Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

A Trinitological Catalog

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • This was the OP on a thread titled Confessing Jesus as Yahweh, written by Barry Hofstetter. It concerns Romans 10:9.
    Rom 10:9 ὅτι ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς ἐν τῷ στόματί σου κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ πιστεύσῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου ὅτι ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν, σωθήσῃ 10 καρδίᾳ γὰρ πιστεύεται εἰς δικαιοσύνην, στόματι δὲ ὁμολογεῖται εἰς σωτηρίαν. 11 λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή, Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐπʼ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται. 12 οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολὴ Ἰουδαίου τε καὶ Ἕλληνος, ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς κύριος πάντων, πλουτῶν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἐπικαλουμένους αὐτόν 13 Πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται.

    Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” [ESV]

    This passage is commonly cited in many church and evangelistic contexts to prove that salvation is in Christ and that confessing him as Lord is necessary to be saved. It is also common to hear "Lord" in this context defined as "Master" or "Ruler" or "The one in total control." While this is true, it falls short of what this text in its context actually reveals about Christ. This is indicated especially by the second of the two OT quotes that Paul uses to support his statement. That quote is from Joel 2:32:

    And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

    In the LXX, the ancient Greek OT:

    καὶ ἔσται πᾶς ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου σωθήσεται

    Notice the practically identical wording. But why is this important? Because in the Hebrew:

    וְהָיָה כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרָא בְּשֵׁם יהוה יִמָּלֵט

    What is the word translated by κύριος, Lord? It is the Hebrew Yawheh. Confessing Christ as Lord isn't only confessing him as one's master -- it means confessing him as the true God.
    Be a good worker who correctly explains the word of truth.
    Not many of you should be teachers.
    Do not give what is holy to pigs. They will trample such pearls, then turn and attack you.

    Comment


    • This was the OP of a thread titled More Confessing Jesus as Yahweh, written by Barry Hofstetter. It concerns Philippians 2.
      Now let's have a look at Phil 2. Paul concludes an already theologically rich passage with:

      10*ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων 11*καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται3 ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός.

      "so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." [ESV]

      Now, if you have a Bible that lists cross references, you know that the core of this is actually an allusion from the OT. Here it is from the LXX:

      23 κατʼ ἐμαυτοῦ ὀμνύω, εἰ μὴ ἐξελεύσεται ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου δικαιοσύνη, οἱ λόγοι μου οὐκ ἀποστραφήσονται, ὅτι ἐμοὶ κάμψει πᾶν γόνυ, καὶ ὀμεῖται πᾶσα γλῶσσα τὸν θεόν, 24 λέγων Δικαιοσύνη καὶ δόξα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἥξει, καὶ αἰσχυνθήσονται πάντες οἱ διορίζοντες αὐτούς· 25 ἀπὸ Κυρίου δικαιωθήσονται, καὶ ἐν τῷ θεῷ ἐνδοξασθήσεται πᾶν τὸ σπέρμα τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ.

      23 I am swearing an oath according to myself: ⌊Unless⌋ righteousness shall go forth from my mouth, my words shall not turn back, because every knee shall bend to me, and every tongue shall swear by God, 24*saying, “Righteousness and glory will come with him, and all who separate them will be shamed. 25*All the offspring of the children of Israel will be vindicated by the Lord and will be glorified by God.” [LES]

      That Paul alludes to Isaiah 45:23 to describe the eschatological victory of Christ is highly significant. This becomes even more clear when we look at the Hebrew:

      בִּי נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי יָצָא מִפִּי צְדָקָה דָּבָר וְלֹא יָשׁוּב כִּי־לִי תִּכְרַע כָּל־בֶּרֶךְ תִּשָּׁבַע כָּל־לָשׁוֹן׃
      24 אַךְ בַּיהוה לִי אָמַר צְדָקוֹת וָעֹז עָדָיו יָבוֹא וְיֵבֹשׁוּ כֹּל הַנֶּחֱרִים בּוֹ׃
      25 בַּיהוה יִצְדְּקוּ וְיִתְהַלְלוּ כָּל־זֶרַע יִשְׂרָאֵל

      Here is the rather literal Lexham English Bible rendering of these verses, which nicely preserves the divine name in the text:

      23*I have sworn by myself;
      a word that shall not return has gone forth from my mouth in righteousness:
      ‘Every knee shall kneel down to me;
      every tongue shall swear.’
      24*‘Only in Yahweh,’ one shall say to me, ‘are righteousness and strength.’
      He shall come to him, and all those who were angry with him shall be ashamed.
      25*In Yahweh all the offspring of Israel shall be in the right,
      and they shall boast.”

