The Great God and Saviour of us Jesus Christ

No. His doubts appear only to extend to 2 Thes 1:12. Most commentators seem to agree with him.
The problem is that kupios, 'Lord,' often appears as a proper name without the article, so the absence of the article in this verse is not conclusive proof that 'our God' and 'the Lord Jesus Christ' have to be the same Person. Also in 1 & 2 Thes, grace is pictured as coming from a two-fold source (c.f. 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2; 2 Thessalonians 1:2 (William Hendricksen).

 

Greek is different from English

 

If, as there are, exceptions in the Greek then we cannot conclude either way

 

The Kjv would not be allowed.....

 

Another demonstration of contempt for truth...

 

Did you forget already that I addressed post 17? Then see post 39 where you re-posted your reference to someone on the wrong side of the issue.

 

On the problems with the Greek grammar

J P Lange, Commentary

"The only question is, whether, in the next clause, τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ , one independent subject is to be understood [so that it shall read, of our great Gad and Saviour Jesus Christ.—D.], or whether, with most [or rather several—they hardly appear to be the majority.—D.] recent interpreters, it should be rendered, “the appearing of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” For our part, we decide in favor of the first, and believe he words may, should, and must be understood as giving the name “great God” not to the Father, but to the Saviour Jesus Christ. On purely philological grounds, the position of Bengel will hardly be questioned: “It may be referred to Christ.” Even Winer, § 11, does not deny that σωτῆρος ἡμῶν may be regarded, consistently with grammar, as a second predicate depending upon the article τοῦ. The only ground on which he feels obliged to prefer the other view, adopted by De Wette, Huther, and others, is the doctrinal opinion, derived from the writings of Paul, that this Apostle could not have styled Christ the great God. But in view of 1Ti 3:15-16; Rom 9:5; Col 1:15-20, and other passages, we cannot regard this objection as valid. Equally arbitrary with the position that Paul regarded Christ as a mere man, and nothing more, is the Arian view, that Paul did not recognize Christ as God, yea, as μέγας θεός. Whoever will simply read and translate the words without doctrinal prejudice, will have as little hesitation in referring them to one and the same subject, as in understanding, e.g., in 2Pe 1:11, the words βασιλείαν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, as relating to the same subject. He, who is there called κύριος (Lord), is here called μέγας θεός (the great God); as is clear also from the fact that Paul ascribes an “appearing” to the Son (comp. 1Ti 6:14; 2Ti 4:1; 2Ti 4:8), but not to the Father, who is “invisible.” Taking all things into the account, we believe that the sense of the words, and the connection, speak decidedly in favor of one and the same subject (Christ). We cannot, therefore, but regard the use which the Church fathers very early made of this passage as a weapon against the Arians as entirely legitimate. [Ellicott has come to the same result with Dr. Van Oosterzee, which is that also of Calvin, Matthies, Usteri, Wiesinger, Tholuck, and Ebrard. He says: “It must be candidly avowed that it is very doubtful whether, on the grammatical principle last alluded to (in respect to two substantives closely united, and under the vinculum of a common article), the interpretation of this passage can be fully settled; see Winer, § 18, 5 Obs., p. 148. There is a presumption in favor of the adopted interpretation, but, on account of the (defining) genitive ἡμῶν (Winer, p. 142), nothing more"

Expositor's Greek Testament

"On the whole, then, we decide in favour of the R.V.m. in the rendering of this passage, appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. The grammatical argument—“the identity of reference of two substantives when under the vinculum of a common article”—is too slender to bear much weight, especially when we take into consideration not only the general neglect of the article in these epistles but the omission of it before σωτήρ in 1Ti 1:1; 1Ti 4:10. Ellicott says that “μεγάλου would seem uncalled for if applied to the Father”. To this it may be answered that (a) the epithet is not otiose here; as marking the majesty of God the Father it is parallel to the ὃς ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν, κ.τ.λ., which recalls the self-sacrificing love of the Son; both constituting the double appeal—to fear and to love—of the Judgment to come. (b) Again, St. Paul is nowhere more emphatic in his lofty language about God the Father than in these epistles; see 1Ti 1:17; 1Ti 6:15-16."

William Mounce in the Word Bible Commentary, has a very long note on the Greek grammar, which can be used for either one or two Persons. It is too long to add here.

 

In MHO, the best reading with no problems with the Greek grammar, and refers to Jesus Christ, is:

“looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and Saviour of us Jesus Christ”

Interestingly, the JW's in their Emphatic Diaglott, translate the English under the Greek text:

"of the glory of the great God and saviour of us Jesus Anointed"

And in the English in the right hand

"waiting for the BLESSED Hope, even the appearing of the glory of our great Godand Savior
Jesus Christ"

Teaching that Jesus Christ Is The Great God and Saviour!

 

Lange agrees with Dr. Wallace, and the Expositor relies on rhetoric.

The deity of Christ is taught by Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 if properly translated according to the Granville Sharpe rule. Other verses also support the deity of Christ.

Acts 20:28; As the Son of God, Christ is divine.
Eph 5:5; Here the kingdom of heaven is clearly the domain of both Christ and God.
2 Thess 1:12; our God and Lord Jesus Christ
1 Tim 5:21; this puts God and Christ on equal footing
2 Tim 4:1; Another verse presenting equal footing
Jude 4, Our only Master and Lord puts Christ equal to the highest authority

 

Lange says that it cannot be settled with the grammar!

 

Yet still agrees with Dr. Wallace as the correct view. (our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.) The reality that some are on the wrong side of biblical issues does not suggest the right side is not right...

 

For those who are interested in the deeper Greek studies on this very important Christological passage, the note by William Mounce in the Word Bible Commentary is very helpful.

William Mounce

 

but the Greek allows for both!

 

Winer and JW and others make their case for the Grammar based upon to them Jesus cannot be God!

 

Thanks.

Wallace and Robertson (Exp 21 [1921] 185–87) both describe the force of G. B. Winer’s refusal (A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament [Andover, MA: Draper, 1869] 130) to accept Sharp’s rule for theological and not grammatical reasons. Speaking of the same construction in 2 Pet 1:1, 11, Robertson is direct in his critique: “The simple truth is that Winer’s anti-Trinitarian prejudice overruled his grammatical rectitude in his remarks about 2 Peter i. 1” (Exp 21 [1921] 185); and the influence that Winer exerted as a grammarian has influenced other grammarians and several generations of scholars

 

that would be my point, that Winer and others, like JW, refuse to accept the Grammar based upon cannot see Jesus as being God, and that prejudice their viewpoint!

 

Nope. The deity of Christ is taught by Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 if properly translated according to the Granville Sharpe grammatical rule. Other verses also support the deity of Christ. Thus only one is allowed by Greek grammar, if properly understood.

 

Which you don't understand

 

It is obvious that those who will not accept the Deity of Jesus Christ, will try to find ways to distort the Bible for their advantage. My point is in accordance with Greek grammar, that the so called "first rule" of Sharp though can be used in Titus 2:13, is not conclusive, because it has exceptions to it. There are examples in the NT and Patristic Greek, where Sharp's "rule" does not work. It must be remembered that Christians did not invent Greek grammar, and used whatever "rules" there were in the first century. It is clear from Ignatius and Polycarp and other 2nd century writers, that Sharp's "rule" has its problems. This cannot be dismissed because it is not in the Bible, as the Greek is still the same, and the rules do not change. These were Greek writers, who would have known how the language works. The JW's in their Diaglott NT which is a Greek interlinear, actually translate the English under the Greek and in the right hand, that actually refers the words to Jesus Christ, and call Him "the Great God and Saviour"! Winer, though his theology prevented him from accepting that Paul could call Jesus the "Great God", admits that the grammar can do so! I know of Evangelicals, like Dr James Denny, who could not translate the Greek for John 1:1, as "and the Word was God", but used "god"!

There is no grammatical problem with the third reading I have shown in the OP.

 

In the 1881 Revised Version, it was the very strong infulence of a another Unitarian scholar, Dr Vance Smith, who convinced the "Evangelicals" on the committee, that the original reading for 1 Timothy 3:16, is not "θεος", but, "ος"! In the early Church, the Orthodox Nicene fathers, when drawing up their Creed, followed the Creed of Eusebius, who was a sympathizer of the arch heretic, Arius, and used langauge that is clearly "Subordinationism", for the eternal relation of the Father to Jesus Christ, which is heresy!