- This topic is empty.
- Posts
In an attempt to prove the trinity doctrine, Granville Sharp made up a rule in 1798….”Sharp's Rule.”
It says, in effect, that when two or more words (nouns) are joined by the word “and” they all refer to the same person if the word “the” (the article) comes before the first noun and not before the other noun(s): “THE king AND master of the castle.”
Sharp invented this rule after he noticed this particular construction (sometimes called a “Sharp's construction”) was used with “God” and “Christ” in 5 places in the NT.
If he could convince others that his “rule” was true, then they would think there was finally (after 1400 years of a “trinity” tradition) absolute grammatical Bible proof that God and Jesus are the same “person”!
The 5 “proofs” of Jesus' Godhood according to Sharp are (in the literal wording of the original manuscripts):
(a) Titus 2:13:
“of the great God and savior of us Christ Jesus”
tou megalou qeou kai sothroV hmwn cristou Ihsou
(b) 2 Pet. 1:1:
“righteousness of the God of us and savior Jesus Christ”
dikaiosunh tou qeou hmwn kai sothroV Ihsou cristou
 2 Thess. 1:12:
“the grace of the God of us and Lord Jesus Christ”
thn carin tou qeou hmwn kai kuriou Ihsou cristou
(d) 1 Tim. 5:21:
“in sight of the God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels”
enwpion tou qeou kai cristou Ihsou kai twn eklektwn aggelwn
(e) Eph. 5:5:
“…in the kingdom of the Christ and God”
en th basileia tou cristou kai qeou
Trinitarian Daniel B. Wallace in his Selected Notes on the Syntax of New Testament Greek, 3rd ed., 1981, p. 100, quotes “Granville Sharp's Rule”:
“When the copulative kai [`and'] connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles), of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article [ho], or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person…”
Staunch trinitarian defender Prof. A. Bowser quotes Sharp's Rule somewhat more simply:
“When the copulative `and' connects two nouns of the same case, if the article precedes the first noun and is not repeated before the second noun, the latter always refers to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun.”
Since the first noun (“God” in the first four scriptures) has the article (“the”) with it and the following noun (“savior” in the first two scriptures) does not have the article (“the”), then (according to Sharp) God and Christ (the savior, etc.) are the same person!
At any rate, Wallace and Bowser both claim that this “Rule” (which “gave rise to a controversy” as soon as it was proposed – Encyclopedia Britannica, p. 466, v. 20, 1960) proves that Jesus is equally God with the Father. As Wallace puts it, Sharp's Rule when applied to Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1 (both of which he “analyzes” in some detail); and 2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21 (both of which he merely lists and does not examine) teaches Jesus is God:
“We have absolute grammatical certainty that the rule applies to at least four passages in the New Testament which teach that our Lord Jesus is God. …. Sharing this material … can give … a solid defense `from the Greek' against troublesome cults.” – p. 104. And, “in summary, since the central doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus Christ is God, we can be encouraged that in four passages an absolute rule of Greek grammar absolutely asserts that Jesus Christ is Lord of lords, God in the flesh.” – p. 111, Wallace, Selected Notes. (Cf. The NIV Study Bible f.n. for 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13. Also see Zondervan's So Many Versions?, p.100, 1983 ed.)
It might be noteworthy to some that this essential information concerning the knowledge of God and of Jesus (John 17:3; 2 Thess. 1:8) can be “absolutely” ascertained grammatically in only four places in the entire Bible by using a “controversial” rule that even the best trinitarian New Testament scholars disavow!
Yes, probably the most telling blow against this 200-year-old controversial rule is the rejection of it by so many of the most respected trinitarian Bible language experts! Even Wallace himself (who desperately tries for some kind of “absolute” scriptural proof for a trinity idea) complains that
“so many grammarians and exegetes objected to the validity of Granville Sharp's Rule with reference to texts dealing with the Deity of Christ”!
He specifically mentions “the great Greek grammarian,” G. B. Winer (trinitarian) and “one of the greatest grammarians of this century,” J. H. Moulton[2] (trinitarian) as rejecting this “rule”!I have also seen that the Roman Catholic scholar Karl Rahner[3] rejects this rule as do C. F. D. Moule[4] and Henry Alford.[5] Even famed trinitarian scholar Dr. James Moffatt (“probably the greatest biblical scholar of our day”) showed his rejection of the “absoluteness” of this rule by his rendering of Titus 2:13.[6]
In fact, even very trinitarian Daniel B. Wallace complains that the common translation of Titus 2:13 as found in the KJV (“the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”) treats “`God' and `Savior' separately”! – Compare 2 Peter 1:1, 2 KJV). The same separation can be seen in the ASV (Titus 2:13), the Douay Version, and the NEB (footnote).
So compare the KJV rendering of Titus 2:13 (which “treats `God' and `Savior' separately”) with that of 2 Peter 1:1, KJV.
(KJV) 2 Peter 1:1 “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”
Also compare:
(ASV) 2 Peter 1:1 “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and [the] Saviour Jesus Christ”
(Weymouth NT) 2 Peter 1:1 “Simon Peter, a bondservant and Apostle of Jesus Christ: To those to whom there has been allotted the same precious faith as that which is ours through the righteousness of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
Even clearer are the renderings by the trinitarian scholars who translated The New American Bible, 1970 ed. (2 Thess. 1:12; Titus 2:13); NAB, 1991 ed. (Titus 2:13); New American Standard Bible (1 Tim. 5:21); Revised Standard Version (1 Tim. 5:21); NRSV (1 Tim. 5:21); The Jerusalem Bible (1 Tim. 5:21); NJB (1 Tim. 5:21); Today's English Version (1 Tim. 5:21); New English Bible (1 Tim. 5:21); The Living Bible (2 Thess. 1:12); Phillips (Titus 2:13); Modern Language Bible (2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21); Douay Version (2 Thess. 1:12); King James II Version (2 Thess. 1:12); Good News Bible (2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21); The Amplified Bible (1 Tim. 5:21); Barclay's Daily Study Bible, 1975 (2 Thess. 1:12); New Life Version (2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21); Easy-to-Read Version(1 Tim. 5:21).
