God's Name Found in the Greek Scriptures under θεόν (theon).

Humanly wonder if @Brother Rando left out an unstated contextal constraint: could "θεόν (theon) is a superlative title given to Jehovah alone." reflect untrustworthy Watchtower Society teaching contexts ? Curious if @Brother Rando has ever encountered Acts 19:37, Acts 28:6, or 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in Society Scripture Supports ?

Logos Bible Study search in LEB for strongs:G2316 IN (milestone:bible:ac19 OR milestone:bible:ac28) finds two θεόν (theon) occurrences in Acts chapter 19 & 28 that do NOT refer to יהוה (as @Pages pointed out in August 2023 with subsequent replies)

LEB reverse interlinear tagging includes Strongs numbers so LEB can be searched with corresponding Greek lemma highlighted in the Society of Biblical Languages Greek New Testament (SBLGNT). Screen shot shows Greek Strongs 2316 spelling variations: Nominative θεὸς, Genitive θεοῦ, Dative θεῷ, & Accusative θεὸν

Koine Greek is a highly inflected language where spelling typically shows grammatical usage. In contrast, the English language has some inflections: e.g. possession. English spells the subject and object of actions the same (relies on word order to show subject and object). Koine Greek spelling shows subject & object so word order has option to express emphasis.

To me, @Brother Rando could help @Brother Rando by learning Koine Greek language (expand word knowledge to include grammar & significance of word spelling differences). My Bible Study has found only one word that is always Holy God, which is The Holy יהוה name.

My Logos library does not have a Strong's Concordance with word definitions. My Bible study uses Lexicons, Dictionaries, & Encyclopedias for word definitions.

Amazon 'New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance" has product images showing scripture locations of words. My printed library has two concordances, which are useful for finding words in Scripture when a computer cannot be used.

The "Enhanced Strong's Lexicon" in my Logos library has Greek Strong's 2316

Also this Enhanced Strong's Lexicon screen shot shows Θεόν does NOT have its own Strongs number.

Bible Search in Authorized Version (AV) for "a god" OR "a goddess" found four verses:

Why did Jesus command His followers to continuously Be Believing in Jesus the same as continously Be Believing in τὸν θεόν ?

πιστεύετε εἰς τὸν θεόν, καὶ εἰς ἐμὲ πιστεύετε (John 14:1 Greek spoken by יֵשׁוּעַ ) ?

Be Ye Believing in The אלהים, also in Me Be Ye Believing

Keep Smiling 😊

Not relevant in this discussion about θεόν

@Brother Rando "The messenger who was Sent having God's Name in him would guard them to the Way to everlasting life. (Exodus 23:21)" shows @Brother Rando is currently NOT a follower of יהוה Jesus the Christ as @Brother Rando currently does NOT want to believe that Jesus truly shares Holy יהוה name with Father as it is written in Jeremiah 23:5-6 LEB =>

Hebrew noun (construct spelling => of) for righteousness has pronoun, suffixed, 1st person, plural

Human perspective => יהוה Yahweh our righteousness

יהוה perspective => 'יהוה Yahweh righteousness of We'

English translation has to express a grammatical choice between we, our, us (not specified in Hebrew 1st person pronoun suffix spelling)

Also written in Jeremiah 33:14-18 LEB =>

Melchizedek means "King Righteousness" that describes Jesus, who is worthy for continous believing the same as τὸν θεόν

Mark 12:29 SBLGNT => ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι Πρώτη ἐστίν· Ἄκουε, Ἰσραήλ, κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν,

ἀπεκρίθη : answered

ὁ Ἰησοῦς : The Jesus

ὅτι : that

Πρώτη : Most prominent

ἐστίν· : continously is

Ἄκουε, : Hear (command)

Ἰσραήλ, : Israel

κύριος ; Lord

ὁ θεὸς : The God

ἡμῶν : of/from we

κύριος : Lord

εἷς : one

ἐστιν, : continously is

Watchtower Society subtly changed word order in Mark 12:29 to emphasize human faith belief. Also @Brother Rando incorrectly inserted τὸν θεόν. Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:4 in the Greek Septuagint.

@Brother Rando incorrectly inserted τὸν twice. My faith believes a portion of Holy יהוה אלהים was inside Jesus. The words spoken by Jesus were humbly true as יהוה Jesus knew יהוה Father continously was/is/will be God while inside the resurrected body of Jesus dwelt a portion of Holy יהוה אלהים

Keep Smiling 😊

My reading Koine Greek shows @Brother Rando incorrectly inserted the definite article τὸν twice in John 20:17 on February 23. The definite article τὸν (accusative, singular, masculine) only appears before πατέρα (father).

John 20:17 SBLGNT => λέγει αὐτῇ Ἰησοῦς· Μή μου ἅπτου, οὔπω γὰρ ἀναβέβηκα πρὸς τὸν πατέρα· πορεύου δὲ πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφούς μου καὶ εἰπὲ αὐτοῖς· Ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν.

λέγει : he said

αὐτῇ : in/by/to her

Ἰησοῦς · Jesus

Μή : Not

μου : of/from me

ἅπτου, : you touching

οὔπω : not yet

γὰρ : for (because)

ἀναβέβηκα : I go up (ascend)

πρὸς : to

τὸν πατέρα· : the father

πορεύου : you go

δὲ : but

πρὸς : to

τοὺς ἀδελφούς : the brothers

μου : of/from me

καὶ : and

εἰπὲ : you say (tell)

αὐτοῖς· in/by/to he

Ἀναβαίνω : I going up (ascending)

πρὸς : to

τὸν πατέρα : the father

μου : of/from me

καὶ : and

πατέρα : father

ὑμῶν : of you

καὶ : and

θεόν : God

μου : of/from me

καὶ : and

θεὸν : God

ὑμῶν. : of you

Keep Smiling 😊

@Brother Rando

There is a major issue with your quotation copied from the bible.hub website which you did not reference.

You posted this:

The link to bible.hub is provided here. Scroll past the verse translation and commentary to the Greek section for this information.

The actual reference is to the nominative θεός, not the accusative Θεόν, as is to be expected regarding dictionary entries. 

The following is what you copied and then edited to suit your purpose. θεός was changed to Θεόν, Nominative was changed to Accusative; then you removed Strong's 2316, also removing "A deity, especially".

This is the actual website posting:

• God
• Θεὸς (Theos)
• Noun - Nominative Masculine Singular
• Strong's 2316: A deity, especially the supreme Divinity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very.

From the above example of the actual entry compared to your manipulated attempt to deceive; it is quite clear your position on θεόν, as you have stated it, is clearly false and bankrupt.

The above example also demonstrates what I have previously stated, specifically my last post, that if you regard θεόν as a "superlative title" then so also is θεός a "superlative title". And vice versa, if θεός is not a "superlative title", then neither is θεόν a "superlative title". 

As for the texts you insert "the Supreme Divinity" and "Jehovah" may I remind you the issue is not with the texts where Yahweh is the referent; but, the OT and NT texts where Yahweh is not the referent of θεόν. 

Which, stated many times in this thread, due to the open wording of your assertion, "But θεόν (theon) refers to only to the True God as in (John 17:3). θεόν (theon) is a superlative title given to Jehovah alone.", logically making other referents of θεόν in scripture to be Jehovah. 

And, it is clear that you considered all referents of θεόν in the NT to be Jehovah, witnessed by this statement in your first post. "Inserting God's Name doesn't flow smoothly in all 148 Greek occurrences." – unfortunately for you only 146 of the 148 NT instances have Yahweh as the referent – meaning, that according to both your statements, both Artemis and Paul are to be considered Jehovah.

There have been no exceptions made in any of your first post assertions; therefore, there is no argument you can make for the exclusion of any referent of θεόν, in light of those same assertions, as not being Jehovah. 

And, then there is the entire Greek corpus of literature outside of scripture to also consider also. Is θεόν, the "superlative title", also referring to Jehovah in its occurrences within Greek literature?       

You may truthfully say the following: in scripture θεόν is most usually referring to Yahweh.

In my last post I gave my assurance to you that KS4J and I are not the same person posting under two pseudonyms. The above, along with nearly all of your response is directed at KS4J making that response non-relevant to our own discussion.

Provide which Greek grammar you copied this nonsensical nugget from. You write as though θεόν is the dictionary form which it is not. The phrase you employ, "downgraded to Nominative", is foreign to grammar; and, at its best, idiotic linguistic gibberish.         

θεός is the dictionary form (nominative) from which the inflected forms (θεοῦ, θεόν, θεῷ, θεέ, etc.) are derived. These inflections of the nominative are designed to be informative as to the function (subject, object, indirect object, etc.) the word is performing in a discourse. (for θεόν functionality see my first post in this thread)

The previous paragraph has been stated ad nauseam in one form or another throughout this thread; in fact, you may remember this grammatical example from an earlier post. 

The example given below is at a most basic level in a simplified structure. Subject, or object, God is the same God in this example of grammar.

1). You (subject) saw (verb) God (object – θεόν) 

2). God (subject – θεός) saw (verb) you (object). 

I'll post this statement again for you to reflect more closely on its meaning.

• "Θεόν is the accusative singular form of θεός. Often people are confused by the fact that Greek nouns change form, depending upon their grammatical usage in a sentence. Greek is an inflected language, and its nouns are declined, meaning they take a different form when they are subject, object, indirect object, plural, etc. These changes in forms do not impact the actual meaning of the noun itself, only how it is being used in a particular sentence." (White, James R. The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief. Accordance electronic edition, version 1.0. Bloomington: Bethany House Publishers, 1998.) (emphasis mine)

For the reason mentioned at the start of this post, the remainder of your response is completely without relevance to our discussion; and, I take it as an overt attempt to deflect away from acknowledging your knowingly, and willful, manipulation of published source material. 

Your manipulated version existing only in your post:

 Website original bible.hub:

• God
• Θεὸς (Theos)
• Noun - Nominative Masculine Singular
• Strong's 2316: A deity, especially the supreme Divinity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very.

There is no excuse for this type of behavior. Why did you edit out θεός and in its place falsely paste in θεόν along with the other editing to make it seem real? You will not find the accusative form of this noun as a dictionary headword entry, as the dictionary headword form is the lexeme – in this case, θεός.

This resorting to deceit to effect the pretense of there being support for what you say is in reality nothing more than a manufactured illusion.

Now, getting back to the matter at hand regarding your proposition asserted in your very first post. There has been absolutely no legitimate support given that withstands scrutiny for the position held by yourself.

Your stated position is the following:

There has been no prior linguistic support whatsoever that θεόν is "a superlative title", and certainly not without θεός also being "a superlative title"; which, is denied. 

As documented above, this recent attempt to manufacture support by manipulating a dictionary entry from θεός to θεόν demonstrates yet again the depth of misrepresentation involved with your stated position. 

And:

And the supplied meanings to insert in the event "God's Name doesn't flow smoothly" in a particular text:

Overall, of the total 148 NT instances, only 146 of those texts have Yahweh as the referent; leaving two occurrences not referring to Yahweh at all (Acts 19:37, 28:6). Similar case in the OT (LXX) as not all instances have Yahweh as the referent (Ex. 4:16, 7:1; Judges 8:33; 1 Sam. 5:7; 2 Ki. 1:2-3, 6, 16; Judith 3:8; Ps. 44:20; Wisd. 14:15, 15:8; Jonah 1:5; Is. 44:10, 17).

Our discussion is not concerned with the texts where Yahweh is the referent; but, the seventeen occurrences where He is not the referent.

It was stated that "But θεόν (theon) refers to only to the True God" citing Jn. 17:3 as an example use of θεόν. Followed by this "θεόν (theon) is a superlative title given to Jehovah alone.".  Nowhere, in either statement, do you place any exception or limitation upon that assertion.

It is asserted that all 148 NT occurrences refer to Yahweh when you state "Inserting God's Name doesn't flow smoothly in all 148 Greek occurrences.". It can be assumed from this that you would then also consider all instances in the LXX to follow suit even though you never bothered to check the LXX to see if the data would hold up; and, it doesn't hold up either as fifteen instances of θεόν refer to someone other than Yahweh.

So, to sum up, those seventeen occurrences found in scripture, according to that complete assertion; means they should be seen as referring to "the True God", "the only true Supreme One", "the only true Self-Existent One", or "Jehovah" if that name flows smoothly in the text.

The textual data from scripture is resoundingly not on the side of your assertion, far from it. And, that assertion never once took into consideration the vast corpus of Greek literature.

I am certainly aware that theologically you don't believe Dagon, Moses, Paul, Artemis, Delphian God, Jesus, etc. are Jehovah just because they are the referent of θεόν as the assertion states.  But, that is completely contrary in position to what the assertion does in fact state.

That assertion states in unequivocal terms its belief regarding the use of θεόν; and, as written, does, in itself, fully believe, without any exception, what is stated therein. If there is any exception to be made; then, the assertion, as written, cannot be true.

Therefore, the logical implication of it being a true statement is that all referents of θεόν are, as it states, Jehovah. 

Which is why you quite naturally argue against that very same assertion of yours when those seventeen texts in scripture are brought up. That assertion, as framed, is simply not true either in scripture or outside of it.

That, in a nutshell, is what we are discussing in this thread; including, of course, the irrational view of θεόν as you define it.

To be consistent with, and portray, the truth of scripture will necessitate the reforming of that assertion to reflect that not all occurrences of θεόν have Yahweh as a referent. 

@Brother Rando

As for the beginning of your last post, I have said all there is to say on the matter, believe what you will. 

Obviously, you weren't paying any attention while in English class when the basics of sentence structure, subject, verb, and object was being presented. 

With Greek, this question you ask is grammatical nonsense since you only see θεόν as a title with its own entity; but, not what it truly is – a marker of grammatical function – predominately an object. 

So, I'll repeat some items below for you regarding specifically subject, object, indirect object, having an inflected form taken from the lexeme (dictionary form) in the Greek language.

1). "Θεόν is the accusative singular form of θεός." 

The above is known and not contested.

2). "Often people are confused by the fact that Greek nouns change form, depending upon their grammatical usage in a sentence."

3). "Greek is an inflected language, and its nouns are declined, meaning they take a different form when they are subject, object, indirect object, plural, etc."

The above two points describe your grammatical confusion regarding the nature of Greek nouns.

4). "These changes in forms do not impact the actual meaning of the noun itself, only how it is being used in a particular sentence." 

This describes the confusion you have surrounding the mistaken idea that θεόν is separate from its headword lexeme (θεός) in definition and meaning.

All four points above from (White, James R. The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief. Accordance electronic edition, version 1.0. Bloomington: Bethany House Publishers, 1998.)

You will notice in the following example that the nominative θεός is the subject; while the accusative θεόν is the object – its general role in the language. Neither the nominative θεός or the inflected accusative θεόν have any difference in definition or meaning.

1). You (subject) saw (verb) God (object – θεόν) 

2). God (subject – θεός) saw (verb) you (object). 

If, the surrounding context for the above statements is that Yahweh is in view; then, both θεός and θεόν find their referent in Yahweh. On the other hand, if the immediate context is a discussion regarding Zeus; then, both θεός and θεόν find their referent in Zeus. 

I would suggest that a refresher on Greek subject and object will be helpful in sorting out your dilemma on this.

As a reminder, and against the failure of your memory, I will re-post several examples where Jesus is the referent of θεόν.

Arius writing:

"Καὶ εἰς κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων γεγεννημένον θεὸν λόγον," (Kelly, J. N. D. (2006). Early Christian Creeds (Third Edition, p. 189). Continuum.)

From Chalcedon:

"ἀλλʼ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν υἱὸν καὶ μονογενῆ, θεὸν λόγον, κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χοιστόν"  (Schaff, P. (1890). The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes: The Greek and Latin Creeds, with Translations (Vol. 2, pp. 62–63). Harper & Brothers.)

Ignatius writing:

"Δοξάζω Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν θεὸν" Smyrnaeans 1:1 (Brannan, R. (2011). Apostolic Fathers Greek-English Interlinear. Lexham Press.)

And do remember that the assertion as presented in this thread does not make any exception to its claim that a referent of θεόν is Jehovah. Additionally, that ever same assertion does not attempt to limit, or restrict, itself to a particular corpus of literature. It is wide open.

