsible for creation and existing before there was a creation.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
No, you're just talking nonsense. God is not "a state of being." It is identified with a personal pronoun and / or with the Father throughout the bible.

Yes, the Father(a "person") is God (a "being").
There is only one God (a "being").

YHWH is God.
Fred is a man.
Fluffy is a cat.
Fido is a dog.

The problem is that you refuse to recognize the distinction between person and being.

Nothing further to add really.

Since you are ignorant of the topic, I quite agree that there is nothing further for you to add.

I don't think we need to be fluent in Koine Greek to distinguish a noun from an adjective. We just look it up in the interlinear.

Thank you for admitting that you don't understand Koine Greek.
And no, an interlinear is NOT a valid substitute for learning the language.

Are you telling me the translators weren't Trinitarians?

I'm telling you that their translation wasn't influenced by their theology. And since you're ignorant of Koine Greek, you are in no position to question it.

Please stop talking nonsense and apply your injunction to be humble to yourself FIRST.

So you have nothing to offer but insult, to hide your ignorance.
Got it.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
The tense is aorist passive.
The tense in Heb 5:9 is thus the same as that in James 2:22 "by works was faith made perfect".

The tense is the same, but the mood is different.
Heb. 5:9 is an aorist passive participle.
James 2:22 is an aorist passive indicative verb.

But as I said, you don't know the first thing about Koine Greek, so you don't know what you're talking about.

And as was pointed out, James 2 isn't about Christ, it's about sinners.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
But you're right in one sense. In Jn 1:1b it is said "The Word was with God" not "the Father was with God." Have you figured out why?

Wow... Since you want to hang out in the Trinity forum, it would behoove you to actually LEARN what we believe.

Nobody believes the Word is "the Father".
So of COURSE it would never say, "The Father was with God".
You're simply making yourself look foolish at this point.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
2 Peter 1:11
11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
του κυριου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου

cjab... Are you claiming that "Lord" and "Savior" above are referring to two different people?

Peter also also identifies Jesus as God and Savior.
2 Peter 1:1
1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου

If you agree that "Lord" and "Savior" in v.11 is referring to the same person (Jesus), then you must ALSO admit that "God" and "Savior" in v.1 are referring to the same person (ie. Jesus).

Because as OldShepherd points out, the construction is IDENTICAL:

1:1 του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου
1:11 του κυριου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου

To interpret them differently would be an inconsistency on your part, and based on doctrinal bias, because the only reason to reject this is your anti-Trinitarian bias.

If Jesus is not God and Savior in vs. 1 He is not Lord and Savior in vs. 11. Both phrases have the same Greek grammatical structure.

Exactly.
 

cjab

Well-known member
I don't need to know why God exists as a multi Personal Being. The fact is God is more than One Person and in many places the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are identified as God. John 1:1-4 make it clear that more than 1 Person is being identified as God and responsible for creation and existing before there was a creation.
You're not understanding Jn 1:1b. "The God was with the Word." If the Word was "the God" Jn 1:1b would be meaningless.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
You're not understanding Jn 1:1b. "The God was with the Word." If the Word was "the God" Jn 1:1b would be meaningless.

Only if you misunderstand what the verse is saying.
Again, "theos" ("god") is WHAT He is.
"The Father" is WHO he is.

The Son is the same being as the Father, the same "what" as the Father.
But He is not the same "who" as the Father, the Son is not the Father.

So it appears that you are rejecting Scripture, as "the Word" clearly refers to the Son (John 1:14), not the Father ("the Word was WITH God [the Father]")
 

civic

Well-known member
You're not understanding Jn 1:1b. "The God was with the Word." If the Word was "the God" Jn 1:1b would be meaningless.
I understand John 1:1- John identifies 2 who are Theos but are not each other. its not rocket science. I believe John and the distinctions he makes in Johns prologue between God and God, Father/Son.

hope this helps !!!
 

OldShepherd

Well-known member
cjab... Are you claiming that "Lord" and "Savior" above are referring to two different people?
If you agree that "Lord" and "Savior" in v.11 is referring to the same person (Jesus), then you must ALSO admit that "God" and "Savior" in v.1 are referring to the same person (ie. Jesus).
Because as OldShepherd points out, the construction is IDENTICAL:
1:1 του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου
1:11 του κυριου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου
To interpret them differently would be an inconsistency on your part, and based on doctrinal bias, because the only reason to reject this is your anti-Trinitarian bias.
Exactly.
Hint. If you want to get the attention of someone other than the person a post is addressed to place an @ in front of the name.
 

cjab

Well-known member
cjab... Are you claiming that "Lord" and "Savior" above are referring to two different people?

