Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

[brianrw]

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.

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?

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.

Some posters at Carm. seem to wear their ignorance of Biblical Greek grammar with pride.

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.

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.”

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.

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 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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[brianrw]

Continued from previous post

Look what happened to Calvin who worshipped the ECFs as authorities. He went mad by burning Servetus. He went literally insane.

Look at Byzantium and Rome who both worshipped at the altar of the ECFs. What a sordid exampe of mutual hatred. A kingdom divided against itself will fall, and so Christianity kept on falling: Byzantium and Rome both fell to armies in those days.

Their christological disputes were about political power play, and so it continued down the ages, in mutual contempt and animosity, just as the doings of so many who idolize the ECFs also revolve around disputes and politics.

I think you should leave history to the experts. Calvin didn't "burn Servetus." First, Calvin had warned Servetus not to come to Geneva, but he came specifically targeting Calvin, knowing that heresy in Switzerland was punishable by death. Second, Calvin was not yet a citizen and had no political power to arrest or try anyone, but being the theological target of Servetus he asked the authorities to investigate. Servetus was arrested outside of St. Peter's Cathedral. Calvin served as a witness in the trial at the council of Geneva, and when the conviction was passed down, he pleaded unsuccessfully for a mercifully swift execution by the sword, which the council refused. The conviction was actually handed down in consultation with the unanimous consent of the cantons of Switzerland and carried out, and it was their decision to "burn Servetus." I'm not defending the decision or Calvin, I'm just saying you need to at least get your story straight.

As for the remaining comments, the Roman Empire was the longest lasting Empire in History--it stood for roughly 1500 years and ended with the Fall of the Eastern Roman Empire (called the Byzantine Empire). The Western Empire fell because of its immorality, and for the persecution of Christianity, and for its reliance on foreign armies. They relied on Germanic Foederati to defend the Empire, and they turned on them and carved their own kingdoms out of the Rome, according as the prophets had foretold.

The Eastern (Byzantine) Empire outlived the Western Empire by a thousand years but eventually declined due to a series of civil wars before it was overtaken by the Ottomans.

Essentially, you are arbitrarily laying blame on all of this for them "worshipp[ing] at the altar of the ECFs." It's simply not the case. If longevity were the sole indicator of truth, the comparatively short duration of the heterodox (Arian) nations ought to be contrasted.

 

[cjab]

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:

OK Thanks. I must have missed them.

I could add other commentators here also going on into the 17th century and 18th centuries.

Yes, let's have the evidence.

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.

Well I suppose their hyper Trinitarianism would lead them to say that, despite the real association being between "the glory of the great God" and "Jesus Christ." After all, they always took the bait, like a hungry fish.

But what about this in Jn 17:3?

τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν

By your estimation this would associate "the only true God" with being the same person as the Christ. Surely Jn 17:3 is a make or break verse for your (Titus 2:13) theory. Either τὸν θεὸν = Χριστόν here, or your theory doesn't hold anywhere else.

If two different people we should see (according to your theory):
τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν τὸν Χριστόν

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.

 

[The Real John Milton]

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?

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.

There is no such thing as a "qualitative-definite" θεός in the GNT. By the way, a preverbal anarthrous PN in the gospel of John is virtually always indefinite. I have not seen a clear instance of a definite or purely qualitative use of such a substantive , let alone one which lies in limbo between a qualitative-definite range.

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.

Your biblical Greek isn't.

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.

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 could add other commentators here also going on into the 17th century and 18th centuries.

Apples and oranges. The bare articular Θεὸς is never used of anyone other than the Father, either in the GNT or in the LXX. This is not the case with κύριος.

 

[The Real John Milton]

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.

So you think in the following the anonymous man is "the subject of address" ?

ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν τῷ λέγοντι αὐτῷ Τίς ἐστιν ἡ μήτηρ μου, καὶ τίνες εἰσὶν οἱ ἀδελφοί μου;

You don't seem to understand that in biblical Koine the one being addressed ( εἶπεν αὐτῷ ) is sometimes not even the topic of interest, let alone being "the subject of address." What we have at John 20:28 is a nominative of exclamation.

Another point to note is that the sheep of Christ never directly address their Shepherd with the apparent (and biblically non-existent) " nominative for vocative ὁ κύριός" but always as κύριε.

Be well all,

 

[brianrw]

There is no such thing as a "qualitative-definite" θεός in the GNT.

I'm talking about the "range" of meaning, I'm not calling it two things at once. Preverbal will range from qualitative to definite, the split is about 80/20 respectively. Postverbal will range from qualitative to indefinite. This is why you have the disagreements over nuance like you see with Wallace and Gryllus. You state Wallace's position, but you apparently didn't even bother to check his grammar. Just because I believe it is qualitative, it doesn't mean I can't acknowledge the other position is possible or valid.

By the way, a preverbal anarthrous PN in the gospel of John is virtually always indefinite.

Are you going to back this up or do I have to take your word for it? Because there have been at least two different studies--one by Harner and another by Dixon--which failed to find any instances of an anarthrous preverbal predicate nominative that was indefinite. Dixon concludes specifically that the anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative in the gospel of John is primarily qualitative. So you are wrong.

Making up baseless, absolute assertions is a really bad habit of yours.

Apples and oranges. The bare articular Θεὸς is never used of anyone other than the Father, either in the GNT or in the LXX.

It is. The problem is you all like to apply this type of circular argument everywhere it is used of the Son.

Your biblical Greek isn't.

If saying this makes you feel better about the nonsense you've been spitting out.

You don't seem to understand that in biblical Koine the one being addressed ( εἶπεν αὐτῷ ) is sometimes not even the topic of interest, let alone being "the subject of address." What we have at John 20:28 is a nominative of exclamation.

Another point to note is that the sheep of Christ never directly address their Shepherd with the apparent (and biblically non-existent) " nominative for vocative ὁ κύριός" but always as κύριε.

Be well all,

It bothers me you don't understand how absolutely irrelevant your example was, and how you don't seem to grasp the stated limitations of the rule you apply elsewhere.