See above. It is yourself who is in stubborn disagreement with Greek lexicons which contradict the unusual position you hold. From which, no support for your view is in sight.

Jesus addresses his Father in Jn. 17:1, and in Jn. 17:3 θεὸν is appositional to σὲ (you) referring to the Father in verse 1. So, yes, in a roundabout way of speaking.

A minor quibble with the above as θεὸν is anarthrous; nonetheless, the Father is in view as per your previous statement, "The Father alone is the only true God (τὸν θεόν)"; and, in accordance with that statement regarding θεόν, then Jn. 1:18 is referring to the Father.

Who, exactly, is the one making that claim? Not myself certainly. It is the Father who no one has seen. 

Take a moment to reflect on these words, your words, "The Father alone is the only true God (τὸν θεόν)", and "Nobody has seen (τὸν θεόν)", with the realization that this assertion, "To make the false claim that Nobody has seen (Jesus) at ANYTIME is a lie." is then ludicrous at best.

@Brother Rando

In your latest response of continued grammatical comedy, inflicted upon the Greek language, specifically having to do with your private interpretation where θεὸν is its own unique identifier of Jehovah; and, not as a marker of linguistic function within the Greek language – its sole purpose within that inflected language.

θεόν, itself, carries no definition different than its lexeme θεός, God or god. You're welcome to disagree; but, please then provide lexicon support that θεόν alone is a "superlative title" excluding θεός.

In accordance with your personal view that θεόν is to be defined not only differently from θεός; but, that it also enjoys a title status apart from its nominative form θεός. I must ask you in light of your stated position in your first post having asserted that θεός has one meaning, while θεόν has another, "The first title is θεόν (theon) and it refers to 'the God" as Supreme One or Self-Existent One. The second Greek title θεός (theos) can apply to God, a god, or gods and is shared with many."; what special meaning do you then give to the other inflected singular forms of θεός (θεοῦ, θεῷ, and θεέ)?

Certainly, they too must have their own individual definitions; and, it will be most enlightening to have you define those inflected forms.

Several items of disagreement arise from the above statements. 

First, what you are ultimately saying in reference to this language's grammar is the suggestion that Jesus is never an object (Θεόν) and the Father is only ever an object (Θεόν) – rather silly.

Second, the absolute declaration of "NEVER" in your "Jesus is NEVER called Θεόν" statement has been shown to be false multiple times in this thread. Having been made aware of this fact you still make false statements as if comprehension of what is clearly written is entirely missing from your being.

Arius writing:

"Καὶ εἰς κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων γεγεννημένον θεὸν λόγον," (Kelly, J. N. D. (2006). Early Christian Creeds (Third Edition, p. 189). Continuum.)

From Chalcedon:

"ἀλλʼ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν υἱὸν καὶ μονογενῆ, θεὸν λόγον, κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χοιστόν"  (Schaff, P. (1890). The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes: The Greek and Latin Creeds, with Translations (Vol. 2, pp. 62–63). Harper & Brothers.)

Ignatius writing:

"Δοξάζω Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν θεὸν" Smyrnaeans 1:1 (Brannan, R. (2011). Apostolic Fathers Greek-English Interlinear. Lexham Press.)

Third, in regard to "alone" in your "The Father alone is Θεόν" statement; I remind you of the seventeen texts within scripture having referents of θεόν who are not Yahweh (Ex. 4:16, 7:1; Judges 8:33; 1 Sam. 5:7; 2 Ki. 1:2-3, 6, 16; Judith 3:8; Ps. 44:20; Wisd. 14:15, 15:8; Jonah 1:5; Is. 44:10, 17).

The "The Father alone is Θεόν" is false as witnessed by scripture as that asserted claim makes no provision for those seventeen instances mentioned above; and, who must then logically be considered as "the Father". 

You will of course argue against this, your own assertion, which demonstrates the invalidity of those same assertions made by yourself. Critical thinking is a must.

The above also applies to this statement "There is One God (θεόν), the Father Almighty". You fail to recognize that while there is only one true God worthy of worship apart from all other gods; that distinction is not found, or determined, in a grammatical inflection marking most usually an object in discourse.

So, it is still the truthful case that one can state only that θεόν in scripture most usually finds Yahweh as a referent.

The quotations are clearly cited as to their origin as you recognize; so, who is it then that has stated θεὸν λόγον (Arius, Chalcedon), or τὸν θεὸν (Ignatius), etc., is to be found in the Bible??? I would guess no one.

So, this objection you make above is entirely without merit regarding those citations.

From my view, what you are engaged in is that of having a personal belief in which you fully have believed your assertions to affirm; but, in reality, those assertions go well beyond what is the actual truth of the matter. Leaving you promoting a false narrative.

And, once again, as witnessed above, you are having to argue against the logical conclusion of your own open-ended assertions because those same assertions are, for one, based on a false foundation. And, two, they also are written without any expressed limitations or exceptions placed on them; therefore, Jesus is not, "NEVER", as you stated, but "is" a referent of θεόν.

I'm still interested in reading the individual definitions you entertain for these inflected singular forms of θεός (θεοῦ, θεῷ, and θεέ)? What might they be?

In the end, this still remains true: that θεόν in scripture most usually finds Yahweh as a referent.

Yes, you have, twice now recently. Establishing that the existence of texts where Jesus is the referent of θεόν is recognized and acknowledged by yourself.     

Though the above protest is correct in a technical sense, meaning the cited works reside outside scripture, is itself not a sustainable objection given how the assertion is predicated; and, that assertion, as you wrote it, "Jesus is NEVER called Θεόν", is an absolute without exception statement that is contradicted by factual historical data.

It fails on two accounts, the first being the absolute "NEVER" is contradicted by the existence of written historical documents having Jesus as the referent of θεόν; which, you acknowledge as existing. Two, within those emphatic words, "Jesus is NEVER called Θεόν", no limitation is expressed confining it to a particular and specific body of literary works, i.e. scripture.

Therefore, the clear overall conclusion is that this objection you make has no legitimate grounds on which it can claim having merit whatsoever.  

I think if you took a moment to consider what all is entailed within biblical research you too will appreciate the comical nature of what you have written.

A trip down memory lane may put the above in perspective for you starting with the following question.

And you, yourself, have never in this forum once utilized external resources to support any of your claims? 

The answer to that question is found in just one post where you cite Cardinal Ratzinger, Eusebius, The Catholic Encyclopedia, and a Catholic Catechism - “Into Christ", along with links to various Wikipedia and jw.org articles.

The above is just one example taken from a single post among all the postings you have made on this forum; which, puts you in the same category of referencing and using materials external to scripture you seem to suddenly spurn.

In summary, either you are most forgetful of the external resource content, "outside the Bible", used in your own postings; or, you operate using dual standards – one standard for yourself with a different standard in place for others.

Now that this has been addressed a return to what it is that scripture itself confirms regarding the core issue in this thread.

Scripture will allow you to truthfully say that most usually θεόν finds its referent in Yahweh; but, not always.

This response has seemingly no relation to what you are supposedly interacting with; and, that is:

• Though the above protest is correct in a technical sense, meaning the cited works reside outside scripture, is itself not a sustainable objection given how the assertion is predicated; and, that assertion, as you wrote it, "Jesus is NEVER called Θεόν", is an absolute without exception statement that is contradicted by factual historical data.

In the above paragraph will you point to which section led you to make the above statement? As there is nothing in my reading of it, and I wrote it, that even remotely mirrors what you say is claimed.

The issue directly related to θεόν finding its referent in Jesus has not been where in scripture as you attempt to imply by the above silliness; but, that you have contended Jesus is never a referent of θεόν in your many statements.

And, contrary to those "never statements", written by yourself, which have been shown to be false by the exhibit of written historical documents where Jesus is found as the referent of θεόν.

A re-posting of those witnesses must be necessary for your memory.

Ignatius writing:

• "Δοξάζω Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν θεὸν" Smyrnaeans 1:1 (Brannan, R. (2011). Apostolic Fathers Greek-English Interlinear. Lexham Press.)

Arius writing:

• "Καὶ εἰς κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων γεγεννημένον θεὸν λόγον," (Kelly, J. N. D. (2006). Early Christian Creeds (Third Edition, p. 189). Continuum.)

From Chalcedon:

• "ἀλλʼ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν υἱὸν καὶ μονογενῆ, θεὸν λόγον, κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χοιστόν"  (Schaff, P. (1890). The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes: The Greek and Latin Creeds, with Translations (Vol. 2, pp. 62–63). Harper & Brothers.)

The small remainder of your post is without any degree of relevance to our discussion whatsoever and needs no comment.

The above, in a nutshell, demonstrates the fundamental issue and apparent challenge of you understanding what it is that you, yourself, have written and assert.

As stated previously, the issue central to our discussion on this particular point has always revolved on your use of the unqualified "never" in your assertion. That assertion you make, "Jesus is NEVER called Θεόν", has no exception; in other words, there is no constraint limiting its application to any specific body of literary works.

Our discussion, re-read the posts, has not ever been on, if it is found in scripture, or where in scripture; but, solely on the use of "never" having a universal and without exception connotation.

You fail to realize that the normal common sense understanding of this assertion using an unqualified "never" indicates that absolutely no literature exists anywhere where θεόν will find its referent in Jesus. Which is of course untrue as witnessed by the documents presented in this thread.

Since θεόν does find its referent in Jesus in a body of works outside scripture your assertion needs rewriting to reflect that in some way. 

@Brother Rando

As always, you are welcome to express your opinion(s) even though as expressed they have absolutely nothing remotely to do with the core discussion at hand. 

I take it by that, you have exhausted the wealth of unfounded assertions available to assert in the hope of their being accepted as reasonable, rational, grounded arguments based in fact; and, which find their substance in grammatical and lexical convention within the Greek language.

Let's take a moment to reflect upon your asserted premises as stated in this thread.

• 1). "But θεόν (theon) refers to only to the True God as in (John 17:3). θεόν (theon) is a superlative title given to Jehovah alone."

The above carries the implication that all referents of θεός in the accusative are, and can only be, Jehovah. There have been no restrictions written into that statement.

The following texts disprove your claim and show it to be false (Ex. 4:16, 7:1; Judges 8:33; 1 Sam. 5:7; 2 Ki. 1:2-3, 6, 16; Judith 3:8; Ps. 44:20; Wisd. 14:15, 15:8; Jonah 1:5; Is. 44:10, 17; Acts 19:37, 28:6).

Then, there are all those referents of θεόν found within the vast amount of Greek literature; which, under your above rule would necessarily have to be taken as Jehovah as well.

• 2). "Inserting God's Name doesn't flow smoothly in all 148 Greek occurrences. For example, in John 17:3 inserting the meaning of the title θεόν (theon) not only fits, but gives deeper understanding."

