- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ June 28 2013,06:09) About having a bias, I assume that can creep in but the Granville Sharp rule applies here and is not subjective. You cannot just assume that translators translated the Bible to satisfy their bias when you don't agree because it doesn't fit your understanding. That is simply ignorance. We are to test things and this verse has certainly been tested. Here is what NET notes says about this verse:
So now, you cannot say that the Bible does not say that Jesus is God because He is called our God and Savior which I have clearly shown you in several translations and the notes regarding the Greek construction. This is not debatable.
So, my question:
Does the Bible say that Jesus is our God and Savior in all 14 of those translations quoted above?
If you actual do a study on Granville Sharp, you will find that he was an Englishman, self-taught in Greek. He set out to PROVE the divinity of Jesus in the Bible (agenda?); and thus, “discovered” this rule. Now it is important to know and understand that this “rule” did not exist in Greek prior to his “discovery” in 1798 (well that is the year his book was published. He discovered it earlier). Did you know that before his “discovery” such a “rule” did not even exist in Greek? I would think that the Greeks know more about their language than a self-taught, agenda-having, Englishman..wouldn't you?What he found was 8 instances that fit his “rule” and ran with it. He did a great job at it as he has fooled many people into believing that Jesus is God.
Now, to him and you, what about these following verses..
Matt 20:18
“tois archiereusin kai grammateusin”..which is the chief priests and scribes.Now, I ask..are the chief priests and scribes the same person/people? Because, according to Sharp's rule, they are!!
Luke 21:12
“tas synagogas kai phylakas”..which is the synagogues and prisons.Again, I ask..are the synagogues and prisons the same places in this verse? Because, according to Sharp's rule, they are!!
One can not create a rule and then pick and choose when to use it. There are actually more verses that go against his “rule” than verses to support it!! I would rethink using his “rule” if I were you!!
So, to answer your question..NO..Jesus is not our God and Savior. We only have ONE God, and that God is identified for us by Jesus. Our ONE God is His Father and ours. I will listen to Jesus instead of Granville Sharp!!
Quote (Lightenup @ June 28 2013,06:31) In Heb 1 Quote 8But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”e
10He also says,
“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”
Compare:
Psalm 102Quote 1Hear my prayer, O Jehovah, And let my cry come unto thee. 2Hide not thy face from me in the day of my distress: Incline thine ear unto me; In the day when I call answer me speedily.
3For my days consume away like smoke, And my bones are burned as a firebrand.
4My heart is smitten like grass, and withered; For I forget to eat my bread.
5By reason of the voice of my groaning My bones cleave to my flesh.
6I am like a pelican of the wilderness; I am become as an owl of the waste places.
7I watch, and am become like a sparrow That is alone upon the house-top.
8Mine enemies reproach me all the day; They that are mad against me do curse by me.
9For I have eaten ashes like bread, And mingled my drink with weeping,
10Because of thine indignation and thy wrath: For thou hast taken me up, and cast me away.
11My days are like a shadow that declineth; And I am withered like grass.
12But thou, O Jehovah, wilt abide for ever; And thy memorial name unto all generations.
13Thou wilt arise, and have mercy upon Zion; For it is time to have pity upon her, Yea, the set time is come.
14For thy servants take pleasure in her stones, And have pity upon her dust.
15So the nations shall fear the name of Jehovah, And all the kings of the earth thy glory.
16For Jehovah hath built up Zion; He hath appeared in his glory.
17He hath regarded the prayer of the destitute, And hath not despised their prayer.
18This shall be written for the generation to come; And a people which shall be created shall praise Jehovah.
19For he hath looked down from the height of his sanctuary; From heaven did Jehovah behold the earth;
20To hear the sighing of the prisoner; To loose those that are appointed to death;
21That men may declare the name of Jehovah in Zion, And his praise in Jerusalem;
22When the peoples are gathered together, And the kingdoms, to serve Jehovah.
23He weakened my strength in the way; He shortened my days.
24I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: Thy years are throughout all generations.
25Of old didst thou lay the foundation of the earth; And the heavens are the work of thy hands.
26They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; Yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; As a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:
27But thou art the same, And thy years shall have no end.
28The children of thy servants shall continue, And their seed shall be established before thee.
Quote I certainly understand that kurios can refer to a man who is a master and not YHVH. However, sometimes it is used where YHVH is originally written or when YHVH is meant. So you will pick and choose when you want it to mean YHVH and when it means a man? Let me guess, whenever it is used for Jesus it means YHVH and when it is used for anyone else it means man?
Quote If you look that passage up in the OT, what the Son is said to have done in the Hebrews passage, Jehovah is said to have done in the Psalms passage. We MUST understand that God, the Father, created the world! He did it alone!! God said that He created it by Himself. Knowing this, we know that in Hebrews 1 the text keeps going “back and forth” between God and Jesus.
1:1 is God
1:2 God
1:3 Jesus
1:4 Jesus
1:5 the “he” is God..the “thou art my son” is Jesus
1:6 again the “he” is God who brought Jesus into this world.
1:7 God
1:8 “he” is God..”thy throne, o god” is Jesus
1:9 talking about Jesus being anointed by God.
1:10 God
1:11 God
1:12 God
1:13 God telling Jesus to sit at his right hand.AND..this is IMPORTANT..there are NO chapters/verses in the original manuscripts!! So, what does chapter 2 go on talking about? Jesus? NO..it is GOD that it is talking about. And it goes on to talk about God putting the world under Jesus. Jesus calls us his “brothers” and will sing praise TO God (Heb2:12) and what God has GIVEN Him (Heb2:13). So, if Jesus recognizes us as brothers, and recognizes that God gave us to Him, then maybe you should, too. Jesus recognized that he was like us and He was NOT God. Can't you see that?
Give it up jb,
Quote Detractors maintain that there are numerous examples in the Greek where Granville Sharp's rule fails to hold up, i.e. where two distinct referents are obviously intended. However, as pointed out by Daniel Wallace, this is due to a misapplication of the rule.^[1]^ What is often overlooked is that Granville Sharp distinctly noted that the rule applies when the two nouns are singular and apply to persons, not things. When these restrictions are considered, there are no exceptions to be noted in native Koine Greek constructions. Wallace has restated Granville Sharp's rule in order to explicitly state all the restrictions and to enhance the readability of the rule.
In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by kai (thus, article-substantive-kai-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent. ^[2]^
Btw,
You gave me an answer but not an answer to THIS question:Does the Bible say that Jesus is our God and Savior in all 14 of those translations quoted above?
Also, did gravity exist before Isaac Newton discovered it?
From what you argue about the Granville Sharp rule, gravity doesn't exist because Isaac Newton defined it and claimed it existed way before he defined it. Now why didn't Moses mention this supposed 'law' if there really was a law about such a thing?
Goodness, do you see how ridiculous that would be to ignore the law of gravity for the similar reasons that you want to ignore the Granville Sharp rule.
Oh and one more thing, can the Holy Spirit guide an Englishman about His inspired word? Yes or No
Quote (Lightenup @ June 29 2013,22:32) Give it up jb, Quote Detractors maintain that there are numerous examples in the Greek where Granville Sharp's rule fails to hold up, i.e. where two distinct referents are obviously intended. However, as pointed out by Daniel Wallace, this is due to a misapplication of the rule.^[1]^ What is often overlooked is that Granville Sharp distinctly noted that the rule applies when the two nouns are singular and apply to persons, not things. When these restrictions are considered, there are no exceptions to be noted in native Koine Greek constructions. Wallace has restated Granville Sharp's rule in order to explicitly state all the restrictions and to enhance the readability of the rule.
In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by kai (thus, article-substantive-kai-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent. ^[2]^
Give what up? Trying to reveal a fallacy that leads people to believe that Jesus is YHVH?OK, Kathi, let's see..you say the Sharp rule applies when “two nouns are singular and apply to persons, not things. When these restrictions are considered, there are NO exceptions…” Really?
John 11:19
“ten Marthan kai Mariam”..which is the Martha and Mary.Are they singular and persons? Are they the same person? Does his “rule” apply here?
Acts 15:22
“to Paulo kai Barnaba”..which is the Paul and Barnabas.Are they singular and persons? Are they the same person? Does his “rule” apply here?
Matthew 17:1
“ton Petron kai lakoban kai loannen”..which is the Peter and James and John.Are they singular and persons? Are they the same person? Does his “rule” apply here?