When you make absolute assertions about the GNT, you are virtually always wrong. While it is uncommon for ὁ κύριός to be used as a nominative of address, it is not unprecedented. This construction mirrors that of Psalm 34:23 LXX (35:23 MT), ἐξεγέρθητι κύριε καὶ πρόσχες τῇ κρίσει μου ὁ θεός μου καὶ ὁ κύριός μου εἰς τὴν δίκην μου. You can also look at John 13:13 (ὑμεῖς φωνεῖτέ με ὁ διδάσκαλος καὶ ὁ κύριος) and Revelation 4:11 NA/UBS (ἄξιος εἶ ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν).

The vocative form of θεός is almost never used in the GNT, and is almost always represented by ὁ θεός.

You're also going to run into the same problems again as you do everywhere else, that your reading of this passage is directly contradicted by the vast majority of Greek fathers, and the grammarians (Wallace, Köstenberger, Merkle, Plummer, Robertson) contradict you as well.

But what about this in Jn 17:3?

τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν

By your estimation this would associate "the only true God" with being the same person as the Christ. Surely Jn 17:3 is a make or break verse for your (Titus 2:13) theory. Either τὸν θεὸν = Χριστόν here, or your theory doesn't hold anywhere else.

No, it wouldn't, and I can speak for myself. Why not, σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν?

 

[brianrw]

continued from previous post:

Yes, let's have the evidence.

This is from my survey of documents, but it's been looked over at least once more; research is ongoing. Make sure you read the comments, translations and footnotes. Early modern English differs in grammar and significantly in punctuation (commas were not yet syntactical) so read carefully:

1. John Owen (1655), Vindiciæ Evangelicæ Or The Mystery of the Gospell Vindicated, and Socinianisme Examined, p. 258
2. Various (1672), Θρηνοι̂κος: the House of Mourning, p. 266 (sorry, I had to run a search to link it since the pages are messed up)
3. John Fell, Obadiah Walker (1684), A Paraphrase and Annotations Upon All St. Paul's Epistles, p. 342. See the footnote.
4. Hippolyte du Chastelet de Luzancy (1696), Remarks on several Late Writings, published in English by the Socinians, pp. 165, 166
5. Jean Gailhard (1697), The Blasphemous Socinian Heresie Disproved and Confuted, pp. 229, 230.
6. John Tolliston, 1630-1694 (1701), Several Discourses of Death and Judgment, p. 323, 324 and also (1717) in Works, Vol. 2, 2nd Ed. - Google Books pp. 182, 183. (begins bottom of 182)
7. Robert Fleming Jr, William Lloyd, Thomas Staynoe (1705) pp. 202-203 Christology: a discourse concerning Christ, considered I. In Himself; II. I... - Google Books
8. William Beveridge, 1710, Sermon on Several Subjects, pp. 78, 79; also (1729), The works of the Right Reverend Father in God, Dr. William Beveridge, ... Containining [sic] all his sermons, as well those publish'd by himself, as those since his death, Volume 2, p. 130.
9. Joannes Ernestus Grabe, George Hickes (1712), Some Instances of the Defects and Omissions in Mr Whiston's Collection of Testimonies from the Scriptures and the Fathers, p. 27
10. John Edwards (1713) - Theologia Reformata, p. 297 (third paragraph)
11. William Lorimer, A Plain Explication of the First Eighter Verses of the First Chapter of the Gospel Written by St. John, pp. 34, 35.
12. John Guyse (1719), Jesus Christ God-Man: or, the constitution of Christ's person, pp. 58, 59
13. Daniel Waterland (1720), Eight Sermons Preach'd at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, p. 214.
14. Matthew Henry (1721), An Exposition of the Several Epistles Contained in the New Testament, p. 337 (col. 1)
15. Edmund Calamy (1722), Thirteen Sermons Concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 37, 38
16. Gerard De Gols (1726), A Vindication of the Worship of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Supreme God, p. 37
17. Robert Witham (1733), Annotations on the New Testament of Jesus Christ, p. 298 (rightly notes Erasmus and Grotius as the instigators of confusion here)
18. Richard Challoner (1735), The Young Gentleman Instructed in the Grounds of the Christian Religion, pp. 127, 128.
19. Charles Wheatly (1738), The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds p.148 (footnote)
20. John Gill (1746-48), Exposition...
21. Thomas Ridgley (1770), A Body of Divinity, p. 89 (col. 2, see footnote)
22. Jacques Abbadie and Abraham Booth (1777), The Deity of Jesus Christ Essential to the Christian Religion, p 249
23. John Fawcett (1781), The Christian's Humble Plea for His God and Saviour, p. 8. (footnote)

These are in addition to Glassius and Beza, previously mentioned, for a total of 25. All of these authors remark that the usage of the article in Titus 2:13, according to the Greek idiom, denotes one subject.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I'm talking about the "range" of meaning, I'm not calling it two things at once. Preverbal will range from qualitative to definite, the split is about 80/20 respectively. Postverbal will range from qualitative to indefinite. This is why you have the disagreements over nuance like you see with Wallace and Gryllus. You state Wallace's position, but you apparently didn't even bother to check his grammar. Just because I believe it is qualitative, it doesn't mean I can't acknowledge the other position is possible or valid.

At last you disclose that you think it is qualitative .

Are you going to back this up or do I have to take your word for it? Because there have been at least two different studies--one by Harner and another by Dixon--which failed to find any instances of an anarthrous preverbal predicate nominative that was indefinite. Dixon concludes specifically that the anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative in the gospel of John is primarily qualitative. So you are wrong.
Making up baseless, absolute assertions is a really bad habit of yours.


It is. The problem is you all like to apply this type of circular argument everywhere it is used of the Son.


If saying this makes you feel better about the nonsense you've been spitting out.

There have been no studies which have made such an assertion.

Following are just some instances of pre-verbal anarthrous PNs which are indefinite from apostle John’s gospel alone, -- John 4:19, 6:70, 8;34,8;44,8;48.9:8, 9:17, 9:24, etc....

It bothers me you don't understand how absolutely irrelevant your example was, and how you don't seem to grasp the stated limitations of the rule you apply elsewhere.

You argued that just because the words in John 20;28 are said to (εἶπεν αὐτῷ) Jesus, that both the nominatives must be identifying Jesus . Now had the apostle written the following, Σὺ εἴ Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου then you would have had a point. But because there is no verb present in the expression Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου we have here a nominative of exclamation instead.