Titus 2:13
__________
BTW for support for my repudiation of "glorious appearing", see Wallace below. He translates it "the glory of ...."

The problem with the Granville Sharp "rule" is in its application and exceptions. As I understand it, it was formulated this way:

"When the copulative και connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person . . . ."

In Titus 2:13, the most glaring issue with applying Granville Sharp is that the phrase is too complex to apply it. I think the copulative και is connecting "glory" which forms the first noun. The transliteration is "appearing of the 'glory of the great God' and 'of our Savior Christ Jesus'."

See, what is appearing is two things, (a) the glory of the great God, and (b) our savior Christ Jesus. We know that.

What isn't appearing is "the glory of ... our savior Christ Jesus." It is Jesus Christ himself who is appearing, not his glory. The application of Granville Sharp would give rise to a wrong translation i.e. "the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (per Wallace). This is not what Paul means. He is clearly referring to the appearing of Christ himself.

The phrase "of the glory of the great God" infers the first noun is "glory" and the second is "savior." They are referring to differ things, where "God" is just a qualifier to "glory."

So the Granville Sharp "rule" won't apply because it says "if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle". Here the article is repeated ("of the glory of the great God.") There are two articles before "of our Savior Christ Jesus."

BTW Winer (great greek grammarian of 19th century) agrees with me. He says "In Tit. ii. 13. . . considerations derived from Paul’s system of doctrine lead me to believe that σωτῆρος is not a second predicate, co-ordinate with θεοῦ."

2 Peter 1: 1 & 11
__________________

Winer (great greek grammarian of 19th century) has this to say In 2 Peter i. 1 “there is not even a pronoun with σωτῆρος." It is the same wth 2 Peter i. 11.

What he is inferring is that there is no pronoun before "savior" (second noun) to be moved antecendent to the first noun, per the Granville Sharp "rule" although, as formulated, it seems the rule applies, but has no effect on the existing word order. So I would interpret Winer as meaning "the Granville Sharp rule" is redundant in 2 Peter i. 1 & 11 and the Greek can be transliterated as it appears and mean whatever it might mean.

So if it says "having obtained a faith through [the] righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ," it can mean whatever makes the best sense, and ditto with "the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

What is the best sense?

2 Peter 1:1 the phrase "righteousness of Christ" never appears in the bible. "Righteousness of God" appears many times. So the best sense would be "having obtained a faith through [the] 'righteousness of our God' and [our] 'Savior Jesus Christ." i.e. Faith comes through (a) the righteousness of our God, (b) Our savior Jesus Christ.

Contariwise in 2 Peter 1:11 the phrase "kingdom" clearly pertains to Christ, so no problems with seeing the application to Christ alone.
 

civic

Well-known member
Titus 2:13
__________
BTW for support for my repudiation of "glorious appearing", see Wallace below. He translates it "the glory of ...."

The problem with the Granville Sharp "rule" is in its application and exceptions. As I understand it, it was formulated this way:

"When the copulative και connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person . . . ."

In Titus 2:13, the most glaring issue with applying Granville Sharp is that the phrase is too complex to apply it. I think the copulative και is connecting "glory" which forms the first noun. The transliteration is "appearing of the 'glory of the great God' and 'of our Savior Christ Jesus'."

See, what is appearing is two things, (a) the glory of the great God, and (b) our savior Christ Jesus. We know that.

What isn't appearing is "the glory of ... our savior Christ Jesus." It is Jesus Christ himself who is appearing, not his glory. The application of Granville Sharp would give rise to a wrong translation i.e. "the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (per Wallace). This is not what Paul means. He is clearly referring to the appearing of Christ himself.

The phrase "of the glory of the great God" infers the first noun is "glory" and the second is "savior." They are referring to differ things, where "God" is just a qualifier to "glory."

So the Granville Sharp "rule" won't apply because it says "if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle". Here the article is repeated ("of the glory of the great God.") There are two articles before "of our Savior Christ Jesus."

BTW Winer (great greek grammarian of 19th century) agrees with me. He says "In Tit. ii. 13. . . considerations derived from Paul’s system of doctrine lead me to believe that σωτῆρος is not a second predicate, co-ordinate with θεοῦ."

2 Peter 1: 1 & 11
__________________

Winer (great greek grammarian of 19th century) has this to say In 2 Peter i. 1 “there is not even a pronoun with σωτῆρος." It is the same wth 2 Peter i. 11.

