Steven Avery
Well-known member
You are upset because simple and clear issues are not in your bailiwick.
Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5
- Thread starter The Real John Milton
- Start date
You are upset because simple and clear issues are not in your bailiwick.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Dup.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The whole issue of proper names, quasi-proper names, titles, proper nouns, common nouns, etc. is just a quicksand morass in any language. It is subjective, cumbersome and hopeless, if your goal is to change the meaning of sentences based on the categories. And it only became a feature in the Granville Sharp discussion out of necessity, when the Sharpians needed to plug the leaking and sinking ship. It became a part of the incessant special pleading that is the Sharpian approach.
The biggest joke (it looks like satire) is the paper by J. Edward Komoszewski, which may also be known as:
Frequency And Distribution Of The Titles "Lord Jesus Christ" And "Savior Jesus Christ' In The New Testament (2004)
The New World Translation and Christologically Significant Article-Substantive-Kaiv-Substantive Constructions in the New Testament (2004)
by J. Edward Komoszewski - Th.M. Candidate
Dallas Theological Seminary
https://bible.org/article/new-world...ificant-article-substantive-font-facegreekkai
SA note:
"The absurdity of this whole line of inquiry, probabilistic counting of what terms are proper names used by what authors in what books in order to anachronistically apply categories to a 1790 supposed rule that is built on special pleading and presupposition. The beat goes on."
This is the chart that is supposed to help you understand when the GSR applies!
This graph is, in Granville Sharp fantasy-land, a representation of the grammatical-interpretation thinking patters of Paul, Peter, Jude et al.
John Milton might like it because it is worthless and convoluted, and could be discussed ad nauseum, going nowhere.
(Thus I do not really agree with TRJM trying to work with these categories, either.)
See the recent post on the absurdity of "our Saviour Jesus Christ" (supposedly) radically changing the meaning of a sentence compared to just "Jesus Christ", looking at Titus 2:13:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/trinitarian-confusion-at-romans-9-5.8316/page-73#post-750130
Last edited:
John Milton
Well-known member
I'm upset that the forum administrators don't make the three of you stop posting here since none of you know Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, or anything else other than English.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
And I am noting that the supposedly learned Greek writer is unable to deal with simple, logical arguments. And does not know anything about the history of the Granville Sharp debate. And does not want to learn.
Examples:
Look at the brianrw blunders on Ephesians 5:5 and the early church writers.
Wizzed right by you.
Look at the absurd Christopher Wordsworth claim that seemed to puzzle you, alluding to many thousands of unknown references, and yet you simply dropped the ball. brianrw actually appeals to his phantom thousands of "one person" unknown references! This is scholarship?
Last edited:
John Milton
Well-known member
As I've told you at least twice before in the space of the last few hours: you pretend to have something valuable to say. There is nothing of substance there.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Says you, who accepts blunder claims from Brian Winter, one especially absurd, and knows nothing of the Granville Sharp “Rule” history.
Your words bewray your weakness on the topic,
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Stephen Carlson got to the root of one of the major GSR problems, Trinitarian presuppositionalism and skewing of arguments (special pleading the norm.)
Examples of the Granville Sharp rule outside the NT
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2351&sid=3cffe7d97c29b1cae8e4a4be76c7bb4f#p2351
The weakness there is that the GSR does NOT "affirm ... Trinitarian theology." It really, de facto, affirms Sabellianism. Since God in the New Testament will generally be a reference to God the Father. However, basically Stephen Carlson gives a solid, excellent analysis.
Examples of the Granville Sharp rule outside the NT
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2351&sid=3cffe7d97c29b1cae8e4a4be76c7bb4f#p2351
.
The weakness there is that the GSR does NOT "affirm ... Trinitarian theology." It really, de facto, affirms Sabellianism. Since God in the New Testament will generally be a reference to God the Father. However, basically Stephen Carlson gives a solid, excellent analysis.