When you make absolute assertions about the GNT, you are virtually always wrong. While it is uncommon for ὁ κύριός to be used as a nominative of address, it is not unprecedented. This construction mirrors that of Psalm 34:23 LXX (35:23 MT), ἐξεγέρθητι κύριε καὶ πρόσχες τῇ κρίσει μου ὁ θεός μου καὶ ὁ κύριός μου εἰς τὴν δίκην μου. You can also look at John 13:13 (ὑμεῖς φωνεῖτέ με ὁ διδάσκαλος καὶ ὁ κύριος) and Revelation 4:11 NA/UBS (ἄξιος εἶ ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν).

In Psalm 34:23 there is only one vocative, κύριε (see red above), ὁ θεός μου καὶ ὁ κύριός μου is an appositive ,the nouns ὁ θεός and ὁ κύριός are nominatives, not nominatives for vocatives. In John 13:13 ὁ κύριος is not even a real nominative, let alone a nominative for vocative, but it is a nominative for accusative. I notice further that you could not provide a single instance where Jesus is addressed with the nominative for vocative ὁ κύριός by his sheep.


be well,

 

[The Real John Milton]

The reason why the Trinitarian assertion that θεός in John 1:1c is qualitative cannot be true is because the Gospel of John never uses θεός qualitatively. Infact, if I’m not mistaken the entire GNT does not.

Time and again, the Trinitarian assertions are supported with one or two dubious examples. So for “proof” that ὁ κύριός is nominative for vocative we get an appositive from LXX Psalms and a nominative for accusative from the Gospel of John. Never mind the 140 irrefutable examples of κύριε as the only form used in direct address. I’m sure we will get one or two dubious examples for the “ qualitative” θεός next post. The “ Deity” house is built upon a weak foundation , it seems to me.

 

[The Real John Milton]

μὴ οὖν ὁμοιωθῆτε αὐτοῖς, οἶδεν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὧν χρείαν ἔχετε πρὸ τοῦ ὑμᾶς αἰτῆσαι αὐτόν.

Matthew 6:8

I was mulling over the above just now…

The translation “God the Father” for above is rather deceptive. It gives the impression that the apostle is describing God as the Father (as apparently distinguished from the Son or the Holy Spirit) when infact the Greek is identifying God as such. The correct translation should be “ God, that is, the Father” or at the very least “ God, the Father” ( comma).

 

[cjab]

No, it wouldn't, and I can speak for myself. Why not, σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν?

I wasn't ignoring it but rather basing my point on exactly this, and also the matter that this construction is in some aspects similar to Titus 2:13.

Consider the use of καὶ.

John 17:3
"that they may know (you, the only true God) and (the one whom you have sent, Jesus Christ)."

Titus 2:13
"the appearing of (the glory of the great God) and (Savior of us Jesus Christ).

First, it seems obvious that καὶ is linking more than just the words immediately proximate to καὶ: it's linking closely knit noun phrases. Does Sharp's rule really have any application here?

"Savior Jesus Christ" is a well known phrase.

What Trinitarians want to do with Titus 2:13 is to make it out to say
"the appearing of the glory of our great (God and Savior) Jesus Christ".

This is theologically abberant as well as grammatically so. It isn't the glory of Christ that will appear but Christ himself with the glory of God. Grammatically it entails rearranging the Greek word order arbitrarily.

Secondly, since we know that in the John 17:3 context, the Father is being spoken of, it would have been mandatory to distinguish τὸν Θεὸν from ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν by the use of a second article, by the very authorities that you have cited.

But there is no second article. The use of σὲ couldn't circumvent the need for an article if one were otherwise required. Rather it would mandate that second article.

Where Ἰησοῦν (a proper name) is joined by καὶ to ὁ θεὸς (which denotes the very person of God the Father, even by John 17:3), then there is no prospect of Sharp's rule applying, because two different persons are being referred to.

continued from previous post:

This is from my survey of documents, but it's been looked over at least once more; research is ongoing. Make sure you read the comments, translations and footnotes. Early modern English differs in grammar and significantly in punctuation (commas were not yet syntactical) so read carefully:

1. John Owen (1655), Vindiciæ Evangelicæ Or The Mystery of the Gospell Vindicated, and Socinianisme Examined, p. 258
2. Various (1672), Θρηνοι̂κος: the House of Mourning, p. 266 (sorry, I had to run a search to link it since the pages are messed up)
3. John Fell, Obadiah Walker (1684), A Paraphrase and Annotations Upon All St. Paul's Epistles, p. 342. See the footnote.
4. Hippolyte du Chastelet de Luzancy (1696), Remarks on several Late Writings, published in English by the Socinians, pp. 165, 166
5. Jean Gailhard (1697), The Blasphemous Socinian Heresie Disproved and Confuted, pp. 229, 230.
6. John Tolliston, 1630-1694 (1701), Several Discourses of Death and Judgment, p. 323, 324 and also (1717) in Works, Vol. 2, 2nd Ed. - Google Books pp. 182, 183. (begins bottom of 182)
7. Robert Fleming Jr, William Lloyd, Thomas Staynoe (1705) pp. 202-203 Christology: a discourse concerning Christ, considered I. In Himself; II. I... - Google Books
8. William Beveridge, 1710, Sermon on Several Subjects, pp. 78, 79; also (1729), The works of the Right Reverend Father in God, Dr. William Beveridge, ... Containining [sic] all his sermons, as well those publish'd by himself, as those since his death, Volume 2, p. 130.
9. Joannes Ernestus Grabe, George Hickes (1712), Some Instances of the Defects and Omissions in Mr Whiston's Collection of Testimonies from the Scriptures and the Fathers, p. 27
10. John Edwards (1713) - Theologia Reformata, p. 297 (third paragraph)
11. William Lorimer, A Plain Explication of the First Eighter Verses of the First Chapter of the Gospel Written by St. John, pp. 34, 35.
12. John Guyse (1719), Jesus Christ God-Man: or, the constitution of Christ's person, pp. 58, 59
13. Daniel Waterland (1720), Eight Sermons Preach'd at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, p. 214.
14. Matthew Henry (1721), An Exposition of the Several Epistles Contained in the New Testament, p. 337 (col. 1)
15. Edmund Calamy (1722), Thirteen Sermons Concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 37, 38
16. Gerard De Gols (1726), A Vindication of the Worship of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Supreme God, p. 37
17. Robert Witham (1733), Annotations on the New Testament of Jesus Christ, p. 298 (rightly notes Erasmus and Grotius as the instigators of confusion here)
18. Richard Challoner (1735), The Young Gentleman Instructed in the Grounds of the Christian Religion, pp. 127, 128.
19. Charles Wheatly (1738), The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds p.148 (footnote)
20. John Gill (1746-48), Exposition...
21. Thomas Ridgley (1770), A Body of Divinity, p. 89 (col. 2, see footnote)
22. Jacques Abbadie and Abraham Booth (1777), The Deity of Jesus Christ Essential to the Christian Religion, p 249
23. John Fawcett (1781), The Christian's Humble Plea for His God and Saviour, p. 8. (footnote)

