Irenaeus

[Steven Avery]

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 16)

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.16 (St. Irenaeus)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

3. Paul, when writing to the Romans, has explained this very point: Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, predestinated unto the Gospel of God, which He had promised by His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was made to Him of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated the Son of God with power through the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead of our Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 1:1-4 And again, writing to the Romans about Israel, he says: Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever. Romans 9:5 And again, in his Epistle to the Galatians, he says: But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption; Galatians 4:4-5 plainly indicating one God, who did by the prophets make promise of the Son, and one Jesus Christ our Lord, who was of the seed of David according to His birth from Mary; and that Jesus Christ was appointed the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, as being the first begotten in all the creation; Colossians 1:14-15 the Son of God being made the Son of man, that through Him we may receive the adoption, — humanity sustaining, and receiving, and embracing the Son of God. Wherefore Mark also says: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets. Mark 1:1 Knowing one and the same Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was announced by the prophets, who from the fruit of David's body was Emmanuel, the messenger of great counsel of the Father; through whom God caused the day-spring and the Just One to arise to the house of David, and raised up for him an horn of salvation, and established a testimony in Jacob; Luke 1:69 as David says when discoursing on the causes of His birth: And He appointed a law in Israel, that another generation might know [Him,] the children which should he born from these, and they arising shall themselves declare to their children, so that they might set their hope in God, and seek after His commandments. And again, the angel said, when bringing good tidings to Mary: He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord shall give unto Him the throne of His father David; Luke 1:32 acknowledging that He who is the Son of the Highest, the same is Himself also the Son of David. And David, knowing by the Spirit the dispensation of the advent of this Person, by which He is supreme over all the living and dead, confessed Him as Lord, sitting on the right hand of the Most High Father.


From Brian earlier
Irenaeus (130-202) Against Heresies, 3.16.2, reasoning how Christ is both perfect God and perfect man, quotes Romans 9:5 of Christ. It is thus suitable in the context, but is open to some debate as to whether it can certainly be ascribed to him affirming Christ's Deity, or if it is indeterminate. He applies it to the Son only, and not the Father, so Burgon is correct in maintaining it against the Socinian gloss in the RV margin. However, as he pairs it with Galatians 4:4-5, and does not clearly affirm this as a place where the scriptures call Him "God," I would regard it as indeterminate.

 

[Steven Avery]

John Behr
https://books.google.com/books?id=feZlXkjwQW4C&pg=PA125

 

[Steven Avery]

https://books.google.com/books?id=KspFAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA132

 

[Brianrw]

However, as he pairs it with Galatians 4:4-5, and does not clearly affirm this as a place where the scriptures call Him "God," I would regard it as indeterminate.

Indeterminate so far as our conversation goes, not so far as the Deity of Christ is actually concerned.​

To clarify, I meant this in regards to the discussion between you and I, since you contend that although this passage is a doxology to Christ, Christ is not said to be "God," but "blessed by God," which lacks fidelity to the original Greek. The link to the original comment is here. When Irenaeus is describing Jesus as both perfect God and perfect man, and quotes this passage in whole of the Son alone, and the valid Greek in that place refers to Him as God, and there is no doxology to the Father. It is not itself an indeterminate witness to the Deity of Christ, but because your position would require more clarity than Irenaeus presents above, I regarded it as indeterminate so far as our discussion is concerned.

 

[Steven Avery]

Would you describe Irenaeus as an orthodox Trinitarian?

Or a heretic?

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

(Btw, I want to remind you that your Granville Sharp Rules only apply to Orthodox Trinitarians.)

 

[Brianrw]

Would you describe Irenaeus as an orthodox Trinitarian?

Or a heretic?

I fail to see the relevance of this.

(Btw, I want to remind you that your Granville Sharp Rules only apply to Orthodox Trinitarians.)

I fail to see how that is relevant here as well.

But since you say the "Granville Sharp Rules only apply to Orthodox Trinitarians," and you've never bothered to even learn the language to know what you are affirming, I'll show you some of the mess you create in the process.