Quote (Lightenup @ June 29 2013,22:37) Btw,
You gave me an answer but not an answer to THIS question:Does the Bible say that Jesus is our God and Savior in all 14 of those translations quoted above?
I answered that. I said..NO.Let's look at what Peter wrote in the VERY NEXT sentence.
Peter 2:1-2
1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:2 Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.
I even used YOUR version of the Bible. In the second sentence, Peter CLEARLY shows that he is talking about two separate beings!! In verse 2, we have one God and one Lord. Right? So, why do you think that is? If Peter just stated in verse one that Jesus is God, why would he turn around and have memory loss in the very next sentence by stating that there is God and then there is our Lord, Jesus? Surely, you can see pass your own bias to scratch your head for a minute. Maybe, just maybe, the trinitarians translated the first verse the way that they did because THEY think Jesus is God and NOT that Peter thinks that??
Quote (Lightenup @ June 29 2013,22:57) Also, did gravity exist before Isaac Newton discovered it? From what you argue about the Granville Sharp rule, gravity doesn't exist because Isaac Newton defined it and claimed it existed way before he defined it. Now why didn't Moses mention this supposed 'law' if there really was a law about such a thing?
Goodness, do you see how ridiculous that would be to ignore the law of gravity for the similar reasons that you want to ignore the Granville Sharp rule.
Oh and one more thing, can the Holy Spirit guide an Englishman about His inspired word? Yes or No
Gravity did exist, but we are not talking about the law of nature.
We are talking about language. I would think that the Greeks knew the rules of their language that was already created and in use at the time of Sharp. Do you think someone can “discover” a rule in English that we do not already know about? Be honest!!Besides, the law of gravity always applies. Sharp's “rule” does not!! Why? One was created by God, and the other by satan.
Quote Oh and one more thing, can the Holy Spirit guide an Englishman about His inspired word? Yes or No Yes. The Holy Spirit can in fact do this!!
Now a question for you..(please answer)
Can satan guide an Englishman into misleading God's children by getting him to create a rule that is false?.
Those 14 translations Do call Jesus 'our God and Savior.' Are you blind? Shall we take a poll and show you that it is clearly written? Do you want to embarrass yourself?
Peter knows just what he is saying. Both Jesus AND the Father are God in his understanding.
If sharp's rule were influenced by satan, it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. It stands! And, yes an unwritten rule of grammar can be written after it has been in use. Do you think languages begin with all the rules written out or does it evolve and become established and then the rules are realized?
Answer to your question…yes. Again if satan is behind it, the rule couldn't stand in all the other times the same situation exists.
Question to you:
Are you going to admit that those 14 translations have this written it them in that verse 'our God and Savior Jesus Christ' or shall I set up a poll so your eyes will be opened?Quote (Lightenup @ June 30 2013,05:44) Those 14 translations Do call Jesus 'our God and Savior.' Are you blind? Shall we take a poll and show you that it is clearly written? Do you want to embarrass yourself? Peter knows just what he is saying. Both Jesus AND the Father are God in his understanding.
First, Peter clearly shows that he sees God and Jesus as TWO separate beings throughout ALL of his writings!!We can NOT know what he thought by this one verse, especially when, in the very next sentence, he clearly shows that God and Jesus are separate!! Are you blind to the next verse?
Quote (Lightenup @ June 30 2013,05:54) If sharp's rule were influenced by satan, it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. It stands! And, yes an unwritten rule of grammar can be written after it has been in use. Do you think languages begin with all the rules written out or does it evolve and become established and then the rules are realized? Answer to your question…yes. Again if satan is behind it, the rule couldn't stand in all the other times the same situation exists.
First, rules of grammar do come in the beginning!!Second, I have already shown you TWO verses where it DID NOT stand up!!
Are you even reading my post? TWO times I have showed you, using only the rules in which YOU say apply. Sharp did not say that his rule only applied to people and singular, but I played along and still found TWO times that singular people were separated by “kai” and they are not the same people. This means his “rule” DOES NOT STAND UP!!
Sounds to me like satan was his guide.
Quote (Lightenup @ June 30 2013,05:58) Question to you:
Are you going to admit that those 14 translations have this written it them in that verse 'our God and Savior Jesus Christ' or shall I set up a poll so your eyes will be opened?