These are in addition to Glassius and Beza, previously mentioned, for a total of 25. All of these authors remark that the usage of the article in Titus 2:13, according to the Greek idiom, denotes one subject.

Thanks.

 

[Steven Avery]

Matthew 16:27 (AV)
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels;
and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

How many "persons"?

Ambrose (or Ambrosius or Hilary) gave this as his analogy verse. And this counters the identity interpretation of Titus 2:13 (Ambrose did not bother with that interp.) And Ambrose was properly noted by Erasmus and Grotius.

Sometimes it is best simply to keep it simple .

Titus 2:13 (AV)
Looking for that blessed hope,
and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

If you need this in a more complex fashion, I see Henry Alford as quite excellent.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/alford/titus/2.htm
Alford also gives additional analogy verses from Paul.

If you like bandwagon fallacies, go the list from brianrw, it is a beaut.

This is theologically abberant as well as grammatically so. It isn't the glory of Christ that will appear but Christ himself with the glory of God. Grammatically it entails rearranging the Greek word order arbitrarily.

The Authorized Version is faithful to the Textus Receptus Greek. Sharp did not like that, and wanted to change about 8 verses from the AV. The Shapians are now down to wanting to change one or two.

brianrw is in a special pickle, because he claims to consider the AV as authoritative, yet his interpretation is radically different. Thus he justifies it by saying "look at the c. 1700s writers." However, that does not change the English text facts on the ground.

 

[Steven Avery]

John Milton after discussing Titus 2:13
https://books.google.com/books?id=C64VAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA127

“Surely what is proposed to us as an object of belief, especially in a matter involving a primary article of faith, ought not to be an inference forced and extorted from passages relating to an entirely different subject, in which the readings are sometimes various, and the sense doubtful, nor hunted out by careful research from among articles and particles, nor elicited by dint of ingenuity, like the answers of an oracle, from sentences of dark or equivocal meaning, but should be susceptible of abundant proof from the clearest sources. For it is in this that the superiority of the gospel to the law consists ; this, and this alone, is consistent with its open simplicity; this is that true light and clearness which -we had been taught to expect would be its characteristic.”

 

[cjab]

This is what Greg Stafford has to say on Titus 2:13 in his 2nd Edition of Defending JWs.
_____________
This text is perhaps the most frequently cited passage when discussing Sharp's rule, and most commentators and grammarians of recent times see this as an instance where Christ is not only called "God," but "the great God.64 ״ Richard Young, after stating that in Titus 2:13 "the construction τοΰ μεγάλου θεού και σωτήρος ήμών (our great God and Savior) means that our savior. Jesus Christ, is God," goes on to say that the translations of Phillips ("the great God and of Jesus Christ our savior") and the KJV ("the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ") tend to "separate the nouns." But NWT ("of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus"), according to Young, "separates the two nouns even more." Is the separation indicated by these (and other"'') translations justified?

Naturally, Sharp believed this text applied to one person. Jesus Christ. In his words. "The text in question, if the truth of the original be duly regarded, must inevitably be rendered. ' Expecting the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ'. Middleton believes that "it is impossible to understand θεού and σωτήρος otherwise than of one person." Wallace, with more caution than Sharp or Middleton. states, "Titus 2:13 appears to be secure as a reference to Christ as θεός. But there are problems with this view. Again we raise the issue of whether or not one of the two nouns should be considered a compound proper name. Here the question must be posed with respect to both "the great God" and "Savior Jesus Christ."

We begin with the question of whether or not τού μεγάλου θεοϋ could have been such a fixed title of the Father that the first-century Christians regarded it as a virtual proper name. We noted earlier in our discussion of the patristic exceptions that Wallace considered it possible for the descriptions "the only Father" and "the God and Father" to be considered virtual proper names. In light of the OT description of Jehovah as "the great God" " it is equally possible, if not more likely, that "the great God" was understood as the equivalent of a proper name, and a clear reference to the Father. The subsequent mention of "Jesus Christ." then, would naturally indicate a distinct individual. Butl ike "Christ Jesus" and "Lord Jesus Christ," might "Savior Jesus Christ" also be considered a compound proper name?

According to Alford. "there is no doubt that σωτήρ [ Savior ׳] was one of those words which gradually dropped the article and became a quasi proper name." He appears to base his conviction on the fact that in a few instances σωτήρ in Paul's writings, is used without the article. But the fact is 1 Timothy 1:1 and 4:10 are the only verses cited by Alford where Paul (excluding Titus 2:13) uses the anarthrous σωτήρ (and they are both applied to God [Eph 5:23 and Php 3:20 are two other examples where σωτήρ is anarthrous]). The other seven occurrences of σωτήρ in Paul's writings (ITi 2:3: 2Ti 1:10; Tit 1:3. 4; 2:10; 3:4. 6)': have the article, but none of them follow καί. as is the case with the example from Titus 2:13. Thus we do not see σωτήρ, by itself, as a "quasi proper name." י

But what about the use of σωτήρ together with Ίησοϋ Χρίστου? Abbot states:

"In the case before us. the omission of the article before Σωτῆρος ("Savior"] seems to me to present no difficulty; not because Σωτῆρος is made sufficiently definite by the addition of ἡμῶν ("of us"| (Winer), for since God as well as Christ is often called "our Saviour," τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, standing alone, would most naturally be understood of one subject, namely. God, the Father: but the addition of Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ to Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν changes the case entirely, restricting the Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν to a person or being who. according to Paul's habitual use of language, is distinguished from the person or being whom he designates as ό θεός, so that there was no need of the repetition of Ihe article to prevent ambiguity."