1. You'd break a number of passages right off the bat by separating God the Father into two persons of (1) God and (2) the Father: Romans 15:6, 1 Corinthians 15:24, 2 Corinthians 1:3, 2 Corinthians 11:31, Galatians 1:4, Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 4:6, Ephesians 5:20, Philippians 4:20, Colossians 1:3, Colossians 2:2, Colossians 3:17, 1 Thessalonians 1:3, 1 Thessalonians 3:11, 1 Thessalonians 3:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:16, James 1:27, James 3:9, 1 Peter 1:3.
   
   
2. In 2 Peter 1:11, 2 Peter 2:20, and 2 Peter 3:18, Christ is no longer "our Lord and Saviour," but we would now have two persons: (1) Our Lord and (2) the Saviour Jesus Christ.
   
   
3. In 2 Peter 1:1 (yes, I mean 2 Peter 1:1), Christ would no longer be "God and our Saviour," but there would be now two persons (1) "Our God" and (2) "the Saviour Jesus Christ." You may not have noticed they specifically moved "our," which is attached to "God," to after "and" and before "Saviour" specifically because they saw one person in view.
   
   
4. In 1 Peter 2:25, it is no longer the "Shepherd and Bishop of your souls," but two persons of (1) the Shepherd and (2) the Bishop of your souls.
   
   
5. In Hebrews 3:1, Jesus would no longer be the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, but there would be two persons (1) of the Apostle and (2) of the High Priest Jesus.
   
   
6. In 2 Peter 3:2, it is no longer the commandment of the apostles of the Lord and Saviour, but the commandments of the Apostles of (1) the Lord and (2) the Saviour.
   
   
7. In Mark 6:3, it is no longer the son of Mary and brother of James, but two persons (1) of the son of Mary and (2) of the brother of James
   
   
8. In Ephesians 6:21, it is no longer just Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister, but three persons of (1) Tychicus, (2) a beloved brother and (3) a faithful minister in the Lord.
   
   
9. Tychicus also suffers similar division in Colossians 4:7, but this time as (1) Tychicus, (2) a beloved brother, (3) a faithful minister, and (4) a fellowservant in the Lord.
   
   
10. In Revelation 1:9, it is no longer just John, our brother and fellowlaborer but two persons (1) of John and (2) of a fellow laborer in tribulation.
    
    
11. You'll also break 1 Thessalonians 3:2, where Paul is no longer referring to Timothy as our brother, minister of God, and fellowlabourer in the gospel of Christ. We'd no longer be reading of one person, but four: (1) Timothy, (2) our brother, (3) a minister of God and (4) a fellowlaborer in the gospel of Christ.
    
    
12. In Matthew 12:22, it would not only be one who was devil possessed, blind, and dumb. It would be one who was possessed with a devil, a blind man, a dumb man, and only the devil possessed man was healed.

And this leaves out a host of other passages where the rule of the article is followed, and you reading the scriptures in English can easily take for granted (Matthew 27:40, John 6:33, Acts 15:30, Ephesians 2:14, Colossians 4:9, 1 Timothy 6:15, James 1:25, Hebrews 12:2, 1 Peter 5:1, Revelation 22:8, etc. etc.).

Certainly, the learned men of the AV understood the rule of the article in these passages, and employed it consistently.

Would you care to revise the above statement?

 

[Steven Avery]

Certainly, the learned men of the AV understood the rule of the article in these passages, and employed it consistently.

How many of those verses dealt with ontological concepts of "persons"?
Which are NOT persons as we normally use the word.

If your answer is zero, they are obviously of no value, you simply do not understand basic logic.

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

We can deal with 2 Peter 1:1 separately. Why do you have Paul contradicting himself in verse one and verse two?

Why did the early church writers ignore this as a supposed identity verse?

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

Which of those verses have alternate understandings by context?
Specifically.

If the answer is zero, why are you wasting time bringing them up?

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

How many of those have to do with your absurdities around epithets and personal descriptions and proper names around:

Lord, Lord Jesus, Lord Jesus Christ, Christ

Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, Paraclete, Comforter, Spirit of Truth, Spirit of God.

etc.

Where you simply define terms and grammatical categories to meet your target.

 

[Steven Avery]

But since you say the "Granville Sharp Rules only apply to Orthodox Trinitarians," and you've never bothered to even learn the language to know what you are affirming, I'll show you some of the mess you create in the process.

You flunk Logic 101, in falsely claiming that I assert the opposite.

Sheesh, you lose credibility again.