Here, in the above statement, you did not even taken the time to vet those 148 instances which include (Acts 19:37, 28:6). Those two texts out of the 148 you reference make the above a false statement.

• 3). "The Greek language contains two Greek titles for God. The first title is θεόν (theon) and it refers to 'the God" as Supreme One or Self-Existent One. The second Greek title θεός (theos) can apply to God, a god, or gods and is shared with many."

Where in the above is there any support for that statement referenced in a grammar or lexicon? 

θεός and the inflected accusative form θεόν are the same word having the same definition – God, or god, with the surrounding context giving the identity of which God/god is being referenced. 

The inflected singular forms of θεός (θεοῦ, θεόν, θεῷ, and θεέ) are simply markers of grammatical function; not, different words each having their own independent and separate definitions.

Having been mentioned previously, if you take θεόν as being, in your words, a "superlative title"; then, "superlative title" also applies to θεός, θεοῦ, θεῷ, and θεέ.

• "Often people are confused by the fact that Greek nouns change form, depending upon their grammatical usage in a sentence."
• "Greek is an inflected language, and its nouns are declined, meaning they take a different form when they are subject, object, indirect object, plural, etc."
• "These changes in forms do not impact the actual meaning of the noun itself, only how it is being used in a particular sentence." 

Quotations above from (White, James R. The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief. Accordance electronic edition, version 1.0. Bloomington: Bethany House Publishers, 1998.)

• 4). "Jesus is NEVER called Θεόν"

The above has been shown to be false as θεὸν λόγον and τὸν θεὸν both find Jesus as the referent. Yes, outside of scripture; but, where in your assertion above is the qualifying word "scripture" written? It just states "NEVER" and that is false in light of written historical documents. 

To summarize, you can truthfully state the following pertaining to your assertions: 

1). that within scripture θεόν most usually finds Yahweh as its referent.

2). that the referents of θεόν in Greek literature are not likely to have Yahweh in mind – which is why you qualify your premise in the first place.

3). that within scripture θεόν does not find its referent in Jesus.

4). that in written documents outside of scripture θεόν does find its referent in Jesus.

5). that the singular inflected forms of θεός carry the identical definition.

It would be good for you to retract and modify your previous asserted claims to reflect what is true and factual.

Now, I believe we can consider this discussion as compete for at least the time being.

@Brother Rando

In your last posting it is difficult to follow exactly where you are quoting me, and the point where you are responding to me – they are rather undefined. Due to that indistinctness a re-posting of quoted material seems best.

The following is what you quoted and then went on to frame your response. What I stated in my post was:

• Let's take a moment to reflect upon your asserted premises as stated in this thread.

• The above carries the implication that all referents of θεός in the accusative are, and can only be, Jehovah. There have been no restrictions written into that statement.
• The following texts disprove your claim and show it to be false (Ex. 4:16, 7:1; Judges 8:33; 1 Sam. 5:7; 2 Ki. 1:2-3, 6, 16; Judith 3:8; Ps. 44:20; Wisd. 14:15, 15:8; Jonah 1:5; Is. 44:10, 17; Acts 19:37, 28:6).

Your entire interaction with my previous post is built on the listing of the first, of three, assertions made by yourself in this thread along with my two comments shown above regarding that one particular first assertion.

The comment having seventeen texts is truncated down to just one text, Ex. 4:16, from which you proceed then to make your argument.

Those same mentioned seventeen texts vividly demonstrate that others can, and are, found as referents of θεόν; which, you claim to be reserved only for Jehovah alone.  

And, as expected, you must then overthrow the clear and obvious sense of your assertion in hope of disqualifying it as applying to that specific text.

Your assertion cannot, as written, account for that phenomenon; and therefore, you must on each of those seventeen texts argue against what your assertion emphatically states. 

What does your assertion state? It states explicitly, "But θεόν (theon) refers to only to the True God as in (John 17:3). θεόν (theon) is a superlative title given to Jehovah alone.". (emphasis mine) 

From this it ought to be crystal clear that your asserted rule, as written, carries the straightforward meaning that when θεόν is used, it always, and only, finds its referent in Yahweh. 

Do you read anywhere in your own assertion, provided above with emphasis, where the referent of θεόν is never not Jehovah only and alone? There isn't one condition, or exception, ever made in your writing to qualify that statement – it is absolute and universal in scope.

Therefore, when someone other than Yahweh is the referent as in Ex. 4:16 (Moses) you then must disagree that θεόν is used only for God- Jehovah alone as you otherwise positively assert in your statement.

Is that what your statement asserts regarding the use of θεόν? 

Are you not able to comprehend the difference between what your θεόν rule demands absolutely; and, what you then must explain away because of that same demand it makes on your own theology? You are in conflict with your own rule.

In other words, you are, in this instance, now arguing completely against what you have asserted time and again in this thread as truth. Which demonstrates with great clarity that your assertion as you have stated it; in some sense, has to be, and is, false. 

A shift unrelated in topic is now introduced to this conversation.

Up to this point in our exchange the focus has always been upon θεός, its accusative form, and Greek in general. This is warranted by the fact that your assertions are derived from, and center on, the Greek language – not Hebrew.

This attempted venture into the status of an indefinite article within the Hebrew language is far outside having any relevance to what is being discussed in this thread. I find it to be nothing more than an act of diverting away from what is, and has been, central to our exchange – the Greek language.

In summary, it has been strongly suggested more than once that you re-write your assertion to reflect the truth; and, that specific truth is, that in scripture θεόν most usually, not always, finds its referent in Yahweh.