      It is clear from the context that the one to whom the knee is bowed and the one by whom everyone swears is Yahweh. The preceding verses also make this clear:

      21*Declare and present your case,
      also let them consult together!
      Who ⌊made this known⌋ from ⌊former times⌋,
      declared it from ⌊of old⌋?
      Was it not I, Yahweh?
      And there is no other god besides me,
      a righteous God besides me,
      and no savior besides me.

      22*Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth,
      for I am God and there is none besides me. [LEB]

      What Paul has done in Phil 2:10-11 is taken this language, which clearly applies to Yahweh in the original context, and directly applies it to Jesus, without apology or qualification. Paul even changes the wording to make it clearer to his 1st century A.D. readers, substituting έξομολογέω (confess) for the LXX ὀμνύω (swear), which is especially pertinent to his context. He then adds vs. 11 "and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (κύριος), to the glory of God the Father" further connecting the confession of Christ as Yahweh to the ultimate triumph of God's purposes, but he also includes "to the glory of God the Father," making the distinction between the persons of Christ and the Father clear. Christ is Lord, Yahweh, and the Father is God. Separate personally, but one God.
      Be a good worker who correctly explains the word of truth.
      Not many of you should be teachers.
      Do not give what is holy to pigs. They will trample such pearls, then turn and attack you.

      Comment


      • This is the OP of a thread titled The Spirit is the Lord, written by Barry Hofstetter. It concerns 2 Corinthians 3:12-18.
        In these discussions, the Holy Spirit has been largely overlooked. One list contributor suggested that if the Spirit is equally God with the Father and the Son, he ought to be mentioned as an equal partner. 2 Cor 3:12-18:

        12*Ἔχοντες οὖν τοιαύτην ἐλπίδα πολλῇ παρρησίᾳ χρώμεθα 13*καὶ οὐ καθάπερ Μωϋσῆς ἐτίθει κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀτενίσαι τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραὴλ εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ καταργουμένου. 14*ἀλλʼ ἐπωρώθη τὰ νοήματα αὐτῶν. ἄχρι γὰρ τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης μένει,a μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενονb ὅτι ἐν Χριστῷ καταργεῖται 15*ἀλλʼ ἕως σήμερον ἡνίκα ἂν ἀναγινώσκηται Μωϋσῆς, κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν αὐτῶν κεῖται 16*ἡνίκα δὲ ἐὰν ἐπιστρέψῃ πρὸς κύριον, περιαιρεῖται τὸ κάλυμμα. 17*ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν· οὗ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα κυρίου, ἐλευθερία. 18*ἡμεῖς δὲ πάντες ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ τὴν δόξαν κυρίου κατοπτριζόμενοι τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος.

        12*Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, 13*not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. 14*But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. 15*Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. 16*But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17*Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18*And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. [ESV]

        The contrast here, similar thematically to much of the letter to the Hebrews, is between the Old and New covenants, and the superiority of the New Covenant. Paul takes as his figure Moses and the veil he would use to cover his face so that he would not overwhelm his fellow Israelites with the glory of the Lord that he reflected due to his visits with the Lord (Ex 34:29-35). This is parallel to the lack of understanding which remains if one continues under the Old Covenant. True understanding comes only through the New Covenant, μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον ὅτι ἐν Χριστῷ καταργεῖται. If only the law is read, there is no true understanding of the Gospel. However, when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed, ἡνίκα δὲ ἐὰν ἐπιστρέψῃ πρὸς κύριον, περιαιρεῖται τὸ κάλυμμα. There is true freedom and understanding in the Gospel.