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

Btw, I tried to teach you with the Administrator example, that context is king, similar to 2 Peter 1:1. The RULE does not determine if the administrator and the researcher are the same person. It could be Steven and Steven, it could be Nick and Steven. The article does NOT tell you whether it is one person or two. Try to learn, try to think.

This alone refuted your claims. So you ignored it.

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

 

[Brianrw]

How many of those verses dealt with ontological concepts of "persons"?
Which are NOT persons as we normally use the word.

"Persons" as in "individuals" or sentence "subjects." You have a pattern of loading things with meaning.

Why did the early church writers ignore this as a supposed identity verse?

2 Peter was for most of Church history considered doubtful (unjustly, based on one of its passages). It's not just this passage they don't quote, it's that they failed to utilize the book itself. But the construction itself does exist in the early church writers, as Wordsworth has noted, to speak of Christ. It's also the same exact grammatical construction as 2 Peter 1:11.

You're forced with the dilemma here that either the AV translated erred by placing "our" in the wrong place (together with Saviour, instead of God), or they were fine in doing so because they had only one subject in view, thus declaring Christ "God and our Saviour."

Which of those verses have alternate understandings by context?
Specifically.

If the answer is zero, why are you wasting time bringing them up?

For example, if you were an English speaking follower of Cerinthus, who believed that God and the Father were separate beings, then (if they didn't follow the rule of the article) the following passages are open to their heretical interpretation:

Romans 15:6, 1 Corinthians 15:24, 2 Corinthians 1:3, 2 Corinthians 11:31, Galatians 1:4, Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 4:6, Ephesians 5:20, Philippians 4:20, Colossians 1:3, Colossians 2:2, Colossians 3:17, 1 Thessalonians 1:3, 1 Thessalonians 3:11, 1 Thessalonians 3:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:16, James 1:27, James 3:9, 1 Peter 1:3.​

​

It's the article that prevented them from utilizing these passages for their heresy.

And outside of theological leaning, plain and clear passages such as "our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:11, 2 Peter 2:20, and 2 Peter 3:18) suddenly become ambiguous.

Also, if context really matters, how many persons are spoken of in Titus 2:14?

If your answer is zero, they are obviously of no value, you simply do not understand basic logic.

You are discarding them because they are inconvenient to your position that Sharp "invented" the rule, and that it was only invented to be applied to a handful of Christological passage. This is incorrect. A rule of grammar is not loaded with theological concepts. If you throw out the rule of the article, you open up the passages above (which utilize it) to all sorts of confusion.

 

[Steven Avery]

2 Peter was for most of Church history discarded (unjustly, based on one of its passaged) as spurious? It's not just this passage they don't quote, it's that they failed to utilize the book itself.

Yes, I realize that this is standard claptrap scholarship.

A quick check finds 2 Peter early quotes and solid allusions (I left out one or two) from:

Clement of Rome - 1st and 2nd to Corinthians
Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
Justin Martyr
Shepherd of Hermas
Irenaeus
Clement of Alexandria
Tetrullian
Novatian
Cyprian
Hippolytus
Lactantius
Archelaus contra Manes
Five Books in Reply to Marcion
Ignatius to the Philippians

The first list is

e-catena
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/2peter1.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/2peter2.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/2peter3.html

The second list is

ACCS, the pages available online.
https://books.google.com/books?id=MOUd-wSZ4hEC&pg=PA129

And I added Eusebius of Caesarea and Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus and Jerome from other sources.
Full scholarship would probably find a dozen or two more (even omitting the later Latins.)

Origen - 6 quotes!
Didache
Andreas Catena
Hilary of Arles
Hilary of Poitiers
Cyril of Alexandria
Eusebius of Caesarea
Eusebius of Emesa
Gregory of Nazianzus
Athanasius
Didymus the Blind
Chrysostom
Jerome
Cyril of Jerusalem
Pachomius
Salvian
Caesarius of Arles
Fastidius
Augustine
Hesychius
Leo
Gregory the Great
John of Damascus
Oecumenius
Bede
Symeon the New Theologian
Theophylact

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

ADD
Aristedes
Valentinus
2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary (2015)
E. Michael Green
https://books.google.com/books?id=n0lVCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA20

ADD
2 Peter Reconsidered (1960)
E. M. B. Green

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tp/2peter_green.pdf

Photius
Firmilian to Cyprian
Pseudo-Clementines
Methodius


So your sources need to be updated.
Or simply rejected.

