5 replies to this topic

[Melchior]

In a TSKS construction with two proper names, two distinct persons are generally in view -- but this is not a "rule" of Greek grammar . Is this correct? Here's the trinitarian Wallace:

http://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/Sharp...harp%20Rule.htm

Quote

When one begins to think in such categories, he or she notices that “strictly speaking, a proper name is a word with denotation but no connotation, reference but no sense . . .”74 Hence, two proper names in the TSKS construction could not fit the Granville Sharp rule for proper names are used merely to identify (and therefore distinguish), not describe,75 while common personal nouns both identify and describe.76 The only conceivable exception to this would be something like “the Simon and Peter” in which both names would refer to one individual. Such an expression, however, would seem to be just as awkward in Greek (it never occurs in the NT) as it is in English (cf., e.g., Sau'lo" . . . oJ kaiV Pau'lo" [Acts 13:9], which is the normal way for joining two proper names that have the same referent).

How about a TSKS construction in which only one of the two nouns is a proper name( the other being a common name)? Do we have clear examples of these types of TSKS constructions in the NT? A trinitarian seems to beinsisting if one of the two nouns in a TSKS is a proper name, then definitely two distinct persons are in view. I think he's out to lunch. According to him, if God is a proper name, then the TSKS phrase the God and Father of Jesus .. (Eph. 1:3 etc.) must of necessity refer to two distinct persons.

How do I counter this inane argument?

best wishes,

[Steven]

Hi Melchior
TNAN (the-noun-and-noun) might mean more to some folks than TSKS (TO-substantive-KAI-substantive)

Is it coincidence that Sharp's rule was in last night's readings: Titus 2:13 "the blessed hope and the appearing of our great God and Saviour, ..." though the Greek manuscripts have been eaten at by Trinitarian ants there..

Melchior, on May 28 2007, 06:06 AM, said:

A trinitarian seems to beinsisting if one of the two nouns in a TSKS is a proper name, then definitely two distinct persons are in view. I think he's out to lunch. According to him, if God is a proper name, then the TSKS phrase the God and Father of Jesus .. (Eph. 1:3 etc.) must of necessity refer to two distinct persons.

How do I counter this inane argument?

best wishes,

If that is the argument it's odd. When does anyone ever use a name and a job title like this? The Isaac and brother of Esau?? God isn't a name. It's a common noun.

I wouldn't bother. The only issue is whether "the God and Saviour" or "the God and etc" "My Lord and my God" make Christ out to be God. And that is something people decide independently of grammar "rules" (rules are meant to be broken)
God bless
S

[Melchior]

Hi Steven,

Thanks for the input.

Quote

If that is the argument it's odd. When does anyone ever use a name and a job title like this? The Isaac and brother of Esau?? God isn't a name. It's a common noun.

I tend to agree . God is not a proper name, it's a common noun. But the trinitarian I was conversing with insisted on attacking a strawman. My point was that the title the great god , not god, is the functional equivalent of a proper name in Titus 2:13 according to some scholars (like Abbot). In addition , the expression Saviour Jesus Christ can be seen as a compound proper name . Ironically if god is a common noun (which the trinitarian insisted), then where is the proof that in John 1:1 the logos is YHWH ?. Here's Ezra Abbot:

"The Authorship of
the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays", Boston, 1888, pp.
439-457. On p. 452 of this work the following comments are found:

"Take an example from the New Testament. ... In the case before us
[Titus 2:13], the omission of the article before soteros seems to me
to present no difficulty, -- not because soteros is made sufficiently
definite by the addition of hemon (Winer), for, since God as well as
Christ is also called "our Savior," he doxa tou megalou Theou kai
soteros hemon, STANDING ALONE, would most naturally be understood of
one subject, namely, God, the Father; but the addition of Iesou
Khristou to soteros hemon changes the case entirely, restricting the
soteros hemon 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 ho theos, so that there was no need of the repetition of
the article to prevent ambiguity. "

Quote

I wouldn't bother. The only issue is whether "the God and Saviour" or "the God and etc" "My Lord and my God" make Christ out to be God.