What he is inferring is that there is no pronoun before "savior" (second noun) to be moved antecendent to the first noun, per the Granville Sharp "rule" although, as formulated, it seems the rule applies, but has no effect on the existing word order. So I would interpret Winer as meaning "the Granville Sharp rule" is redundant in 2 Peter i. 1 & 11 and the Greek can be transliterated as it appears and mean whatever it might mean.

So if it says "having obtained a faith through [the] righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ," it can mean whatever makes the best sense, and ditto with "the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

What is the best sense?

2 Peter 1:1 the phrase "righteousness of Christ" never appears in the bible. "Righteousness of God" appears many times. So the best sense would be "having obtained a faith through [the] 'righteousness of our God' and [our] 'Savior Jesus Christ." i.e. Faith comes through (a) the righteousness of our God, (b) Our savior Jesus Christ.

Contariwise in 2 Peter 1:11 the phrase "kingdom" clearly pertains to Christ, so no problems with seeing the application to Christ alone.
What a joke since 1:1 and 1:11 are identical in the Greek. So it shows a bias that is rather obvious to see. The facts are the facts and both 1:1 and 1:11 are either describing 2 persons of 1 but they cannot be saying 2 in 1:1 and 1 in 1.11. That is brutally inconsistent.
 

cjab

Well-known member
What a joke since 1:1 and 1:11 are identical in the Greek. So it shows a bias that is rather obvious to see. The facts are the facts and both 1:1 and 1:11 are either describing 2 persons of 1 but they cannot be saying 2 in 1:1 and 1 in 1.11. That is brutally inconsistent.
Yes they can, because the context and the meaning demands it. There is no benefit in applying any "rule of grammar" because as with Titus 2:13, if you apply such a rule to 2 Peter i:1, you end up with a phrase containing "righteousness of Christ" which appears nowhere else in the bible and is bad theology for Christ said "no one is good except God alone."
 

civic

Well-known member
Yes they can, because the context and the meaning demands it. There is no benefit in applying any "rule of grammar" because as with Titus 2:13, if you apply such a rule to 2 Peter i:1, you end up with a phrase containing "righteousness of Christ" which appears nowhere else in the bible and is bad theology for Christ said "no one is good except God alone."
I see all your presuppositions are being read into all these verses so you are incapable of being unbiased and objective with scripture. Enjoy your eisegesis since you just admitted you cannot exegete scripture.

hope this helps !!!
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Titus 2:13
__________
BTW for support for my repudiation of "glorious appearing", see Wallace below. He translates it "the glory of ...."

Yes, I'm familiar with the article.

The problem with the Granville Sharp "rule" is in its application and exceptions. As I understand it, it was formulated this way:

"When the copulative και connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person . . . ."

In Titus 2:13, the most glaring issue with applying Granville Sharp is that the phrase is too complex to apply it. I think the copulative και is connecting "glory" which forms the first noun. The transliteration is "appearing of the 'glory of the great God' and 'of our Savior Christ Jesus'."

See, what is appearing is two things, (a) the glory of the great God, and (b) our savior Christ Jesus. We know that.

What isn't appearing is "the glory of ... our savior Christ Jesus." It is Jesus Christ himself who is appearing, not his glory. The application of Granville Sharp would give rise to a wrong translation i.e. "the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (per Wallace). This is not what Paul means. He is clearly referring to the appearing of Christ himself.

The phrase "of the glory of the great God" infers the first noun is "glory" and the second is "savior." They are referring to differ things, where "God" is just a qualifier to "glory."

I absolutely LOVE how you cherry-pick "glory" as the "first noun", COMPLETELY SKIP OVER "God", and then cherry-pick "savior" as the second noun.

So the Granville Sharp "rule" won't apply because it says "if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle". Here the article is repeated ("of the glory of the great God.") There are two articles before "of our Savior Christ Jesus."

This is why making claims about the Greek while not knowing Greek only gets you in trouble. This is the verse in question:

Titus 2:13 προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ⸂Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ⸃,

The red bolded part is a valid TSKS construction, with no article for "σωτῆρος". The fact that "δόξης" has an article is irrelevant, as it isn't part of the construction.

BTW Winer (great greek grammarian of 19th century) agrees with me. He says "In Tit. ii. 13. . . considerations derived from Paul’s system of doctrine lead me to believe that σωτῆρος is not a second predicate, co-ordinate with θεοῦ."