Since the first church of your sect was established in 1774, England, it would be a convenient argument to pass on novel opinions as old. I'm simply asking that you produce the evidence, not excuses. On top of the testimony of the Greek fathers, the literature I've read from the 1500s to the present is very telling. I don't find this interpretation popping up until the late 1600s, whereas I've found other interpretations advanced by other anti-Trinitarian sects before that. So even if all these old works were burned or censored, there still should be some preservation of that view somewhere. After all, the Romans, Arians, and Muslims all made a concerted effort to wipe out Orthodox literature and we still have it.
I don't believe passages of scripture were written to be read three, four, five different ways and again when I keep hearing what it doesn't mean in combination with disagreement over what it does, and that is attached to a theological supposition, I am certainly skeptical.
Sófa? ? You could have at least tried to update your source with the correct Greek. Harris clearly does not favor the opinion that Christ is "the glory of the great God." And neither of you are bothering to disclose that Harris (p. 178) refers to the position you both are pushing as a "novel interpretation."
You both also fail to disclose also that Harris favors the interpretation that Jesus Christ is called "our great God and Savior," and he notes that this is "a verdict shared, with varying degrees of assurance, by almost all grammarians and lexicographers, many commentators, and many writers on NT theology or Christology, although there are some dissenting voices." (p. 185). On that point, the grammarians and lexicographers bear the most weight.
I've read Harris. I didn't find his arguments on this point persuasive. And even after having them recited again to me, I still don't find them persuasive.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Brian has a habit of placing in quotes (like the one from Christopher Wordsworth about thousands of phantom references) that he must know, or at least suspect, are specious or even totally false. It looks impressive and helps dupe those not familiar with the material, like John Milton. Here Harris amazingly lists Winer as the only grammarian in footnote 54! Even Daniel Wallace bemoaned the many grammarians who agreed with Winer, who Wallace tried to paint as the grammatical bogey-man. (Wallace was following an earlier Sharpian in this portrayal, it was not an original attempt.)
There is lots of info from Ezra Abbot, Huther, and others that would give him more grammarians and large numbers of additional excellent commentaries (not just “some”.)
By the grace of the Lord Jesus I plan to show some of this corrective info shortly.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
That’s unfortunate. But it is the sort of thing that some people resort to when they don’t have a solid case..
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
That is true. I must say that your understanding of the GSR is second to none. You seem to be well studied in its sordid history and in it’s many inherent weaknesses , internal contradictions, and self serving exceptions starting with those Mr. Sharp himself manufactured and a ending ( for now) with the “refinements” to it from Mr. Wallace.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
The point is that even he does not agree that τῆς δόξης in Titus 2:13 is attributive. Small wonder, since no one with any good sense for the Koine in this verse could argue otherwise. But you may keep deluding yourself to the contrary ofcourse . I have concluded that you are unteachable.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
You conflated titles with proper names in your post, which is wrong. Titles may however function as proper names. Hope you now realize this distinction, and take heed.
Your attitude is no different from that of medieval Catholics who pretended that protestants could have nothing valuable to say re religion, as all learning reposed with the Papacy alone. I had assumed that your Roman Catholic "supremacist" attitude had dissappeared with the annexation of the papal states in the 19th century that the Popes had terrorized since the days of Rodrigo Borgia, and his penchant for murdering his opponents. It was just a pity that the Italian States did not then disposses the Pope of the Vatican also.
Whatever knowledge of Greek you may or may not have (and it seems that it isn't specifically Koine Greek you have any experience in), it is entirely outweighed by your supercilious and overbearing attitude, as if you personally own the forum and the entire Greek language.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
His Biblical Koine is infact rather lacking. I suspect that is why he has to keep reminding his imagined Carm. audience that he “knows” Greek, whatever that means.
John Milton
Well-known member
I did no such thing.
John Milton
Well-known member
Your intuition is just as bad as your ability to tell the truth.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
This AM I was reviewing back, refreshing and recollecting and making a few bookmarks and notes, especially looking for some elements of the GSR analysis, including the analogy verses. And, much as we disagree on 100 things, thought that here you taught John Milton a very basic and fundamental New Testament (and Old Testament) truth. Keeping it simple.
cjab went back and forth on this, nothing real substantive.
John Milton never replied.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Last edited: