Origen

[Steven Avery]

Except Basil understood Christ as the "Great God," there is no reason to entertain what follows: "did he think of Him as greater than the Father?" Besides that, Basil applies the whole verse to Christ.

From my reading, his quote does not call Christ the "Great God". In fact, you could see the quote in the opposite mode.

Basil, On John 17.3 (4th century), "Did the Apostle, when he styled the Saviour 'God over all,' describe Him as greater than the Father? The idea is absurd . . . When the apostle said of the Son, we look for 'that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,' did he think of Him as greater than the Father?"

It would be helpful here to add some commentary from Bible scholars, (perhaps Ezra Abbot and Hugh Stewart Boyd)
Also check for any additional references (checked, so far none except the one below.)

Here is a second spot where Basil uses the Titus verse, from ACCS:
https://books.google.com/books?id=0CAnDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA299

 

[Steven Avery]

From my reading, his quote does not call Christ the "Great God". In fact, you could see the quote in the opposite mode.

Basil, On John 17.3 (4th century), "Did the Apostle, when he styled the Saviour 'God over all,' describe Him as greater than the Father? The idea is absurd . . . When the apostle said of the Son, we look for 'that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,' did he think of Him as greater than the Father?"

The context is fascinating.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Kj-lQ2GWA54C&pg=PR42

 

[Steven Avery]

From my reading, his quote does not call Christ the "Great God". In fact, you could see the quote in the opposite mode.

Basil, On John 17.3 (4th century), "Did the Apostle, when he styled the Saviour 'God over all,' describe Him as greater than the Father? The idea is absurd . . . When the apostle said of the Son, we look for 'that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,' did he think of Him as greater than the Father?"

It would be helpful here to add some commentary from Bible scholars, (perhaps Ezra Abbot and Hugh Stewart Boyd) also check for any additional references (checked, so far none except the one below.)

Hugh Stewart Boyd
https://books.google.com/books?id=Dt360V3HjmQC&pg=PA439

 

[Steven Avery]

Note, so far I do not find any other interesting commentary on Basil and Titus 2:13. Ezra Abbot was on another topic.

Boyd is interesting, with the interplay of the verses, but he does seem to miss the Basil quote above from John 17:13. Or perhaps he considers it sort of neutral.

 

[Brianrw]

Basil, On John 17.3 (4th century), "Did the Apostle, when he styled the Saviour 'God over all,' describe Him as greater than the Father? The idea is absurd . . . When the apostle said of the Son, we look for 'that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,' did he think of Him as greater than the Father?"

If you remove "great God" from that passage as speaking of the Father, there is no reason for the note that follows: "did he think of Him as greater than the Father." There is no doubt in this place that he asks this question, because he understands here that Christ is called the "great God."

 

[Steven Avery]

William Whiston on Origen in 1712

Primitive Christianity Reviv'd, - p. 007 -
https://books.google.com/books?id=gm3-5XDEfucC&pg=PA7

 

[Brianrw]

And now the man responsible for reviving the heretical views of Arianism in England. You seem to have such an affinity for the heterodox.

The above quote ascribes the statement "God over all" to Christ. But Origen notes that it does not apply so far as say the Father is not (as Jesus says) "greater than I." This is a typical argument that was used against the patripassion heresies prevelant in his time.

 

[Steven Avery]

And now the man responsible for reviving the heretical views of Arianism in England. You seem to have such an affinity for the heterodox.

I have an affinity for avoiding the genetic fallacy. You are a big proponent of the fallacy. In this case Whiston gives more material on Origen than most anybody.

And I take informative material from orthodox, heterodox and lox and bagels.

 

[Brianrw]

I have an affinity for avoiding the genetic fallacy. You are a big proponent of the fallacy. In this case Whiston gives more material on Origen than most anybody.

The Apostle is clear and I will follow his instruction: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." (Romans 16:17).

This is not acting fallaciously, either, but wisely. Unitarians, Socinians, and Jehovah's Witnesses all assault the Deity of the Lord Jesus as vividly proclaimed in the scriptures. I have dealt with the most intellectually dishonest arguments from otherwise very smart and capable people. Some are more faithful to the text than others, but their overarching goal is to muddy the waters both textually and historically. It's the death of faith by a thousand cuts. You don't even realize how their writings are infecting your own conversation.

The Genetic Fallacy would imply that I have failed to address the merits of their claims, and dismissed them solely on their affiliation. I have addressed them on their points as you provide them.

 

[Steven Avery]

The Apostle is clear and I will follow his instruction: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." (Romans 16:17).

And that falls flat to the ground.
You make yourself look foolish, quoting verses for posturing only.

When it comes to scholarship, or pseudo-scholarship, you are the master of the genetic fallacy. You give superficial dismissals, and throw out good analysis with bad, based on your ad hom approach.

One of the best defenders of the heavenly witnesses in the early 1800s was Ben David (John Jones). His own doctrines were quirky, but most all of his actual analysis of the ECW was superb.

On Romans 9:5, basically you are upset because I have exposed your position as an attempted correction of the Authorized Version. That is now 100% clear. All your posturing about hyphens and commas and verbs is totally kaput.

Neither of us have any interest in the Socinian and Unitarian and JW punctuation corruptions. They are simply a waste of time. You deceive yourself on this matter, I think you are totally confused and actually think I entertain the nonsense. You hear a name like Ezra Abbot and William Whiston (translator of Josephus) and your mind goes into a fog.

And I see gross hypocrisy on multiple sides. The unitarians and other ilkies usually fight the Authorized Version on 1 Timothy 3:16 and the heavenly witnesses. Confused Trinitarians fight the Authorized Version on Titus 2:13 and Romans 9:5. Both scholastic houses are decayed, Potemkin Villages.

You would do better to actually believe your Authorized Version than to take your stand with bible correctors. On the issue of correcting the Authorized Version, you are identical to the Socinians.

 

[Brianrw]

And that falls flat to the ground.
You make yourself look foolish, quoting verses for posturing only.

When it comes to scholarship, or pseudo-scholarship, you are the master of the genetic fallacy. You give superficial dismissals, and throw out good analysis with bad, based on your ad hom approach.

Are you not continually attacking my character, my motive, or some other attribute rather than the substance of my argument itself? So by definition, you are falsely accusing me of violating a fallacy you yourself are actually abusing continually.

It is true I mark them as Unitarians, Socinians, and JWs when you post them. That does not mean I have failed to properly address their arguments, good or bad, on their points--including Abbot (e.g., here and here) and Stafford (e.g. here and here). I also agreed with Abbot's assessment of John 1:18 in the modern versions here. You even commented on how I had spent a lot of time dissecting Abbot's statements here, when you began distancing yourself afterward. So despite this assertion above, I actually have been addressing the substance of their arguments.

On Romans 9:5, basically you are upset because I have exposed your position as an attempted correction of the Authorized Version. That is now 100% clear. All your posturing about hyphens and commas and verbs is totally kaput.

My reading is, "Christ . . . who is over all, God blessed for ever," where "blessed" is a postpositive adjective and God refers to Christ. That is a proper reading of the verse, and it is the AV without emendation. Accordingly, Burgon notes on the English reading "God blessed forever" that:

A grander or more unequivocal testimony to our Lord's eternal Godhead is nowhere to be found in the scripture. Accordingly, these words have been as confidently appealed to by faithful Doctors of the Church in every age, as they have been unsparingly assailed by unbelievers. (The Revision Revised, p. 211)​

This witness is true. It is so in the Greek and in the early Greek writers. It is true among the Latins. It is so among the English commentators throughout the 1600s and 1700s (no less than 68 authors from that period support this assessment). It did not only recently stop being so.

If also your interpretation were correct, it is inexplicable how the Socinians would go to so great lengths for so long to corrupt a passage that you say only means Jesus was blessed by God--they in one instance even trying to remove "God" altogether. So great lengths, just to say Jesus was "blessed," rather than "blessed by God," would you not say?

Disagreeing with Steven Avery over his private interpretation of Romans 9:5 (Cf. 2 Peter 1:20) is not "changing the AV." It is telling Steven Avery he's simply reading the passage wrong.

 

[Steven Avery]

Are you not continually attacking my character, my motive, or some other attribute rather than the substance of my argument itself? So by definition, you are falsely accusing me of violating a fallacy you yourself are actually abusing continually.

Neither of us are attacking the other with ad hom, imho.

(Ad hom in the modern attack sense, the classical sense was "to the man's argument", as used by Burgon and others, I actually prefer that usage and use the modern one reluctantly. Most of the fallacy spots are a little behind on this distinction.)

You use it to try to bypass and disregard the posts from those who you consider Socinian, Unitarian, etc. Even when they are being highlighted for specific scholarship aspects where they are strong.

Remember, I have no interest at all in the Socinian punctuation corruptions.

 

[Brianrw]

I haven't bypassed them, that's my point. I'll state they are Unitarian, Socinian, or JW but will also proceed to comment on the substance of their argument.

 

[Steven Avery]

If also your interpretation were correct, it is inexplicable how the Socinians would go to so great lengths for so long to corrupt a passage that you say only means Jesus was blessed by God--they in one instance even trying to remove "God" altogether. So great lengths, just to say Jesus was "blessed," rather than "blessed by God," would you not say?

Fair enough question.

Quite a few of the writers, on all sides, refer to the AV text as ambiguous.
(That is not my view, but it is understandable,)

Thus the Socinians and Unitarians wanted to shut out any high Christology perspective. (Especially once the AV text was connected by some with the Greek ECW of the Christ is God view.) And they came up with the various punctuation alternatives. Then their attitude was "this is my claim, and I will stick with it.". That applies to most of the Unitarians today. They wanted an ironclad dull text that only puts praise to God, not Christ. Even better, they would prefer God over all, rather than Christ over all.

And I am not very impressed with either side of this debate. Many just see it as a dual situation, which I correct in my Trichotomy post. Those who are more savvy put the AV rendering in the middle of three choices, as ambiguous. Some divide the choices into 4, but in that case there will be two Socianian punctuation corruptions, which really are one conceptually. The Murray Harris 10 can be whittled down to 3, but he stumbles a bit on the AV reading.

 

[Steven Avery]

My reading is, "Christ . . . who is over all, God blessed for ever," where "blessed" is a postpositive adjective and God refers to Christ. That is a proper reading of the verse, and it is the AV without emendation.

There is an important part of your attempt that you omit.

Christ ... God (is) blessed (by the creation and his people) for ever.

 

[Brianrw]

Christ ... God (is) blessed (by the creation and his people) for ever.

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? I stated the definition of blessed as an adjective, and proceeded to note the obvious implication that those who bless and praise Him are His people and His creation. Not that the construction requires us knowing this. I did not state it to form a verbal construction. You've done that on your own.

The adjective describes Christ as God who is blessed. The adjective does not require a subject-verb-object construction, as I said to you here one day prior to you posting the above comment.

 

[Steven Avery]

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? I stated the definition of blessed as an adjective, and proceeded to note the obvious implication that those who bless and praise Him are His people and His creation. Not that the construction requires us knowing this. I did not state it to form a verbal construction. You've done that on your own.

The adjective describes Christ as God who is blessed. The adjective does not require a subject-verb-object construction, as I said to you here one day prior to you posting the above comment.

by his creation and his people has nothing to do with the verbal construction. This adverbial phrase is an integral part of your interpretation and is included to inform any reader how you understand the verse. You should include it in your interpretation, but since you do not, I pick up your slack.

is (or who is) adds your verbal component. It is one of your ellipses. It is clearly your implied verb. Why would you protest?