The above response makes little sense as the Hebrew language is not a part of this discussion. The referenced OT texts containing θεόν are of course found in the LXX written in the Greek language; and, the two Acts references are in the Greek NT.

As you are well aware Hebrew is immaterial for this discussion due to your assertion being founded only on the Greek language and in particular one inflected form of θεός.

Each of these LXX and NT Greek texts use θεόν where Yahweh is not the referent. Ex. 4:16, 7:1; Judges 8:33; 1 Sam. 5:7; 2 Ki. 1:2-3, 6, 16; Judith 3:8; Ps. 44:20; Wisd. 14:15, 15:8; Jonah 1:5; Is. 44:10, 17; Acts 19:37, 28:6. 

Speaking very briefly to your mention of a textual issue between the MT and LXX at Jer. 10:10; which, I have to say, is outside and far from having relevance to our discussion. 

• "Verses 6–8 and 10 (MT) are not represented by Sept. and v. 9 (MT) is located by Sept. after ידברו (MT, v. 5)."
• "On this basis a calculation can be made which shows that the available space would have been filled by a Hebrew text corresponding in length to Sept. There is room for כתמר מקשׁה המה ולא ידברו (MT, v. 5) before v. 9, for the remainder of v. 5 (MT) after v. 9, but there is no room for MT vv. 6–8, 10 between וגם היטיב אין אותם and v. 11."
• (McKane, W. (1986). A critical and exegetical commentary on Jeremiah (p. 217). T&T Clark International.)

My guess, and translation of the above would be that the Hebrew exemplar used for copying was without verses 6-8, and 10. 

This seems quite likely as the DSS 4QJerB (4Q71 Jeremiah b – 168–63 BC) is referenced in the above commentary and is an exhibit of an existing shorter Jeremiah 10 Hebrew text reflected in the LXX.

In any event it has no real bearing upon our discussion regarding the assertions brought by this thread.

So, in preparation of getting back to the actual topic, a reminder seems to be in order.

And that reminder is that our discussion does not revolve on texts where θεόν finds its referent in Yahweh; but, that it does solely revolve on those texts of scripture where the referent is someone other than Yahweh. 

And that is the significant issue which causes you and your assertion to separate from one another – part company if you will. In other words, you are more than happy to stand behind it until those seventeen texts are brought up. 

At that point you find it necessary to argue against the very idea your assertion presents; thereby, demonstrating that the logical demands of your own assertion(s) are contrary to your own personal beliefs.

Below is the perfect example of you parting ways with your assertion(s).

I'm certain you believe the above; however, your own assertion(s) emphatically disagree with you.

Once again, let me remind you of two assertions from your first post. I will start first with the one concerning the total number of occurrences in the NT of θεόν.

You stated in that first post the following: "Inserting God's Name doesn't flow smoothly in all 148 Greek occurrences. For example, in John 17:3 inserting the meaning of the title θεόν (theon) not only fits, but gives deeper understanding." 

By that statement it is quite evident that you believed "all 148 Greek occurrences" in the NT apply to God; and that if Jehovah "doesn't flow smoothly" you suggest inserting the meaning you give to θεόν. And, those two suggestions are "the only true Supreme One" and "the only true Self-Existent One".

Have you tried "the only true Supreme One" or "the only true Self-Existent One" in place of Jehovah for Acts 19:37, 28:6?

I'm certain that you personally do not believe either Artemis or Paul in those texts are Jehovah – that is not in question. 

The issue lies, as it always has, within the assertion itself; it demands by its wording that "all 148 Greek occurrences" in the NT explicitly refer to Jehovah, and only Jehovah.

As you now recognize only 146 of those 148 instances apply to Yahweh – so you need to re-write that statement to reflect what is true.

The above statements came on the heels of the now rather famous assertion – "But θεόν (theon) refers to only to the True God as in (John 17:3). θεόν (theon) is a superlative title given to Jehovah alone.".

I'll do an old style Cliff Notes version:

• 1). θεόν refers only to the True God; and,
• 2). θεόν is a superlative title given to Jehovah alone.

What obstacle is causing difficulty for you to understand the weight and trajectory those two statements carry when applied to any and all literature where θεόν is used?

Those statements above assert unequivocally that all referents of θεόν, without exception, and without distinction, can only be, and are Jehovah. 

It is quite obvious that here again you personally don't have the belief that all referents of θεόν in all literature are in fact Jehovah.  But, that personal belief you hold is completely contrary to the explicit logical demands and expectation this universal claim imposes on all literature and all referents of θεόν.

What that means, is that if you, yourself, ever consider those assertions to not be true in certain texts; then, those self-same assertions are simply not true to begin with.

The remedy is to re-write your statements to assert what is truthfully reflected in scripture; and, that is: in scripture θεόν most usually, not always, finds its referent in Yahweh.

That statement also then places a limit on the corpus of literature under consideration.

Not quite correct. I believe you have inherently misunderstood the reason for case as it functions within the language. 

The singular inflected forms of θεός (θεοῦ, θεόν, θεῷ, θεέ) are available to be used in any context. Each one is God, or god, in the given context they are found within. The answer to which God, or god, is in view, becomes revealed by the surrounding context. 

θεός and its inflected forms do not differ in dictionary meaning. θεός, θεοῦ, θεόν, θεῷ, and θεέ can be used in reference to any God, or god, without any emendation made to that term's dictionary definition.

Within this language case forms are necessary to determine what function a particular word, or group of words, is performing within that discourse.

Quite simply, without case endings no one would know for certain what is the subject, object, indirect object, what is singular, or what is plural, etc., in their everyday oral or written communication.