My eyes are not “opened” by polls!!The fact is the MAJORITY are nonbelievers. The MAJORITY do not live their lives seeking God. The MAJORITY will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The MAJORITY believe in a triune God.
So, why would I put my faith in what the MAJORITY believe to be so?? Even if you could prove that Peter is referring only to Jesus when He states “our God and Savior”, this does not prove that Peter is calling Jesus the Almighty God!!
Do you admit that one can be “theos” without being YHVH?
If yes, then this really is a moot point.
If no, then we have some work to do!!Quote (jb2u @ June 29 2013,14:18) Quote (Lightenup @ June 30 2013,05:44) Those 14 translations Do call Jesus 'our God and Savior.' Are you blind? Shall we take a poll and show you that it is clearly written? Do you want to embarrass yourself? Peter knows just what he is saying. Both Jesus AND the Father are God in his understanding.
First, Peter clearly shows that he sees God and Jesus as TWO separate beings throughout ALL of his writings!!We can NOT know what he thought by this one verse, especially when, in the very next sentence, he clearly shows that God and Jesus are separate!! Are you blind to the next verse?
jb, you said:Quote First, Peter clearly shows that he sees God and Jesus as TWO separate beings throughout ALL of his writings!! Yes. That is what I have been saying…two beings who are both theos.
Quote We can NOT know what he thought by this one verse, especially when, in the very next sentence, he clearly shows that God and Jesus are separate!! I didn't ask you what he thought did I?? Please read the question again and answer the question.
Does the Bible say that Jesus is our God and Savior in all 14 of those translations quoted?
you said:
Quote Even if you could prove that Peter is referring only to Jesus when He states “our God and Savior”, this does not prove that Peter is calling Jesus the Almighty God!! It is proving that Peter is calling Jesus OUR God and Savior. You say Jesus is no ones God/god. You do not agree with scripture here.
you said:
Quote Second, I have already shown you TWO verses where it DID NOT stand up!! Really?? Those verses had plural nouns and no referent. How does that have anything to do with Granville Sharp's rule?
Here again are your verses:
Matt 20:18
“We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to deathLuke 21:12
“But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, delivering you to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for My name's sake.These verses do not show any proof at all; they don't even apply to this argument. Sorry.
The rule isn't just about two nouns with the word 'kai' in-between.Quote (Lightenup @ July 03 2013,06:55) you said: Quote Even if you could prove that Peter is referring only to Jesus when He states “our God and Savior”, this does not prove that Peter is calling Jesus the Almighty God!! It is proving that Peter is calling Jesus OUR God and Savior. You say Jesus is no ones God/god. You do not agree with scripture here.
you said:
Quote Second, I have already shown you TWO verses where it DID NOT stand up!! Really?? Those verses had plural nouns and no referent. How does that have anything to do with Granville Sharp's rule?
Here again are your verses:
Matt 20:18
“We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to deathLuke 21:12
“But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, delivering you to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for My name's sake.These verses do not show any proof at all; they don't even apply to this argument. Sorry.
The rule isn't just about two nouns with the word 'kai' in-between.
I never said that Jesus is not a theos. I said He is not the Almighty God, YHVH, our Father.Again, God said their are gods many and lords many!! Jesus is a theos and yes, our theos, but NOT YHVH!!
You keep twisting my words. God calls Jesus a theos. ANYONE who God GIVES authority to is a THEOS. And so, Jesus, being given authority FROM God, is a THEOS. We can even say that He is OUR theos because His life was given as a sacrifice to US, so that WE may have everlasting life. That being said, He still is NOT YHVH. And, you can NOT find one place in the HOLY BIBLE that states that He is YHVH. Even Jesus, did not claim to be God!! He said that the true worshipers will worship the Father!! You reject this!!
As far as
Quote Really?? Those verses had plural nouns and no referent. How does that have anything to do with Granville Sharp's rule? .. You must have missed my post; so, I will repost it now..
OK, Kathi, let's see..you say the Sharp rule applies when “two nouns are singular and apply to persons, not things. When these restrictions are considered, there are NO exceptions…” Really?
John 11:19
“ten Marthan kai Mariam”..which is the Martha and Mary.Are they singular and persons? Are they the same person? Does his “rule” apply here?
