John Milton
Well-known member
You did not. As I pointed out, saying that one verse uses a different word doesn't save you from the fact that the construction I showed you is the same and the word is in the same class of usage as σωτήρ.That logic is wrong. I've already given you a very good explanation of why the article may not have been used in Titus 2:13,
What good do you think that does you? σωτῆρος clearly refers to Christ in Tit. 2:13?and 1 Tim 1:1 discloses the justification for my view, where Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν is applied to the Father to the exclusion of the Son (again without the article).
It doesn't matter, the construction is the same. If the familial relations are specified and make it clear that more than one individual is in view (not that I think this is the purpose of the article but it seems to be the supposition that most of you have) there is even less need for the article which makes its presence especially noteworthy.Obviously II Tim. 1:5 is talking about unique familiar relations, of which only one can exist, which isn't the case with σωτήρ.
Off topic.I guess 1 Tim 1:1 (τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ) is also the authority for why the Socinian interpretation of Titus 2:13 (τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ) is wrong (because there would have been no need for Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν if Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν was being related to Θεοῦ - obviously).
No. Two different titles applied to the same individual will be linked by καί.In fact, as others have alluded to, the Trinitarian rendition of Titus 2:13, and so many other Sharpian passages, has to explain why the word καὶ is being used at all. One could have expected τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ had Paul been wanting to make the clear Trinitarian point.
As I pointed out, you should also take issue with Winer's contrived grammar rules if you are going to accuse Trinitarians (And why do you continue to discuss theology in every single interaction with me when I clearly stick to the grammar?).That Paul is being made out by Trinitarians to deliver important doctrine in the form of contrived grammar rules involving the use or otherwise of proper names, and his usage of Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, suggests a wrong approach to theology.
I couldn't care less about your trash theology. I just wanted to see you admit, as you have, that κύριος is not used exclusively of God the Father.So you're trying to elicit out of me a theological interpretation of Rev 4:11? I should say it is constructed somewhat similar to Matt 28:19, where both God and Christ (as separate persons) are being denoted as one, in the singular. (We know Christ sits on God's throne at the right hand of the Father.)
And your previous admission alone is enough to have proven you wrong. Your objection doesn't hold water.OK, but my point was there is only one κύριος (Jesus) in the new NT doctrinal convention. In this respect κύριος is most definitely not analogous to σωτήρ but more like mother and father.
What are you talking about? I was saying that it should be clear that the grammatical justification for seeing this verse as referring to a single individual is not contrived. Even Winer notes it as a valid possibility. And I have also told you that I am not an adherent of finely categorized and nuanced grammar rules. If you are referring to me as a "Sharpian" you are once again far off the mark.I'm not sure I agree with you here that "These things are evident" or even what your position is, except as a dedicated Sharpian. I would definitely refer all Sharpians to CALVIN WINSTANLEY's comprehensive rebuttal of Sharp before anyone seeks to lay down Sharp as grammatical doctrine. CALVIN WINSTANLEY is orthodox BTW. Go and controvert him, if you want something to do.
You cannot see any reasons for it. You can't even read Greek. Enough with your false statements.I can see reasons for not using the article with σωτήρ - sometimes it is applied to Christ, sometimes to the Father.
Steven Avery has so far had the good sense to drop the conversation with me when he knew he didn't have an answer for the points I raised, though he may well jump back in now. You should follow his example.As Stephen Avery has pointed out, inserting Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν of itself shouldn't change the construction.
It is your rejection of the other interpretation as a grammatical possibility that you were called out for. It isn't "contrived" as you called it.And as Winer has pointed out, "no grammatical obstacle to our taking the clause καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ by itself, as referring to a second subject" when Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν is associated with a proper name (or monadic noun - the article is omitted before words which denote objectsof which there is but one in existence, and which therefore are nearly equivalent to proper names).
No. You slandered the EFs, and you denied a valid possibility just as I said. It's too much to expect you to stop making false statements. You make them even after your errors have been pointed out to you.Meaningless ad hominem, as is your want.