Against this view. Harris states: "It is not clear, however, that an appositional noun that precedes a proper name is necessarily anarthrous. Second Timothy 1:10 has διά της έπιφανείας τοΰ σωτήρος ήμών Χριστού Ίησοϋ ['through the manifestation of our Savior Christ Jesus'|. while in four other passages in the Pastorals [namely, ITi 2:3; Tit 1:3; 2:10; 3:4 [ σωτήρ ήμών is articular preceding the anarthrous quasi-proper name θεός."

But none of the examples Harris gives are parallel to Titus 2:13, for only in Titus 2:13 does "our Savior Jesus Christ" follow καί. The significance of this was also seen in our discussion of the compound name, "Lord Jesus Christ. Additionally. Harris tries to establish a connection between the use of the expression "God and Savior" by first-century Jews in reference to Jehovah, which, he says, "invariably denoted one deity, not two," and the use of "God" and "Savior" in Titus 2:13.

But this is quite beside the point, as the situation in Paul's writings is such that the title "Savior" is applied to two individuals, namely, God and Christ. Therefore, sensitivity must be given to each instance where "Savior" is used; we must not arbitrarily assume that just because the two titles "God" and "Savior" are used together in such close proximity that they ipso facto apply to one person. Even Harris acknowledges: "If the name ,Ιησούς Χριστός did not follow the expression, undoubtedly it would be taken to refer to one person: yet Ιησούς Χριστός is simply added in epexegesis." s If epexegetic then "Jesus Christ" defines who our Savior is. but the whole expression, in view of our prev ious discussion, is best understood as a compound proper name, separate from "the great God" in identity, but related in connection with the manifestation of the Son in his Father's glory.

This brings us to another important question: Does the use of Επιφάνεια ("manifestation") support the idea that Christ is here called "the great God"? Earlier we mentioned that Stuart believed Titus 2:13 applied only to Jesus, not because of the presence or absence of the article, but because he believed the context, specifically the use of επιφάνεια, indicates as much. He asks: "Where in the New Testament, is the επιφάνεια of God the Father asserted or foretold? It is Christ who is to appear in the clouds of heaven, with great power and glory.' ... I know of no New Testament analogy for any other than he. who is to make such a development of himself. How can I then refer this επιφάνεια in Tit. 2:13 to God the Father? ... On other and very different grounds, then, than that of the presence or absence of the article in this case, I arrive at the full persuasion, that [ the great God and Savior'], are both appellatives applied in this case to [,Jesus Christ']." ' However. Abbot, responding to a similar argument by Ellicot. points out that this argument is really founded on a mis-statement of the question:

The expression here is not "the appearing of the great God," but "the appearing of the glory of the great God." which is a very different thing. When our Saviour himself had said. "The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels" (Matt. xvi. 27, comp. Mark viii. 38). or as Luke expresses it, "in his own glory, am/ the glory of the Father, and of the holy angels" (ch. ix. 26). can we doubt that Paul, who had probably often heard Luke's report of these words, might speak of "the appearing of the glory ׳" of the Father, as well as of Christ, at the second advent".

Thus, in accordance with Matthew 16:27 and Mark 8:38. Paul could speak of the manifestation of the Son in the glory of "the great God." Far from proving that Jesus is called "the great God" in this passage, the use of έπιφάναα seems to support the teaching that Christ will appear "in the glory of his Father," the "great God."

Some Bibles translate έπιφόνειαν τής δόξης as "glorious manifestation" (NWT) or "glorious appearing" (KJV. NIV), while others read, "the appearing of the glory." (RSV, NASB) Although "glorious manifestation" is grammatically acceptable, we must take note of Abbott's insights and other reasons given by scholars for preferring the RSV translation. Harris notes that "to render τής δόξης by the adjective glorious' not only obscures the relation between verses 11 and 13 but also weakens the import of the term δόξα [,glory']." He continues:

It is one thing to say that a person's appearance will be "resplendent" or "attended by glory." It is another thing to assert that his own "glory" will be revealed. A further problem with the KJV rendering is that nowhere in the NT is ίπιφάνεια used of the Father (but five times of Christ)—or are two persons said to appear at the Last Day? ... [As Abbot pointed out earlier] it is not the father himself who will be visibly manifested but the glory that belongs to the great God. It is unlikely that τῆς δόξηςis a "Hebrew" genitive ("the glorious appearing of the great God") or that "the appearance of the glory of the great God" is simply a circumlocution for "the great God will appear."-

"The fact that "no man may see [Jehovah| and yet live" is also strong testimony that the Father Himself will not appear. But. as was the case with Moses. His glory will be manifested, this time along w ith that of His Son.—Ex 33:20-22; Mt 16:27."

 

[The Real John Milton]

προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ,

The words in red above have one reference; they refer to the Father. In other words Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ is in apposition to τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν. That is to say, Jesus Christ is the glory of the Father (i.e. of the Great God and Savior).

Like all others, this verse is also dubious for the so-called "Deity of Christ."

 

[The Real John Milton]

By the way, Trinitarian Gordon Fee's remarks concerning Romans 9:5 should give all Trinitarians pause for thought:

My point, then, is that the presence of the ων is ultimately irrelevant in terms of meaning but its occurrence is almost certainly responsible for the present word order. Had Paul chosen to emphasize only that God should be blessed forever, then none of this discussion would have happened, because there would have been no ων επì πάντον.But since the emphasis is on God’s being the ultimate source and ruler of “all things,” especially the glorious history of his people, the word order comes out the way it does. It seems incongruous both to the letter as a whole and to the present context in particular—not to mention Paul’s usage throughout the corpus—that Paul should suddenly call the Messiah θεος when his coming in the flesh is the ultimate expression of what God is doing in the world.

 

[brianrw]

There have been no studies which have made such an assertion.

"Two subsequent studies on Colwell’s construction concluded that they could not find any indefinite anarthrous preverbal PNs in the NT. It is entirely possible that there are some in the NT, but this is obviously the most poorly attested semantic force for such a construction." (Wallace, Daniel B., The Basics of New Testament Syntax, p. 117). This is an abbreviated summary of the discussion more fully outlined in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, (pp. 259-266 I believe), which is why I said you stated Wallace's position but obviously didn't read his grammar--so the responses below will fill in what you've missed.

Following are just some instances of pre-verbal anarthrous PNs which are indefinite from apostle John’s gospel alone, -- John 4:19, 6:70, 8;34,8;44,8;48.9:8, 9:17, 9:24, etc....

I'm impressed you actually tried to provide examples. The first three are noted by Wallace as debatable, and I suspect you took them from his grammar to begin with. John 8:48 is probably qualitative. In 8:44 and 9:24 the predicate follows the noun.

Maybe my eyes are too tired or I'm reading a different text than you in 9:8--surely you are not referring to οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ καθήμενος? The pronoun is the subject, "this is the one who sat."

You argued that just because the words in John 20;28 are said to (εἶπεν αὐτῷ) Jesus, that both the nominatives must be identifying Jesus . Now had the apostle written the following, Σὺ εἴ Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου then you would have had a point.

This is a really weak argument.

How would you want to qualify such a passage as Ὁ θεός ἱλάσθητί μοι τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ? Where the nominative is used in place of a vocative?

But because there is no verb present in the expression Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου we have here a nominative of exclamation instead.

So then you believe αὐτῷ should be treated as otiose? You can try and salvage this all you want, it won't be convincing and this passage is generally not controverted. The Grammarians I've consulted as well as the vast majority of Greek fathers both see this passage as referring to Christ as God. As I recall, only Theodore of Mopsuestia takes the passage as an exclamation of astonishment directed to the Father (quasi pro miraculo facto Deum collaudat), that he was "praising God as if for a miracle." This view, to my knowledge, was novel at the time and did not go over well.

μὴ οὖν ὁμοιωθῆτε αὐτοῖς, οἶδεν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὧν χρείαν ἔχετε πρὸ τοῦ ὑμᾶς αἰτῆσαι αὐτόν.​

Matthew 6:8

I was mulling over the above just now…

The translation “God the Father” for above is rather deceptive. It gives the impression that the apostle is describing God as the Father (as apparently distinguished from the Son or the Holy Spirit) when infact the Greek is identifying God as such. The correct translation should be “ God, that is, the Father” or at the very least “ God, the Father” ( comma).

That is not the reading of Matthew 6:8, there is no ὁ θεὸς--only ὁ πατὴρ (γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν). It's certainly not from the NA/UBS, MT, or TR. And what translation, "God the Father"? Even if the passage did have ὁ θεὸς, is there something wrong with translating the pronoun ὑμῶν?

The reason why the Trinitarian assertion that θεός in John 1:1c is qualitative cannot be true is because the Gospel of John never uses θεός qualitatively. Infact, if I’m not mistaken the entire GNT does not.

Wallace offers θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν (Philippians 2:13), p. 264. I agree with him this could be seen as definite as is also the case in John 1:1. I trust, however, you would not consider this indefinite.

You have a serious uphill battle trying to claim that θεός in John 1:1c is indefinite. The vast consensus of Greek grammarians and the Greek fathers is against you.

It's simply not credible how often and casually you assert the GNT never says this or that. I don't take stock in your absolute assertions, since you never source them and have given no evidence that you have conducted any sort of study. On top of that, I find you're almost always wrong when I have enough time to dig deeper.

In Psalm 34:23 there is only one vocative, κύριε (see red above), ὁ θεός μου καὶ ὁ κύριός μου is an appositive ,the nouns ὁ θεός and ὁ κύριός are nominatives, not nominatives for vocatives.

Yes, this is a vocatival form. According to you in the other thread, this construction demands two subjects and yet we find here that the Psalm has only one subject in view, does it not? Being a contrarian makes your arguments predictable. You walked yourself right into this one.

Let's look at one noteworthy example:

ὁ θεός μου ὁ θεός μου εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με (Mark 15:34)​

θεέ μου θεέ μου ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες (Matthew 27:46)​

​

Another example of a nominative used for a direct address:

ὁ θεός, ἱλάσθητί μοι τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ. (Luke 18:13)​

In translating this passage from the native tongue, Matthew uses a vocative, whereas Mark uses the nominative in place of a vocative.

apposition

This seems to be your solution to every inconvenient problem

τῆς δόξης is an adjectival usage of the genitive (i.e., an attributive genitive). For example:

​

τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνων τοῦ θεοῦ (Romans 8:21)​

the glorious liberty of the children of God​

​

τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς δόξης τοῦ μακαρίου θεοῦ (1 Timothy 1:11)​

the glorious gospel of the blessed God​

​

Thus the Greek fathers who quote this passage describe Christ as "great God" rather than the "glory of the great God" (as you seem to interpret)

Like all others, this verse is also dubious for the so-called "Deity of Christ."

Wallace very succinctly sums up the problems that accompany the arguments you are following:

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 pointed out that θεός is not a proper name in Greek. We simply wish to note here that in the TSKS construction θεός is used over a dozen times in the NT 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. (Wallace, Daniel B., The Basics of New Testament Syntax, p. 122).​

The same essential things was noted centuries ago by Glassius and Beza--your interpretation was an innovation of the Socinians in particular.

These passages (John 1:1, 20:28, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8) are not "dubious," except to the heterodox who can't even agree on what the passage should mean when the obvious interpretation is ignored. I don't even find these interpretations among the Greeks, and your sect (Unitarianism) didn't even exist four centuries ago. It's very apparent that your ilk doesn't need to land on a specific translation in any of these places, they just seek to muddy the waters with variant clusters. I have a problem with that. The neo-Arians, Socinians, and Unitarians have tried at least three different routes I can think of offhand, none of them natural, so that doesn't bode well for your "dubious" claim.

In John 13:13 ὁ κύριος is not even a real nominative, let alone a nominative for vocative, but it is a nominative for accusative.

If you want to be technical about it, it's a nominative of appellation.

By the way, Trinitarian Gordon Fee's remarks concerning Romans 9:5 should give all Trinitarians pause for thought:

And, there it is again: an argument based upon the presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God," which is circular. Very few translators would agree with this, and the editors of all the major Greek texts are clearly against this interpretation.

I wasn't ignoring it but rather basing my point on exactly this, and also the matter that this construction is in some aspects similar to Titus 2:13.

No, it's not. We're going further off topic, and this is becoming a huge waste of time.

 

[The Real John Milton]

"Two subsequent studies on Colwell’s construction concluded that they could not find any indefinite anarthrous preverbal PNs in the NT. It is entirely possible that there are some in the NT,

I was right. You made the false claim that " there have been at least two different studies--one by Harner and another by Dixon--which failed to find any instances of an anarthrous preverbal predicate nominative that was indefinite."

but this is obviously the most poorly attested semantic force for such a construction." (Wallace, Daniel B., The Basics of New Testament Syntax, p. 117). This is an abbreviated summary of the discussion more fully outlined in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, (pp. 259-266 I believe), which is why I said you stated Wallace's position but obviously didn't read his grammar--so the responses below will fill in what you've missed.

This is another false claim. In fact it is the best attested semantic force for a pre-verbal anarthrous PN in the Gospel of John, if not in the GNT.

I'm impressed you actually tried to provide examples. The first three are noted by Wallace as debatable, and I suspect you took them from his grammar to begin with. John 8:48 is probably qualitative. In 8:44 and 9:24 the predicate follows the noun.

Interesting that Wallace would say that, since his NET bible takes two of the three indefinitely:

"The woman said to him, "Sir, I see that you are a prophet."
&
Jesus answered them, "I tell you the solemn truth, everyone who practices sin is a slave of sin.

Maybe my eyes are too tired or I'm reading a different text than you in 9:8--surely you are not referring to οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ καθήμενος? The pronoun is the subject, "this is the one who sat."

Lol, here is a clue : Οἱ οὖν γείτονες καὶ οἱ θεωροῦντες αὐτὸν τὸ πρότερον, ὅτι προσαίτης ἦν, ἔλεγον Οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ καθήμενος καὶ προσαιτῶν;

This is a really weak argument.

How would you want to qualify such a passage as Ὁ θεός ἱλάσθητί μοι τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ? Where the nominative is used in place of a vocative?

Your irrelevant example proves to me that you have not understood it.

So then you believe αὐτῷ should be treated as otiose? You can try and salvage this all you want, it won't be convincing and this passage is generally not controverted. The Grammarians I've consulted as well as the vast majority of Greek fathers both see this passage as referring to Christ as God. As I recall, only Theodore of Mopsuestia takes the passage as an exclamation of astonishment directed to the Father (quasi pro miraculo facto Deum collaudat), that he was "praising God as if for a miracle." This view, to my knowledge, was novel at the time and did not go over well.

This is dribble.

That is not the reading of Matthew 6:8, there is no ὁ θεὸς--only ὁ πατὴρ (γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν). It's certainly not from the NA/UBS, MT, or TR. And what translation, "God the Father"? Even if the passage did have ὁ θεὸς, is there something wrong with translating the pronoun ὑμῶν?

Again, I see that you did not comprehend what I wrote.

Wallace offers θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν (Philippians 2:13), p. 264. I agree with him this could be seen as definite as is also the case in John 1:1. I trust, however, you would not consider this indefinite.

I'm asking you to supply an example of a pre-verbal anarthrous θεὸς which is qualitative, since both of you take it qualitatively at John 1:1c. Infact, I will make things easier for you; supply a qualitative θεὸς from the GNt in any capacity.

You have a serious uphill battle trying to claim that θεός in John 1:1c is indefinite. The vast consensus of Greek grammarians and the Greek fathers is against you.

In truth, you do.

Yes, this is a vocatival form.

No. κύριε is the vocative, ὁ θεός μου καὶ ὁ κύριός μου are appositives. It would bode well for you to understand that appositives to a vocative are in the nominative.

According to you in the other thread, this construction demands two subjects and yet we find here that the Psalm has only one subject in view, does it not? Being a contrarian makes your arguments predictable. You walked yourself right into this one.

Because in the Psalms ὁ θεός is the functional equivalent of a proper name (of the Father) so the rule doesn't apply.

Let's look at one noteworthy example:
ὁ θεός μου ὁ θεός μου εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με (Mark 15:34)
θεέ μου θεέ μου ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες (Matthew 27:46)

Another example of a nominative used for a direct address:
ὁ θεός, ἱλάσθητί μοι τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ. (Luke 18:13)

We are talking not about θεός but about κύριός, which does not have both, it only has the vocative (κύριε).

In translating this passage from the native tongue, Matthew uses a vocative, whereas Mark uses the nominative in place of a vocative.

Now if you could show us something conclusive like this, about κύριος. Good luck.

These passages (John 1:1, 20:28, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8) are not "dubious," except to the heterodox who can't even agree on what the passage should mean when the obvious interpretation is ignored. I don't even find these interpretations among the Greeks, and your sect (Unitarianism) didn't even exist four centuries ago. It's very apparent that your ilk doesn't need to land on a specific translation in any of these places, they just seek to muddy the waters with variant clusters. I have a problem with that. The neo-Arians, Socinians, and Unitarians have tried at least three different routes I can think of offhand, none of them natural, so that doesn't bode well for your "dubious" claim.


If you want to be technical about it, it's a nominative of appellation.


And, there it is again: an argument based upon the presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God," which is circular. Very few translators would agree with this, and the editors of all the major Greek texts are clearly against this interpretation.


No, it's not. We're going further off topic, and this is becoming a huge waste of time.

Ofcourse they are. Here is a simple challenge on this score : Show us a place where any apostle of Christ directly addresses Jesus with the "nominative for vocative" κύριος ? Again, good luck.

 

[Steven Avery]

The same essential things was noted centuries ago by Glassius and Beza--your interpretation was an innovation of the Socinians in particular.

Nonsense. The post right above points out that Erasmus, long before Socinians, Beza and Glassius does not accept the identity translation. And Erasmus uses Ambrose (who may be given as Hilary or Ambrosius). Ambrose uses Matthew 16:27 as an "exact parallel" (Henry Alford) to Titus 2:13, and Matthew 16:27 is clearly two subjects, essentially ending the Titus 2:13 debate.

These two verses confirm Matthew 16:27.