Plenty of opportunity to claim a Deity verse.
Never happened.

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

The Authenticity of 2 Peter (1999)
Michael J. Kruger

https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/42/42-4/42-4-pp645-671_JETS.pdf

 

[Brianrw]

Yes, I realize that this is standard claptrap scholarship.

I wasn't attacking the book, which I see as genuine. I did make a mistake above, however, that they considered the text in doubt, not spurious (Cf. Eusebius, Church History, 3.25.1-7). I apologize, and made the correction above. I noticed that when I went back and reread. I expect it to be quoted before the fourth century, and if you can turn up quotations, that's great. Eusebius, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Gaius of Rome, et al did much damage to some of the books, and highly unfairly.

In regard to your response, you'll want to make sure the information your presenting actually says what you think it does before presenting it in this fashion, or you will open yourself up to criticism. All the e-catena does is note a teaching where the editor of the printed English works cross references 2 Peter. Go back and look at the actual quotations, and revise your list.

Michael Green, your other source, also notes that "No book in the Canon is so poorly attested among the Fathers."

I'm going to make the simple remark, again, that in 2 Peter 1:1 the translators deliberately moved "our," which in the Greek is attached to "God," to before "Saviour," so that they might call Christ, "God and our Saviour." Also, as Wordsworth observes, that the same construction (whether from 2 Peter 1:1, or independently) occurs quite often in the early Christian writings, so it stands to reason if they saw it in 2 Peter 1:1, there would be no distinction to draw.

 

[Steven Avery]

I wasn't attacking the book, which I see as genuine. I did make a mistake above, however, that they considered the text in doubt, not spurious (Cf. Eusebius, Church History, 3.25.1-7). I apologize, and made the correction above. I noticed that when I went back and reread. I expect it to be quoted before the fourth century, and if you can turn up quotations, that's great. Eusebius, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Gaius of Rome, et al did much damage to some of the books, and highly unfairly.

In regard to your response, you'll want to make sure the information your presenting actually says what you think it does before presenting it in this fashion, or you will open yourself up to criticism. All the e-catena does is note a teaching where the editor of the printed English works cross references 2 Peter. Go back and look at the actual quotations, and revise your list.

Michael Green, your other source, also notes that "No book in the Canon is so poorly attested among the Fathers."

And I did not put in every reference from those sources. And I also did not check other sources. So you can be confident that there are about 40 church writers referencing the book, even before the later Latins, and many Ante-Nicene. The poor attestation is easily over-emphasized.

Your statement that they "failed to utilize the book itself" was wrong, putting aside doubtful, spurious, etc.

To be more precise, it would be interesting to see who references 1 Peter and not 2 Peter.

At this time, I do not need to do more tweaking, adding many, maybe subtracting a few, evaluating allusions. The point is made.

 

[Steven Avery]

I'm going to make the simple remark, again, that in 2 Peter 1:1 the translators deliberately moved "our," which in the Greek is attached to "God," to before "Saviour," so that they might call Christ, "God and our Saviour."

Last time you said they translated specifically to counter some Socinian or Unitarian translations. I questioned that. Are you dropping that claim?

The previous thread was here.
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/chrysostom.2335/page-3#post-9321

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

And once again, you are mangling the AV text

2 Peter 1:1 (AV)
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

You chomp off "righteousness of" and then fabricate AV motivations.
Tacky.

 

[Brianrw]

And I did not put in every reference from those sources. And I also did not check other sources. So you can be confident that there are about 40 church writers referencing the book, even before the later Latins, and many Ante-Nicene. The poor attestation is easily over-emphasized.

I see you didn't verify the notes in the e-catena, even after I urged you to do so.

In the e-Catena for 2 Peter 1 you can cross out:

1. Clement of Alexandria and 2x Hippolytus, and Novatian from 2 Peter 1:4. No quotation is involved.
2. Clement of Alexandria from 2 Peter 1:11. No quotation is involved.
3. Five Books Against Marcion in 2 Peter 1:17. No quotation is involved.
4. Hippolytus from 2 Peter 1:18. No quotation is involved.
5. Tertullian in 2 Peter 1:1. No quotation is involved.