        Now, notice the progression. Christ removes the veil. Then Paul informs us in vs. 16 that when we turn to the Lord, the veil is removed. If Paul had just stopped there, the natural reading would be that κύριον refers to Christ. But Paul doesn't stop there. He goes on to say ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν, the Lord is the Spirit. Notice the syntax here. It is not parallel syntactically to:

        *πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, John 4:24, or

        ἐγένετο...ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν, 1 Cor 15:45

        Where in both cases πνεῦμα is anarthrous, and speaks in the former of the nature of God, and in the latter of Christ's nature as the giver of life (recalling Gen 2:7). Here, both the subject and the predicate are articular, so that both are being used as proper nouns in this context. Without qualification, ὁ κύριος would make the reader think of Christ, and τὸ πνεῦμα of the Holy Spirit (especially considering how Paul describes the work of the Spirit in the remaining part of the verse, cf. 3:6, 8). By adding τὸ πνεῦμα as the predicate, Paul completely changes the argument. ὁ κύριος here has been redefined. It's not just Christ who is the Lord, but the Spirit. At the end of vs. 18, we read ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος. The words are anarthrous here because because of the use of the object of the preposition as a genitive of source with the preposition ἀπό, but the terms are absolutely the same. If this were read "the spirit of the Lord" the syntax would have to be ἀπὸ [τοῦ] πνεύματος κυρίου, but that's not what we get. It is therefore best to take πνεῦματος as appositive, and read "the Lord, who is the Spirit."

        What we have here therefore is a powerful testimony to the deity of the Spirit and his personal work in the economy of redemption.
        Be a good worker who correctly explains the word of truth.
        Not many of you should be teachers.
        Do not give what is holy to pigs. They will trample such pearls, then turn and attack you.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ACAinstructor View Post
          This is the OP of a thread titled The Spirit is the Lord, written by Barry Hofstetter. It concerns 2 Corinthians 3:12-18.
          In these discussions, the Holy Spirit has been largely overlooked. One list contributor suggested that if the Spirit is equally God with the Father and the Son, he ought to be mentioned as an equal partner. 2 Cor 3:12-18:

          12*Ἔχοντες οὖν τοιαύτην ἐλπίδα πολλῇ παρρησίᾳ χρώμεθα 13*καὶ οὐ καθάπερ Μωϋσῆς ἐτίθει κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀτενίσαι τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραὴλ εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ καταργουμένου. 14*ἀλλʼ ἐπωρώθη τὰ νοήματα αὐτῶν. ἄχρι γὰρ τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης μένει,a μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενονb ὅτι ἐν Χριστῷ καταργεῖται 15*ἀλλʼ ἕως σήμερον ἡνίκα ἂν ἀναγινώσκηται Μωϋσῆς, κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν αὐτῶν κεῖται 16*ἡνίκα δὲ ἐὰν ἐπιστρέψῃ πρὸς κύριον, περιαιρεῖται τὸ κάλυμμα. 17*ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν· οὗ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα κυρίου, ἐλευθερία. 18*ἡμεῖς δὲ πάντες ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ τὴν δόξαν κυρίου κατοπτριζόμενοι τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος.

          12*Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, 13*not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. 14*But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. 15*Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. 16*But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17*Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18*And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. [ESV]

          The contrast here, similar thematically to much of the letter to the Hebrews, is between the Old and New covenants, and the superiority of the New Covenant. Paul takes as his figure Moses and the veil he would use to cover his face so that he would not overwhelm his fellow Israelites with the glory of the Lord that he reflected due to his visits with the Lord (Ex 34:29-35). This is parallel to the lack of understanding which remains if one continues under the Old Covenant. True understanding comes only through the New Covenant, μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον ὅτι ἐν Χριστῷ καταργεῖται. If only the law is read, there is no true understanding of the Gospel. However, when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed, ἡνίκα δὲ ἐὰν ἐπιστρέψῃ πρὸς κύριον, περιαιρεῖται τὸ κάλυμμα. There is true freedom and understanding in the Gospel.

          Now, notice the progression. Christ removes the veil. Then Paul informs us in vs. 16 that when we turn to the Lord, the veil is removed. If Paul had just stopped there, the natural reading would be that κύριον refers to Christ. But Paul doesn't stop there. He goes on to say ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν, the Lord is the Spirit. Notice the syntax here. It is not parallel syntactically to:

          *πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, John 4:24, or

          ἐγένετο...ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν, 1 Cor 15:45

          Where in both cases πνεῦμα is anarthrous, and speaks in the former of the nature of God, and in the latter of Christ's nature as the giver of life (recalling Gen 2:7). Here, both the subject and the predicate are articular, so that both are being used as proper nouns in this context. Without qualification, ὁ κύριος would make the reader think of Christ, and τὸ πνεῦμα of the Holy Spirit (especially considering how Paul describes the work of the Spirit in the remaining part of the verse, cf. 3:6, 8). By adding τὸ πνεῦμα as the predicate, Paul completely changes the argument. ὁ κύριος here has been redefined. It's not just Christ who is the Lord, but the Spirit. At the end of vs. 18, we read ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος. The words are anarthrous here because because of the use of the object of the preposition as a genitive of source with the preposition ἀπό, but the terms are absolutely the same. If this were read "the spirit of the Lord" the syntax would have to be ἀπὸ [τοῦ] πνεύματος κυρίου, but that's not what we get. It is therefore best to take πνεῦματος as appositive, and read "the Lord, who is the Spirit."

          What we have here therefore is a powerful testimony to the deity of the Spirit and his personal work in the economy of redemption.
          You mistakenly assume the Spirit is a HE sir.

          Maken three HE's of God sir.

          You could not be more wrong sir. Proof: no one has EVER prayed to or worshiped the Holy Spirit directly in Bible sir.
          PROVING this is not an equal Partner of God, partner.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
            Again, I implore you leave me alone. You clearly don't understand what I was asking, and even if you did you would be unable to answer it. John Milton clearly has no problem using artificial rules when it serves his purposes. I want to know what it is in his mind that makes an artificial rule okay to use as evidence. Now, please, stop blathering on.
            If you can't define logistically what is an ARTIFICIAL rule in grammar, then why expect this of your brother sir?

            You are actually asking a dissertation expose which most of us cannot do INCLUDING your lonesome self sir.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by nothead View Post

              If you can't define logistically what is an ARTIFICIAL rule in grammar, then why expect this of your brother sir?

              You are actually asking a dissertation expose which most of us cannot do INCLUDING your lonesome self sir.
              I have nothing more to say to you. You are too feeble-minded to understand my request, much less why what you keep saying in no way relates to it. For the final time I am asking you, stop bothering me.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post

                I have nothing more to say to you. You are too feeble-minded to understand my request, much less why what you keep saying in no way relates to it. For the final time I am asking you, stop bothering me.
                This was your original question, genius:

                What are your criteria for invoking artificial rules, and how do you define what an artificial rule is?
                Now...exactly what did I get wrong here, SCHOLAR?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by nothead View Post

                  This was your original question, genius:



                  Now...exactly what did I get wrong here, SCHOLAR?
                  Exactly, fool, now answer me why you have heretofore only focused on the latter part of the question, twit.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post

                    Exactly, fool, now answer me why you have heretofore only focused on the latter part of the question, twit.
                    All I said was that this requires more moxie than you've even got, even if I am a twit sir. Or that other thing which I cannot get around without incriminating myself sir.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by John Milton View Post
                      τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν contextually lends itself to one referent. I wouldn’t necessarily invoke some artificial rule (Sharp’s rule ) on this score. Is that your major problem with Fee’s analysis ?
                      Let’s reason together. As I explained above, Fee has a unique take that looks very awkward, so I do not consider Gordon Fee as the real issue.


                      In English, if you talk of “our Saviour" you are using a possessive adjective “our” and so you do not also add an article: "the our Saviour”" is gibberish. Thus, the possessive adjective “our” is functioning, in a sense, as a definite article, in that it refers to a specific, defined noun element. The book == Our book, in that there is a specificity of a particular book that is lacking if it is anarthous or an indefinite article.

                      In Titus 2:13, how is this aspect handled by Wallace, Sharp and others? Rather than a missing article, it looks as if the possessive adjective is working as the de facto article, thus modifying the grammar parsing (and, if you want to play the game, you can even add this to the myriad Sharp rule exceptions.)

                      When you look at the actual text (see below), and simply understand it in the English as well, it is clear that ἡμῶν (our) can have a major impact on the verse structure and understanding, and basically ship-wrecks the identity attempt. Take out the our from the English AV, and you can have an identity verse. So the modern translators had to find ways to move the our from its natural and clear position.

                      Now I realize that the Daniel Wallace translation in NETBible is:
                      "“our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ”"

                      This translation has applied an “our” to the previous nouns, that are viewed as a double adjective to the glory. It looks like an awkward usage and placement, and we find the definite article τοῦ is actually untranslated.

                      When you look at the actual breakdown of the two translations (e.g. in BlueLetterBible) this aspect becomes even more interesting.

