You really can only take multiple choice questions! So you say that Wallace knows and Gryllus knows, even though they offer different opinions? But I don't know because I didn't answer with the exact wording of A, B or C?Please answer the question: Is θεος is John 1:1c qualitative, indefinite or definite. Wallace argues it is qualitative, Gryllus says it is definite, and you don’t seem to know the answer. Trinitarians seem to be all over the place on this one.
I think the debate--over which much ink has already been spilled--is over a nuance where the end result is virtually identical, that Jesus is called "God." Or do you really believe in this case there is any substantial difference between class or nature and essence? Since English properly lacks qualitative nouns, it's far more substantive for me to answer that it is a subset proposition: Christ is God, but is not the Father. That being said, since you really want me to spell it out for you, that position falls within the qualitative range. Or more specifically, the qualitative-definite range since θεός is preverbal rather than postverbal.
My Greek is fine. On the other hand, you've been contradicting the established rules of Greek grammar left and right in this thread, disagreeing with the grammarians and their examples, applying plural nouns to singular, improperly punctuating passages, misusing grammatical terminology, contradicting your own position, etc. The problem is you set yourself up as a paragon of Greek learning, when it is abundantly clear you haven't even approached an intermediate understanding of the language. But you certainly have a high opinion of yourself.Some posters at Carm. seem to wear their ignorance of Biblical Greek grammar with pride.
You contradicted yourself and now pretend again I'm the problem. Very well. Θεὸς is a title (as you said originally) and has that function grammatically in the NT. All it seems you've done is run a search and come up with a subject topic from the BGreek forum (here)--which is itself badly written and misrepresents its source material.This particular poster does not seem to realize that not a few titles in the GNT are the functional equivalents of proper names. Another good example which comes to mind is the articular Θεὸς. To be sure, not all Trinitarians are ignorant of the existence of titles which are also proper names, with some calling Θεὸς “ a quasi proper name.”
But let's turn this another way, looking at 2 Peter 1:11 (grammatically identical to 2 Peter 1:1), τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Would you argue that κύριος in the GNT often stands in place of the precise name of God given to Moses, and therefore that it should be treated as a "quasi proper name" and "Lord" should be one subject and "Savior Jesus Christ" another?
Maybe you might argue next, as some have, that the pronoun acts as a definitizer?
I already posted these elsewhere in this thread in response to you, and now you accuse me of not producing the evidence? Here it is again:I can't receive it because you won't adduce the evidence in your post. Do you really suppose I have a copy of Salamo Glassius to hand, or Beza's annotations to the Textus Receptus? Why not share it? I'm quite willing to credit that the ECFs quoted Titus 2:13 verbatim, as Irenaeus does Rom 9:5, but quoting it is one thing, and explaining it another.
Whenever an article is added emphatically to the first word, it includes all other additional epithets, and shows that there is a conversation about the same subject. (Quandoque articulus emphatice prime voci additus, reliqua omnia epitheta adjecta includit, & de eodem subjecto sermonem esse ostendit.)Jude v. 4 καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην Θεόν καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι. This article, common to all these epithets, shows that Christ is here called "the only master, God and Lord." Erasmus, by converting the first accusative into the nominative, weakens the sentence in a most savage way, for he translates: "And God, who is the only master, and our Lord Jesus," etc. (Ac Deum, qui folus est herus, ac Dominum nostrum Jesum, etc.). So also Tit. 2, 13 (which may be seen in this place of Erasmus' annotations), 2 Pet. 1:1, Eph. 5:5 in which, because of the many epithets common to this article, they are not obscure proofs of the true divinity of Christ." (in quibus, ob communem hunc plurium epithetorum articulum, non obscura divinitatis verae Christi documenta sunt.)The same applies to God the Father, 2 Cor. 1[:3]. Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν καὶ θεὸς πάσης παρακλήσεως.- Salamo Glassius (1593-1656), Sacred Philology
The glory of that great God and Savior, etc. (τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτ[ῆρος], etc.). For us, indeed, they are not wanting, the very many and most evident testimonies of the Godhead of Christ, who, if he were not truly God, would certainly not be adored by us. Why then—in whatsoever things of this kind they offer to us, that without manifest calumny they may not be tortured in any other way—should we not rather with all our strength retain both hands and feet (indeed, of the living and the dead) than even concede so little to the heretics? Therefore, I would not want you to imitate Erasmus in that, because you esteem the noblest of his own people in matters pertaining to that purpose. For he will not only allow us to let it slip from our hands knowingly and prudently, but verily also to force it out with all our might . . . the Greek language demands that each predicate is referred to one and the same subject (that is, to one Jesus Christ) . . . For the use of the Greek language certainly requires it, since there is only one common article for those two, namely θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος."Beza (1582) - Annotation on Titus 2:13
I could add other commentators here also going on into the 17th century and 18th centuries.
They actually explain it as referring to Christ as "Great God." There is no extant Greek author who draws the distinction of two subjects in Titus 2:13.I'm quite willing to credit that the ECFs quoted Titus 2:13 verbatim, as Irenaeus does Rom 9:5, but quoting it is one thing, and explaining it another.
It's a nominative of address. Thomas is calling Christ "my Lord" and "my God"--Christ himself is the subject of address: καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Ὁ Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.It's interesting that in John 20:28, a second article is used, suggesting Thomas wanted to draw a clear distinction between Κύριός and Θεός in this context.