This wipes out all the references from chapter 1. In 2 Peter 2, we find:

1. A quote from 2 Peter 2:1 among the dubious fragments of Hippolytus,
2. Sure allusions by Lactantius and Hippolytus to 2 Peter 2:22.

You can cross out

1. Tertullian in 2:1. No quotation is involved. While we may regard these as allusions, unfortunately other NT writers assert the same things mentioned.
2. Hippolytus and Lactantius in 2:4. No quotation involved.
3. 1 Clement in 2:5. No quotation involved.
4. 1 Clement and 2 Clement in 2:6. No quotation involved.
5. Cyprian in 2:11. An error on the page; the quotation is to 1 Peter 2:11.
6. Cyprian in 2:16. no quotation involved.

In chapter 3,

1. A quotation in the dubious fragments of Hippolytus to 2 Peter 3:3
2. A possible allusion in Barnabas and Justin to 3:8 (Barnabas: “Behold, the day of the Lord will be as a thousand years” vs 2 Peter "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.").
3. A direct quotation of 2 Peter 3:8 by Irenaeus in two places.
4. A possible allusion in the dubious Hippolytus fragments to 3:12.

You can cross out:

1. 1 Clement in 3:3. This is not a quotation of the verse.
2. Hermas, A Strain of Sodom, and 2 Clement in 3:5. No quotation involved.
3. Justin and 2 Clement in 3:7. No quotation involved.
4. Ignatius in 3:8 (the same statement is supported in the gospels)
5. Lactantius in 3:8, who actually goes to quote Psalm 90:4.
6. Archelaus in 3:9. No quotation involved.
7. 2 Clement in 3:10. No quotation involved.
8. Tertullian in 2 Peter 3:10. Quoting Isaiah 34:4.
9. A Strain of the Judgment of the Lord. No quotation involved.
10. Polycarp in 3:15. No quotation involved.
11. Hermas in 3:16. No quotation involved.
12. Tertullian in 2 Peter 3:15. No quotation involved.
13. Tertullian in 2 Peter 3:16. No quotation involved.
14. Lactantius in 2 Peter 3:16. No quotation involved.

So your first list based upon the e-catena references looks like this:

1. Clement of Rome - 1st and 2nd to Corinthians
2. Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
3. Justin Martyr
4. Shepherd of Hermas
5. Irenaeus (direct quotation)
6. +Barnabas (allusion)
7. Clement of Alexandria (note that Clement did have the book)
8. Tetrullian
9. Novatian
10. Cyprian
11. Hippolytus (allusions and quotations among the dubious fragments)
12. Lactantius (allusions)
13. Archelaus contra Manes
14. Five Books in Reply to Marcion
15. Ignatius to the Philippians

I can't judge the rest of the names, as you give no specific notes other than a list. I knew already of Origen and Irenaeus, and about the commentary by Clement. But if you had asked about it for more clarification, I would have told you these things. I'm not against the authenticity of the book. And I said already, the construction was noted by Wordsworth numerous times among the Greek writers.

You chomp off "righteousness of" and then fabricate AV motivations.
Tacky.

I didn't chomp off anything. The Greek is

ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ (in the righteousness) τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν (of our God) καὶ (and) σωτῆρος (Saviour) Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Jesus Christ)​

Not;

ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ (in the righteousness) τοῦ θεοῦ (of God) καὶ (and) τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν (of our Saviour) Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Jesus Christ)​

​

Please explain.

 

[Steven Avery]

The English AV text clearly shows the natural association of righteousness and God.

2 Peter 1:1 (AV)
Simon Peter,
a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ,
to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through
the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

Any interpretive parsing that mangles the flow by truncating the phrase “the righteousness of God” in order to enhance an apposition identity theory is trash grammer.

You may be attacking the AV text again, from the Greek, as is your style.

 

[Steven Avery]

In the e-Catena for 2 Peter
You can cross out

1. 1 Clement in 2:5. No quotation involved.
2. 1 Clement and 2 Clement in 2:6. No quotation involved.
3. 1 Clement in 3:3. This is not a quotation of the verse.
4. .... 2 Clement in 3:7. No quotation involved.
5. 2 Clement in 3:10. No quotation involved.

So your first list based upon the e-catena references looks like this:

1. Clement of Rome - 1st and 2nd to Corinthians

Clement of Rome is in a sense the most important.
And there are many refs to study, I count six. (It would be good to count 1 Peter refs. too.)