                      (Note: In the parsing below we can allow that the forms of the words are under discussion and you might change the English .. e.g. noun to adjective):

                      TR and CT
                      ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
                      appearing..the glorious the great... God and Savoiur ..our ..Jesus ..Christ

                      AV
                      the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

                      https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/...t_conc_1131013

                      NetBible
                      the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

                      https://www.blueletterbible.org/net/...t_conc_1131013

                      Note all the funniness, the definite article τοῦ is gone in the NetBible, replaced with an our. Yet by the parsing given in BlueLetterBible the our is not the ἡμῶν that really is connected to Saviour.

                      It looks like the natural grammar is ignored, and a stiff, convoluted attempt is made, simply in order to comply with the supposed rules of Granville Sharp.

                      They simply could not leave the powerful and natural:

                      our Saviour Jesus Christ

                      alone ..
                      They had to mess up the translation.

                      Titus 1:4 (AV)
                      To Titus, mine own son after the common faith:
                      Grace, mercy, and peace,
                      from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.


                      Steven

                      ====================

                      The earlier posts focused on Gordon Fee:

                      Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                      To Fee ““of our great God and Saviour” is a prepositional adjectival phrase, modifying glory, a rather artificial construct.. It is a Sharp-style approach because it wrongly sees great God and Saviour as having a singular referent, rather than dual. And then Jesus Christ is equated to the glory, separating him from the natural adjectival Saviour. (Putting aside whether glorry is the adjective glorious for appearance.)

                      Afaik, this approach is uniquely Fee and was not the result of any grammatical imperative. It was simply a way to give a wink to the Sharp error while side-stepping the “Jesus is God” result, based on knowing the authorial style.

                      Better to simply acknowledge that none of the 8 Sharp verses should be translated in an identity manner. The thread “Granville Sharp Rules” does a fine job of analyzing the Sharp charade.

                      Bowman and co.
                      https://books.google.com/books?id=_W142FABnCsC&pg=PA152

                      ””Fee agrees that Sharp’’s rule applies””
                      Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                      Above, I was going by Bowman, who may or many not be accurate.

                      The book is:

                      Pauline Christology:
                      http://books.google.com/books?id=Yspl7pks7Q4C
                      p.440-446

                      Steven
                      Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-05-17, 02:24 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by nothead View Post

                        All I said was that this requires more moxie than you've even got, even if I am a twit sir. Or that other thing which I cannot get around without incriminating myself sir.
                        Which should be obvious. The only person that is capable of answering the questions I asked is John Milton. If you cannot understand that, there is no hope for you.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post

                          Which should be obvious. The only person that is capable of answering the questions I asked is John Milton. If you cannot understand that, there is no hope for you.
                          I understand you are asking something which you cannot do yourself sir. Which should be obvious now we've haggled aboudit for as long as we have. Try asking for a REASON why an artificial rule is artificial then.

                          Not a set of criterium. Or a dissertation. What you are EXPECTING from your opponents is not exactly loving your NEIGHBOR as yourself sir.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by nothead View Post

                            You mistakenly assume the Spirit is a HE sir.

                            Maken three HE's of God sir.

                            You could not be more wrong sir. Proof: no one has EVER prayed to or worshiped the Holy Spirit directly in Bible sir.
                            PROVING this is not an equal Partner of God, partner.
                            The question of the "gender" of the Spirit is a different question altogether. Does God have gender? At issue is the personality of the Spirit, and that he is a person and God is easily proven from Scripture.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by nothead View Post

                              I understand you are asking something which you cannot do yourself sir. Which should be obvious now we've haggled aboudit for as long as we have. Try asking for a REASON why an artificial rule is artificial then.

                              Not a set of criterium. Or a dissertation. What you are EXPECTING from your opponents is not exactly loving your NEIGHBOR as yourself sir.
                              Dude, what's wrong with you? He asked you four times to leave him alone. You're harassing him. Just shut up already.
                              I have permission to post on the Biblical Languages forum, as per email correspondence with Diane S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jameson View Post

                                Dude, what's wrong with you? He asked you four times to leave him alone. You're harassing him. Just shut up already.
                                Same reason I hassle you sir. Who cares what a person WANTS sir? What we WANT is for everyone to AGREE with us sir.

                                Does anyone EVER agree with nothead sir? Have you EVER sir?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X