You're quite right. Steven, for me Titus 2:13 is not a source of contention . The title "our God and savior" is applied to Christ in ancient non-Nicene writings. This Consider that in the first century Vespasian was called 'Lord' and 'God'. Nero was called 'God and Savior'. 'God and Savior' was a recognized title, much as 'Lord and Savior' in Christianity . So it is not enough to conclude Jesus is God Almighty just because he is called "the great God and Saviour." When the condition "only" is added, as in the verses "who alone hath immortality" 1 Tim. 6:16 and "Thou alone art holy" Rev. 15:4, or John 17:3 "the only true God", it is to show these terms' unique application to God. The Hebrew of Psalm 86:10(85:10 lxx) presents another example: 'attah 'elohim l'vaddekha -- "thou alone art 'elohim." In the sense in which He is God or 'elohim, He alone is 'elohim. As you know, others are called 'elohim, but to argue on such grounds that they are God Himself would commit the fallacy of equivocation, because they are not 'elohim in the same way.The LXX acknowledges the idiom of 85:10 by adding the adjective 'great'. Even this does not bring us to strict literal accuracy: God is not simply "a great god"; He transcends the whole class of gods, being "a great King above all gods" Psa. 95:3...

Along these lines, both God and Jesus could possess the title 'theos' with the adjective 'Great'. As applied to Jesus it would not have the superlative sense which denotes God alone, since he taught, "my Father... is greater than all" John 10:29, including himself, for he taught, "my Father is greater than I" John 14:28. Paul agreed that "the head of Christ is God" 1 Cor. 11:3.

Quote

And that is something people decide independently of grammar "rules" (rules are meant to be broken)

I don't think we're breaking any rules of Greek grammar by suggesting Jesus is not YHWH simply because he is called our great god and saviour . By such logic, King David is YHWH since the Bible refers to both him and YHWH as , אדנינו, Adonenu, our Lord, in the Old Testament. I brought this simple fact up with my trinitarian neighbour , and he was rendered mute.Furthermore the Talmud refers to Mosesas the Saviour of Israel. Are we to conclude therefore that he is YHWH? Such examples can be compounded. Not to mention that in Psalm 110 the bible carefully distinguishes between Adonai and Adoni proving that Messiah is not YHWH.

Bottom line is this: The words god and saviour being common nouns, can be predicated of others apart from YHWH.

God bless,

[Steven]

Hi Melchior.

Melchior, on Jun 8 2007, 12:06 AM, said:

The title "our God and savior" is applied to Christ in ancient non-Nicene writings.

The emperor Vespasian was a god in the imperial cultus, so that's not really a good example. Yes, it's the traditional Christadelphian view (John Thomas, Phanerosis) that Christ can be called "god" (though personally I think the idea is bogus, but whatever...). Which non-Nicene texts?
S

[Melchior]

Hi Steven'

Quote

The emperor Vespasian was a god in the imperial cultus, so that's not really a good example.

What do you mean by "it's not a good example?" "Great god and saviour" is a title, and titles are neither "good" nor "bad". A title does not become a "bad example" just because an evil person has appropriated or usurped it. For example, the biblical title "King of Kings" is not a "bad" designate of YHWH just because the pagan Nebuchadnessar also used it. More to the point, the title "the Morning Star" in Rev. 22:16 is not a "bad example" to describe Jesus simply because it is also used of an evil Babylonian king belonging to the pagan "cultus" in Isa. 14:12. Do you want to be consistent and say "the Morning star" is not "a good example" of a designate for Jesus ?


It makes sense why Paul would used a title in common use by a pagan Emperor and apply it to Christ Jesus if you understand his theology and eschatology (which was principally Jewish) and the way titles are furnished in the bible . Paul saw the world system of his time as being under the control of Satan, the "god of this world", 2 Cor. 4:4. In his way of thinking the whole system was dominated by Satan and his representatrives . He obviously knew Luke 4:5. In other words, just as Christ is YHWH's representative and subsists by His will [examples, Acts 5:31, "him..God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour", Acts 2:36, "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ" , Acts 13:23, "God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.."] so the anti-Christ , Christ's adversary, is Satan's representative and subsists by his will(Rev.13:2, etc.). Therefore the title "the great god and saviour" was a source of contention between the children of light and the children of darkness. This title is not the province of the pagan cultus anymore than titles like "King of Kings" and "Lucifer" belong exclusively to pagan kings.. Jesus , not Caesar was the Christian's "great god and saviour" whom YHWH had made , raised , exulted and delegated . In the Jewish law of agency, the "Shaliach"(agent) was seen as the extension of the one who sent him such that the Talmud tells us "a man's servant is as himself." After all, everything Satan and his minions possess has been usurped, and while Ceaser is the "great god and saviour" of this present world system, this title properly bleongs to Christ in the big scheme of things.
Paul, John and the other apostles knew that already there were many anti-Christ's in the world [ example, 2 John 1:7 ]. This would culminate with the revealing of the final anti-Christ, the son of perdition, Christ's fiercest adversary. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Paul notes that Satan's man sits in the temple of God as a god.