Mark 8:38 (AV)
Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation;
of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed,
when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Luke 9:26 (AV)
For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words,
of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory,
and in his Father's,
and of the holy angels.

Just to show that Ambrose saw the Matthew analogy verse, however this should be confirmed.

A Treatise on Christian Doctrine: Compiled from the Holy Scriptures Alone - (c. 1660, 1825 edition)
John Milton
https://books.google.com/books?id=vnADB6zuDoAC&pg=PA117
The next passage is Tit. ii. 13. the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. Here also the glory of God the Father may be intended, with which Christ is to be invested on his second advent, Matt. xvi. 27- as Ambrose understands the passage from the analogy of Scripture.

Ambrose Latin from Alford

The principal advocates for it have been, the pseudo-Ambrose (i.e. Hilary the deacon, the author of the Commentary which goes by the name of that Father: whose words are these,

“hanc esse dicit beatam spem credentium, qui exspectant adventum gloriæ magni Dei quod revelari habet judice Christo, in quo Dei Patris videbitur potestas et gloria, ut fidei suæ præmium consequantur. Ad hoc enim redemit nos Christus, ut” &c.),

And given as Ambrosiaster
http://www.monumenta.ch/latein/text...ain=&lang=0&links=1&inframe=1&hide_apparatus=

Exspectantes beatam spem, et adventum [Rom. edit., gloriae magni Dei . . . . sibi populum peculiarem.] gloriae beati Dei, et Salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi, qui dedit semetipsum pro nobis; ut redimeret nos ab omni iniquitate, et emundaret sibi populum abundantem, aemulatorem bonorum operum. Hanc esse dicit beatam spem credentium; quia exspectant adventum gloriae magni Dei, quod revelari habet, iudice Christo, in quo Dei Patris videbitur potestas et gloria; ut fidei suae praemium consequantur.

Matthew 16:27 (AV)
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels;
and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

How many "persons"?

Ambrose (or Ambrosius or Hilary) gave this as his analogy verse. And this counters the identity interpretation of Titus 2:13 (Ambrose did not bother with that interp.) And Ambrose was properly noted by Erasmus and Grotius.

Sometimes it is best simply to keep it simple .

Titus 2:13 (AV)
Looking for that blessed hope,
and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

If you need this in a more complex fashion, I see Henry Alford as quite excellent.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/alford/titus/2.htm
Alford also gives additional analogy verses from Paul.

Various early church writers reference Titus 2:13 without an identity translation. That would have to be a separate study.

 

[Steven Avery]

We can see some of Erasmus here:

Text in Annotations in:

Controversies
https://books.google.com/books?id=Zbq4IzccPqwC&pg=PA400

Magni Dei, et Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi [of God in his greatness and our Saviour Jesus Christ]:261
I showed that this passage can be read in two ways, by combining and by dividing. If you read magni and Salvatoris in combination, both words refer to Christ; if you read the phrase by dividing the terms, magni Dei refers to the Father, Salvatoris to Christ. I do not deny that Jerome262 and Chrysostom,263 and264 his follower Theophylact,265 interpret it in the sense that both terms apply to Christ. They rejoice, as it were, and celebrate a victory over the Arians, although the passage is plainly ambiguous, and in fact supports the Arians more than us.

Here Lee instructs us that the words cannot refer to anyone but Christ.266 He relies on the argument that we frequently read of the coming of Christ but nowhere of the coming of the Father. Even if I concede to Lee that we nowhere read about the coming of the Father, there is nothing in the expression itself that prevents it from being understood as two separate phrases, with the first part referring to the Father. This at any rate is how Ambrose interprets it, whose words I quote in case someone distrusts me: This he says is the blessed hope of believers, who await the coming of the glory of God in his greatness, a thing he will reveal through Christ the judge, in whom the power and the glory of God the Father will be seen, that they may ...
(continues but not available online)

261 Cf the annotation dei et salvatoris (on Titus 2:13) Reeve 698-9. This Note is out of sequence.
262 Comm in Titum pl 26 (1884) 622B
263 Horn in Titum 5.2 pg 62 690
264 and his follower Theophylact] Added in 1522
265 Exp in Titum pg 125 164A
266 Lee fol cxxv

Erasmus text in Paraphrase
https://books.google.com/books?id=HrdtK45DK_8C&pg=PA63

We are to look instead for that surpassing reward of immortality, which will come to us when, at the end of this age15 in which the members of Christ are still being trained through suffering and ignominy, God the Father will crush all evil and will reveal his glory and greatness before his worshippers. He will then appear no longer lowly but glorious and terrifying to the ungodly.16 Conspicuous with the same glory, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ will appear together with the Father and will impart to his members the same glory of immortality with which he himself shines forth.'17

Footnotes in Paraphrase
https://books.google.com/books?id=HrdtK45DK_8C&pg=PA290

15 when, at the end of this age ... shines forth] March 1521. The 1520 editions, and presumably the missing part of the first edition, read 'when God and our Saviour Jesus Christ will appear, no longer humble but glorious.'

16 This attribution to the Father of the humiliation undergone by the Son is probably not deliberate, but the result of careless rewriting of the original sentence. See the preceding note.

17 Erasmus follows Ambrosiaster, who virtually alone among the early church Fathers understands the phrase 'our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ' to refer to the Father and the Son separately and not just to Jesus. This position involved Erasmus in endless controversy, especially with Lee, Sancho Carranza, and a group of Spanish monks; cf the annotation on Titus 2:13 (magni dei et salvatoris) LB VI 971C; Respotisio ad annotationes Lei LB IX 273B-274B; Apologia ad Carranzam LB IX 411D-412C; and Apologia adversus monachos lb ix 1043c. Modem scholars are equally at odds over the meaning of the phrase; cf Fee Titus, Kelly Pastoral Epistles, and Spicq Epitres pastorales on 2:13, and Murray J. Harris, 'Titus 2:13 and the Deity of Christ' Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F.F. Bruce on His 70th Birthday edited by Donald A. Hagner and Murray J. Harris (Exeter and Grand Rapids, Mich 1980) 262-77.

18 Cf Ambrosiaster Comm in Titum 2:13 CSEL 81/3 330:23-5: 'Christ redeemed us to this end, that pursuing a pure life and filled with good works we can be heirs of the kingdom of God.' Cf also 3:7 n11 below.