These six spots include a solid group of allusions, I have begun the study here.

Clement of Rome
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/clement-of-rome.2373/

Scholar after scholar acknowledges Clement looking to have 2 Peter as source for writing his epistles. Only liberal ultra-late daters of 2 Peter might struggle. And even the plus-scholars may not have the full picture of his usage.

Remember that there would have been no reason to doubt the Epistle in the first century.

If your analysis is this bad on Clement of Rome, I am not sure it is worthwhile to look at others.

btw, all the references from ACCS are essentially rock-solid.

With 2 Peter being written about in the 1st century by Clement of Rome, and maybe even before AD 70, that helps make the text rock-solid.

 

[Brianrw]

I'm for the authenticity of 2 Peter, but allusions are circumstantial evidence, not direct evidence. Irenaeus' quote of it is one of its best testimonies and examples of direct evidence, since Irenaeus learned from Polycarp, one of John's disciples. There is a very strong circumstantial case for 2 Peter, and I also studied where the controversy comes from and it literally began over a passage they thought contradicted scriptures elsewhere (but doesn't)

The issue above was over how often it was quoted, and you disputed with a list of authors in which the majority of them don't quote the book.

It's for the same reason I don't quote various passages when speaking to those who are heterodox, since they will turn around and say they are "spurious" or "vague" or "mistranslated," because the Orthodox have a silly way of cutting off their own hands and feet by abandoning ground where they don't need to.

With 2 Peter being written about in the 1st century by Clement of Rome, and maybe even before AD 70, that helps make the text rock-solid.

I don't see how 2 Peter is a work of Clement of Rome. Did you mean to write this? I'm assuming you wrote it by accident. It was probably written before the Temple was destroyed, just like most of the New Testament. We're not in disagreement over the authenticity, so it's not worth spending a lot of time on. I just stated what is widely recognized, that it is one of the most poorly attested books in the quotations of the early Greek writers.

The Personal Pronoun in 2 Peter​

When two substantives are governed by a single article, a personal pronoun applies to both, whether it is found with the first substantive or the second. Under such a rule, the KJV translators were at liberty to move the position of "our" to before "Saviour" in 2 Peter. Thus, they call Christ "God and our Saviour." That is all.

You may be attacking the AV text again, from the Greek, as is your style.

Again, Steven Avery's personal interpretation of the AV is not the AV. You keep saying I'm attacking it, but I haven't changed the words or criticized it or attacked it in any way. I've only said you are reading Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, and 2 Peter 1:1 incorrectly. You could spend your time defending your position, or you can keep attacking the messenger.

Any interpretive parsing that mangles the flow by truncating the phrase “the righteousness of God” in order to enhance an apposition identity theory is trash grammer.

This comment is odd. The pronoun strictly belongs to "God," if two persons are in view here. There is no variation among the Greek copies that I am aware of. Would you insist the AV translators moved the pronoun for another specific reason?

 

[Steven Avery]

I'm for the authenticity of 2 Peter, but allusions are circumstantial evidence, not direct evidence.

When there are many allusions, and largely in the context of the themes of 1 and 2 Peter, there really is no doubt that Clement, the most important writer, used both epistles.

Circumstantial evidence is often probative. This is such a case.

You complain about a list of authors. (From you, that is funny.)
However, there was also a list of the allusions, which is far more important.

 

[Brianrw]

When there are many allusions, and largely in the context of the themes of 1 and 2 Peter, there really is no doubt that Clement, the most important writer, used both epistles.

Circumstantial evidence is often probative. This is such a case.

You complain about a list of authors. (From you, that is funny.)
However, there was also a list of the allusions, which is far more important.

When did I complain about the list of writers? I said it was one of the most poorly attested books in the quotations of the early Christians, which is true. You're going on about how circumstantial evidence shows it was most likely known from a very early time. We're in agreement on the second point, but you are using the second point to argue I'm wrong about the first. Which is not even a valid means of arguing the point. I'm sure you'll carry on at some length with your new imaginary "Winter" argument.

 

[Steven Avery]

When did I complain about the list of writers?

Right here.

The issue above was over how often it was quoted, and you disputed with a list of authors in which the majority of them don't quote the book.