Quote

Yes, it's the traditional Christadelphian view (John Thomas, Phanerosis) that Christ can be called "god" (though personally I think the idea is bogus, but whatever...).

The traditional Christadelphian view is absolutely correct. "Theos" does not always mean God Almighty -- EL SHADDAI. Theos in the NT does reflect the Hebraic meaning of EL, that is, might, strength, power. THEOS in the NT, like the Hebrew EL and ELOHIM of the OT, when applied to others than Yahweh, does not mean God as in God Almighty. Jesus shows this when he applies "theoi" [plural of THEOS] to the sons of God to whom the Logos came. (Psalms 82:1,6,7; John 10:34,35) But the point we want from the above is Jesus' usage of the word theoi -- gods, which he applies to the "sons of God" -- men -- not God Almighty. John quotes Jesus in Greek as saying theoi -- the plural of theos. However, Jesus is quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures (commonly called the Old Testament) from Psalm 82:6, which, of course, was written in Hebrew, not Greek. What is the word that is used originally? It is the Hebrew elohim. Jesus says that these "sons of God" are gods to whom the Word of God came. Whoever these might be, it provides a basis for examining the Hebraic usage of the word "god" as applied to others than Yahweh.

Jesus was with Ton Theon but he was not Ton Theon whom he was with. He was however, one of might, one of power, having a glory with his God and Father before the world of mankind was made. -- John 17:5.

Here's what Anthony F. Buzzard and Charle's F. Hunting tell us in their "The Doctrine Of The Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound", International Scholars Publication, 1998, pp. 87,

"But Jesus himself had recognized that the Old Testament called the judges "gods,"when he referred in John 10:34 to Psalm 82:6: "Has it not been written in your law, 'I said, You are gods'?" "Theos" (here in the plural, "theoi") apeared in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament as a title of men who represented the one true God.

Jesus on no occsaion referred to himself as God in the absolute sense. What precedent did Thomas have for calling Jesus "my God"? Without question, early Christians used the word "god" with a broader meaning than is customary today. "God" was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including the Roman emperor. It was not limited to its absolute sense as a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use it today. It is from the early Church that the biblical words come to us, and it is from that New Testament environment that we must discover their meaning."

Do you disagree with Buzzard and Hunting?

Quote

Which non-Nicene texts?

Here is how Maximinus (c. 428) applied Titus 2:13:

"A nobis unus colitur Deus, innatus, infectus, invisibilis, qui ad humana contagia et ad humanam carnem non descendit. Est autem et Filius secundum Apostolum, non pusillus, sed magnus Deus: sicut ait beatus Paulus: Exspectantes beatam spem et adventum gloriae magni Dei et Salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi. Iste enim magnus Deus Christus dicit, quod ascendo ad Patrem meum et Patrem vestrum, Deum meum et Deum vestrum (Coll. Max. 13b; http://www.agostino-santo.it/latino/confer...mino.htm)"


"By us, one God is worshiped, unborn, unmade, invisible, who does not descend to human contagions and human flesh. However, according to the Apostle, even the Son is not petty but a great God, as the blessed Paul says: "Awaiting the blessed hope and advent of the glory of the great God and our savior, Jesus Christ." For that great God, Christ, says "I ascend to my Father and your Father, my God and your God"



In his Christianity there is no tension between the supremacy of the Father and Christ's possession of very high attributes, since, owing to the begotten nature of the Son, the attributes point beyond themselves to God who conferred them.

best,

[Melchior]

Great god and saviour, Jesus vs. Caesar.

The Romans looked upon their emperor as a "savior" in that he held mankind together under the great Roman power, providing peace and order, prosperity and protection. The emperor was known as the "Saviour of the world" (at least 8 Roman emperors carried this title)! In contrast to the Cult of the Caesar, was the "Cult of Christ", in which the Lord Jesus was made a great god and saviour by YHWH . Physicians who healed others were referred to in the Greek culture as "saviors". Human physicians might be able to heal physical sickness but the great god and saviour Jesus, healed men from sin and death.

Edited by Melchior, 10 June 2007 - 06:47 PM.