Acts 15:22
“to Paulo kai Barnaba”..which is the Paul and Barnabas.Are they singular and persons? Are they the same person? Does his “rule” apply here?
Matthew 17:1
“ton Petron kai lakoban kai loannen”..which is the Peter and James and John.Are they singular and persons? Are they the same person? Does his “rule” apply here?
You can maintain a belief in Granville Sharp, the targums, you can even “borrow evidence” from the very trinitarians that you say that you disagree with, but just understand that it goes AGAINST what Jesus and His apostles taught!!
Here is another question for you..
Understand this verse..
Psalm 83:18
18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth.Now, can Jehovah have a name “ALONE” if it is shared between two beings?
May His Spirit guide you.
Quote (Lightenup @ June 29 2013,06:32) Give it up jb, Quote Detractors maintain that there are numerous examples in the Greek where Granville Sharp's rule fails to hold up, i.e. where two distinct referents are obviously intended. However, as pointed out by Daniel Wallace, this is due to a misapplication of the rule.^[1]^ What is often overlooked is that Granville Sharp distinctly noted that the rule applies when the two nouns are singular and apply to persons, not things. When these restrictions are considered, there are no exceptions to be noted in native Koine Greek constructions. Wallace has restated Granville Sharp's rule in order to explicitly state all the restrictions and to enhance the readability of the rule.
In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by kai (thus, article-substantive-kai-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent. ^[2]^
jb,
The Granville Sharpe rule is talking about when there is a referent with the two nouns.Quote In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by kai (thus, article-substantive-kai-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent. ^[2]^ Do you know what a referent is? In your so-called proof verses, there are no referents.
ref·er·ent (rfr-nt, r-fûrnt)
n.
A person or thing to which a linguistic expression refers.So, you still have not provided any proof to truly challenge the Granville Sharp rule.
Quote I never said that Jesus is not a theos. I didn't say that you did. I said that you said Jesus was a theos to 'no one'. Can you admit that? It is written publicly on the forum. If you deny this, I will find it and you might be embarrassed, so why not just admit that you did in fact say this.
Please answer:
So, again, can you admit that you said that Jesus was a theos to 'no one'? Yes or NoAlso, please answer this:
Can you admit that you have changed your mind from thinking that Jesus is a theos to no one and now believe that Jesus is our theos?Quote I said He is not the Almighty God, YHVH, our Father. Who is saying that Jesus is the Almighty God, YHVH, our Father? Not myself or the trinitarians.
We say Jesus is the Almighty God, YHVH, the Son…our Savior and Lord.
Quote ANYONE who God GIVES authority to is a THEOS. I would dare say you cannot find that in scripture. Please show us where you think it says this.
Quote That being said, He still is NOT YHVH. And, you can NOT find one place in the HOLY BIBLE that states that He is YHVH. Even Jesus, did not claim to be God!! So, who will be called Yahweh our Righteousness then if not Jesus according to this scripture:
5Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land.
Jeremiah 23:6In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called: Jehovah our righteousness.
Quote He said that the true worshipers will worship the Father!! You reject this!! Where have I rejected this? I worship the Father, the trinitarians worship the Father. We also worship our God and Savior, Jesus Christ. So did the disciples.
Quote (jb2u @ July 03 2013,15:51) Here is another question for you.. Understand this verse..
Psalm 83:18
18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth.Now, can Jehovah have a name “ALONE” if it is shared between two beings?
May His Spirit guide you.
Like I have shown you, the Jews understood two powers in Heaven and each were referred to as Jehovah/Yahweh.Quote
Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism
by Alan F. SegalIn his now classic Two Powers in Heaven, Alan Segal examines rabbinic evidence about early manifestations of the “two powers” heresy within Judaism. Segal sheds light upon the development of and relationships among early Christianity, Gnosticism, and Merkabah mysticism and demonstrates that belief in the “two powers in heaven” was widespread by the first century, and may have been a catalyst for the Jewish rejection of early Christianity. An important addition to New Testament and Gnostic scholarship by this much revered scholar, Segal's Two Powers in Heaven is made available once again for a new generation.
Quote Now, can Jehovah have a name “ALONE” if it is shared between two beings?
If it is a name also of a unity of two beings, yes.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