Do you think Winer's anti-Trinitarian bias may have played a role in his opinion?
And it seems noteworthy that Winer was a grammarian, he didn't base his opinion on grammatical issues, but on theological ones ("derived from [his opinion of] Paul's system of doctrine").

2 Peter 1: 1 & 11
__________________

Winer (great greek grammarian of 19th century) has this to say In 2 Peter i. 1 “there is not even a pronoun with σωτῆρος." It is the same wth 2 Peter i. 11.

As Wallace points out in the article, whether or not there was a "pronoun" is irrelevant. The rule doesn't require it.

What he is inferring is that there is no pronoun before "savior" (second noun) to be moved antecendent to the first noun, per the Granville Sharp "rule" although, as formulated, it seems the rule applies, but has no effect on the existing word order. So I would interpret Winer as meaning "the Granville Sharp rule" is redundant in 2 Peter i. 1 & 11 and the Greek can be transliterated as it appears and mean whatever it might mean.

Huh?
It sounds like you don't know the difference between a "pronoun" (eg. "he", "she", "it"), which the rule doesn't address, and the "article" (ie. "the") which the rule DOES address.

There is no need for any "pronoun" for Sharp's rule to be valid.

So if it says "having obtained a faith through [the] righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ," it can mean whatever makes the best sense, and ditto with "the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

What is the best sense?

2 Peter 1:1 the phrase "righteousness of Christ" never appears in the bible. "Righteousness of God" appears many times. So the best sense would be "having obtained a faith through [the] 'righteousness of our God' and [our] 'Savior Jesus Christ." i.e. Faith comes through (a) the righteousness of our God, (b) Our savior Jesus Christ.

Contariwise in 2 Peter 1:11 the phrase "kingdom" clearly pertains to Christ, so no problems with seeing the application to Christ alone.

Well, actual Greek scholars disagree with you, because unlike you, they can read Greek.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Yes they can, because the context and the meaning demands it. There is no benefit in applying any "rule of grammar" because as with Titus 2:13,

Maybe you're right...
Maybe we should simply dispense with all "rules of grammar"!
Let chaos reign!
Let people twist texts however they like! ;)

if you apply such a rule to 2 Peter i:1, you end up with a phrase containing "righteousness of Christ" which appears nowhere else in the bible

Not sure why any teaching has to be in the Bible more than once....

and is bad theology for Christ said "no one is good except God alone."

Well, since Christ is God, that's not really a problem, is it?

And are you saying someone can be "sinless" (2 Cor. 5:21, 1 John 3:5), and still not be "good"?
 