And equally important the inflected forms also allow one to know which words go together as there is no set sentence structure in the language as there is in English (subject-verb-object).

The following from various sources will hopefully help you understand this better.

• Greek is an inflected language, and its nouns are declined, meaning they take a different form when they are subject, object, indirect object, plural, etc. These changes in forms do not impact the actual meaning of the noun itself, only how it is being used in a particular sentence. 

(White, James R. The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief. Accordance electronic edition, version 1.0. Bloomington: Bethany House Publishers, 1998.)

NOUN CASES

• Cases (nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, and dative) identify how the noun or adjective functions grammatically within a sentence.
• English doesn’t employ case endings except for apostrophe “s” (to indicate possession) and plural “s.” Instead, English uses word order to indicate subjects and objects of sentences and prepositions to connect nouns. For example, a word that is the subject of a sentence nearly always comes before the verb, while the object of the sentence typically follows the verb; if we invert the order of the words, we invert the meaning of the sentence. In the sentence, “An angel finds a man,” the word “angel” is the subject of the sentence and the word “man” the object. In the sentence, “A man finds an angel,” “man” is the subject of the sentence and “angel” the object. We have inverted the order of the words, and in so doing we have also inverted the meaning of the sentence.
• In Greek, the first sentence should be written: ἄγγελος εὑρίσκει ἄνθρωπον.
• ἄγγελος is the subject because it is in the nominative case (-ος stem-ending), and ἄνθρωπον is the object because it is in the accusative case (-ον stem-ending). In Greek, the meaning of the sentence is the same if we invert the order of the words (ἄνθρωπον εὑρίσκει ἄγγελος) because the case—not the order of the words—determines which word is the subject or object.

NOMINATIVE AND ACCUSATIVE RULES

• The basic elements of a sentence will use the nominative and accusative cases in the following ways.
• 1.   The subject of a verb is in the nominative case.
• 2.   The direct object of a verb is in the accusative case.
• 3.   All verbs agree with their subject in number and person.

(Schwandt, J. D. (2020). An Introduction to Biblical Greek: A Grammar with Exercises (Revised Edition, pp. 30–31). Lexham Press.)

The Greek Case System

• In English, the relationship of a particular substantive (noun or pronoun used in place of a noun) to the rest of a sentence is indicated through word order and prepositions.
• In Greek, on the other hand, these relationships are indicated by case markers (e.g., 1 John 5:11: ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ θεός). In this example, the nominative case ὁ θεός designates the subject; the accusative case ζωὴν αἰώνιον conveys the direct object; and the dative case ἡμῖν specifies the indirect object. Thus, we learn that God (subject) gave eternal life (direct object) to us (indirect object). Because Greek is an inflected language, distinguishing cases by distinctive endings, word order is not needed to mark out a word as the subject, direct object, or indirect object. Rather, word order may convey emphasis, especially when the conventional word order is reversed.

(Köstenberger, A. J. (2020). Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, Revised Edition (p. 53). B&H Academic.)

• Another type of language is called an inflected language. In this case, word function is not indicated by word order; rather, it is indicated by changes in the form (that is, the spelling) of the words in the sentence. Since Greek is an inflected language, this means that word order is not semantic in Greek. That is, changing the order of the words does not change the meaning as it does in English.

(Decker, Rodney J. Reading Koine Greek. Accordance electronic edition, version 2.0. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014.)

Grammatical Gender

• Grammatical gender is not necessarily related to physical gender, and grammatical gender—except when marking the gender of people and animals—doesn’t contribute to word meaning. Rather, it helps organize spelling conventions for noun and adjective stems.

(Schwandt, J. D. (2020). An Introduction to Biblical Greek: A Grammar with Exercises (Revised Edition, p. 47). Lexham Press.)

• Gender is a grammatical category: masculine, feminine, or neuter. Words do not possess sex; they are characterized by gender. The genders are simply groups of words that use the same inflectional endings—linguistic classifications, not biological ones.
• The category of gender tells us which endings to use on nouns and how to spell other words (such as adjectives) that are related to them.

(Decker, Rodney J. Reading Koine Greek. Accordance electronic edition, version 2.0. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014.)

Define "natural state" and explain why it is pertinent to whether a noun will, or will not, have an article.

Your rule is faced with an exception at Acts 19:37. That is where the singular masculine θεὸν becomes "goddess" due to the use of a feminine singular accusative article modifying θεὸν (τὴν θεὸν).    

Simply provide support for this claim from a Greek grammar.

I suggest you do some research and search the Greek NT for Θεος and report back how many of those results returned are feminine gender.

You are making a noun's indefiniteness as being predicated by gender? Which Greek grammar did you read that in?

According to the above, you say a nominative noun can become an accusative noun by the addition of a nominative article. That statement is in complete error, and ludicrous. 

ὁ θεός is nominative and writing the singular masculine θεός with the nominative article ὁ doesn't become accusative. If someone wants masculine singular accusative they write, or say, θεόν or τὸν θεόν.

Obviously, you have failed to understand that an article is the same case as the word it is modifying. For instance, ὁ θεός, both nominative; τὸν θεόν, both accusative; τοῦ θεοῦ, both genitive, etc. 

I must say, all the above grammatical nonsense you have provided is quite the word salad. I'll ask you again to provide the Greek grammar's name and page numbers associated with these gems of grammatical wisdom you have thoughtfully provided.

By your general response I'll consider that you have now conceded your error regarding the wording of your assertions under discussion; and, accept they need revision to reflect the truth.