OldShepherd

Well-known member
Titus 2:13
__________
BTW for support for my repudiation of "glorious appearing", see Wallace below. He translates it "the glory of ...."
The problem with the Granville Sharp "rule" is in its application and exceptions. As I understand it, it was formulated this way:
"When the copulative και connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person . . . ."
In Titus 2:13, the most glaring issue with applying Granville Sharp is that the phrase is too complex to apply it. I think the copulative και is connecting "glory" which forms the first noun. The transliteration is "appearing of the 'glory of the great God' and 'of our Savior Christ Jesus'."
See, what is appearing is two things, (a) the glory of the great God, and (b) our savior Christ Jesus. We know that.
What isn't appearing is "the glory of ... our savior Christ Jesus." It is Jesus Christ himself who is appearing, not his glory. The application of Granville Sharp would give rise to a wrong translation i.e. "the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (per Wallace). This is not what Paul means. He is clearly referring to the appearing of Christ himself.
The phrase "of the glory of the great God" infers the first noun is "glory" and the second is "savior." They are referring to differ things, where "God" is just a qualifier to "glory."
So the Granville Sharp "rule" won't apply because it says "if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle". Here the article is repeated ("of the glory of the great God.") There are two articles before "of our Savior Christ Jesus."
BTW Winer (great greek grammarian of 19th century) agrees with me. He says "In Tit. ii. 13. . . considerations derived from Paul’s system of doctrine lead me to believe that σωτῆρος is not a second predicate, co-ordinate with θεοῦ."
2 Peter 1: 1 & 11
__________________
Winer (great greek grammarian of 19th century) has this to say In 2 Peter i. 1 “there is not even a pronoun with σωτῆρος." It is the same wth 2 Peter i. 11.
What he is inferring is that there is no pronoun before "savior" (second noun) to be moved antecendent to the first noun, per the Granville Sharp "rule" although, as formulated, it seems the rule applies, but has no effect on the existing word order. So I would interpret Winer as meaning "the Granville Sharp rule" is redundant in 2 Peter i. 1 & 11 and the Greek can be transliterated as it appears and mean whatever it might mean.
So if it says "having obtained a faith through [the] righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ," it can mean whatever makes the best sense, and ditto with "the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."
What is the best sense?
2 Peter 1:1 the phrase "righteousness of Christ" never appears in the bible. "Righteousness of God" appears many times. So the best sense would be "having obtained a faith through [the] 'righteousness of our God' and [our] 'Savior Jesus Christ." i.e. Faith comes through (a) the righteousness of our God, (b) Our savior Jesus Christ.
Contariwise in 2 Peter 1:11 the phrase "kingdom" clearly pertains to Christ, so no problems with seeing the application to Christ alone.
I can't tell where Winer ends and CJB begins. Here is my quote from Wallace 21st century scholar I could also quote two other 20th century scholars, Robertson and Winer, who agree with Wallace.
" Titus 2:13 τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ
It has frequently been alleged that θεός is a proper name and, hence, that Sharp’s rule cannot apply to constructions in which it is employed. We have already argued that θεός is not a proper name in Greek. We simply wish to point out here that in the TSKS construction θεός is used over a dozen times in the NT (e.g., Luke 20:37; John 20:27; Rom 15:6; 2 Cor 1:3; Gal 1:4; Jas 1:27) and always (if we exclude the christologically significant texts) in reference to one person. This phenomenon is not true of any other proper name in said construction (every instance involving true proper names always points to two individuals). Since that argument carries no weight, there is no good reason to reject Titus 2:13 as an explicit affirmation of the deity of Christ.
2 Pet 1:1 τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
our God and Savior, Jesus Christ
Some grammarians have objected that since ἡμῶν is connected with θεοῦ, two persons are in view. The pronoun seems to “bracket” the noun, effectively isolating the trailing noun. However in v 11 of this same chapter (as well as in 2:20 and 3:18), the author writes τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, an expression which refers to one person, Jesus Christ: “Why refuse to apply the same rule to 2 Peter 1:1, that all admit … to be true of 2 Peter 1:11 [not to mention 2:20 and 3:18]?” Further, more than half of the NT texts that fit Sharp’s rule involve some intervening word between the two substantives. Several of them have an intervening possessive pronoun or other gen. modifier. Yet, in all of these constructions only one person is clearly in view.61 In all such instances the intervening term had no effect on breaking the construction. This being the case, there is no good reason for rejecting 2 Pet 1:1 as an explicit affirmation of the deity of Christ.
Wallace, D. B. (1996). Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (pp. 276–277). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.​
 

OldShepherd

Well-known member
Yes they can, because the context and the meaning demands it. There is no benefit in applying any "rule of grammar" because as with Titus 2:13, if you apply such a rule to 2 Peter i:1, you end up with a phrase containing "righteousness of Christ" which appears nowhere else in the bible and is bad theology for Christ said "no one is good except God alone."
Any scholars, real scholars, agree with you on this point? I have checked four; Wallace, Robertson, Winer and Gill they make no mention of it.
Jesus was not denying either that He was good or He was God. Jesus said twice He is he good shepherd John 10:11 and John 10:14
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Yes they can, because the context and the meaning demands it. There is no benefit in applying any "rule of grammar" because as with Titus 2:13, if you apply such a rule to 2 Peter i:1, you end up with a phrase containing "righteousness of Christ" which appears nowhere else in the bible and is bad theology for Christ said "no one is good except God alone."

That is an interesting quote you give. Let's look at it:

Mark 10:17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

There are two possible interpretations:

1) Jesus is denying being "good", and saying only God is good. I suspect you hold that interpretation.

2) Jesus is recognizing that he called him, "Good", and simply asks him for the reasons he said that. He did not say, "Don't call me good", or "I'm not good". He simply said, "Why do you call me good?" That's not a denial. I believe Jesus wanted him to "connect the dots" and figure out that He was in fact God.

P1) Only God is good.
P2) Jesus is good.
C1) Therefore, Jesus is God.

Greek scholar A.T. Robertson writes:
"
Why callest thou me good? (Ti me legeis agathon;). So Luke 18:19. Matt. 19:17 has it: “Why asketh thou concerning that which is good? “The young ruler was probably sincere and not using mere fulsome compliment, but Jesus challenges him to define his attitude towards him as was proper. Did he mean “good” (agathos) in the absolute sense as applied to God? The language is not a disclaiming of deity on the part of Jesus. That I may inherit (hina klēronomēsō). Matt. 19:16 has (schō), that I may “get.”
 
Top