We can find trinitarian translations of Titus 2:13 (probably the most-used scripture for this “proof”) which render it as referring to two persons:
Titus 2:13.
(Miles Coverdale Bible) lokynge for that blessed hope and appearynge of the glory of ye greate God and of oure Sauioure Iesu Christ
……………………………
……………………………………….(Tyndale) lokinge for that blessed hope and glorious apperenge of ye myghty god and of oure savioure Iesu Christ
……………………………………………………………………(KJV) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious [F9] appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Note: 'F9 glorious…: Gr. the appearance of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ' – http://www.studylight.org/
…………………………………………………………………….(New American Bible) as we await our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus
…………………………………………………………………..
Trinitarian (Church of England) scholar, J. B. Phillips' translation of the NT has at Titus 2:13:“of the great God and of Jesus Christ our saviour.”
……………………………………………………………….The Riverside New Testament, Publ. – Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1934:
Titus 2:13: “of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus”
………………………………………………………………(Mace) in expectation of that desirable happiness, the glorious appearance of the supreme God, and of our saviour Jesus Christ,
…………………………………………………………………….(Moffatt) Awaiting the blessed hope of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus
……………………………………………………………………….(A New Translation in Plain English – Charles K. Williams) while we wait for the blessed thing we hope for, the appearing oit the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ
………………………………………………………………………..(CEV) We are filled with hope, as we wait for the glorious return of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. [A]
Footnotes:
A. Titus 2:13 the glorious return of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ: Or “the glorious return of our great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” or “the return of Jesus Christ, who is the glory of our great God and Savior.”
…………………………………………………………………….(NLV) We are to be looking for the great hope and the coming of our great God and the One Who saves, Christ Jesus
……………………………………………According to An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek by C.F.D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p. 109 at Titus 2:13, the sense of “the Great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ…is possible in [New Testament] Greek is possible even without the repetition [of the definite article before the second noun].”
……………………………………..We also find Titus 2:13 rendered as “expecting the blessed hope, namely, the appearing of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ” – Alexander Campbell's Living Oracles (4th Edition) – The Sacred Writings of the Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ, Commonly Styled the New Testament. Translated from the Original Greek, by Doctors George Campbell, James Macknight, and Philip Doddridge – http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/oracles4th/titus.html
…………………………………….
Noted British NT scholar and trinitarian clergyman Henry Alford wrote: “I would submit that [a translation which clearly differentiates God from Christ at Titus 2:13] satifies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle's [Paul's] way of writing.” – The Greek Testament, p. 421, vol. 3.
…………………………………..
The steadfastly trinitarian The Expositor's Greek Testament (Vol. 4, p. 195) says specifically of Titus 2:13:“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 – [Sharp's Rule] – 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 soter ['saviour] in I Tim. [1:1; 4:10.”
………………………………….
And notice Eph. 5:5 – one of the examples Sharp himself chose to “prove” Christ's deity which Wallace completely ignores. Most trinitarian Bibles translate this example of Sharp's Construction: “in the kingdom of Christ and of God” – KJV; NRSV; RSV; NIV; NEB; REB; NAB; Douay; MLB; LB; GNB; TEV; The Amplified Bible; Third Millenium Bible; New Living Translation; New Century Version; God's Word; Holman Christian Standard Bible; Wesley's New Testament; Phillips; and the Webster Bible. This is not the way it would be translated if the two descriptions were of the same person! (At the very least it would be rendered more literally as “the kingdom of the Christ and God.”) Instead it clearly shows two persons!
Also, 1 Tim. 6:13 is translated in trinitarian Bibles as: “before (in the sight or presence of) God … and before Christ Jesus….” Although Sharp's Rule insists that this should be translated to show that it is speaking of the same person, it obviously is not! Obviously, most trinitarian grammar experts simply do not believe Sharp's Rule is a valid absolute rule!
Notice that Wallace's 4 examples also completely ignore 2 Tim. 4:1 even though it's identical to 1 Tim. 5:21 and should, therefore, be a 5th (or 7th)”absolute proof.” Maybe it's because so many trinitarian Bibles translate it to show a clear separation between God and Jesus in spite of “Sharp's Rule”: ASV; NIV; JB; NJB; NEB; NASB; RSV; NRSV; REB; NAB (`70 & `91); Living Bible; GNB; MLB; Moffatt; Phillips; etc.
Why were these examples left out of Wallace's “Exhaustive” lists of examples? Probably for the same reason that he, like Bowser, quotes and examines ONLY 2 (Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1) and virtually ignores 2 Thess. 1:12[7] and 1 Tim. 5:21: careful examination and com- parison of most trinitarian translations show them to be referring to 2 separate persons in these verses in contradiction of “Sharp's Rule”!
If this “rule” can be ignored at these places in all these trinitarian Bibles, it cannot be considered an “absolute” (infallible) rule! And if it's not an absolute rule, it cannot be used as honest proof of anything! Also, if this rule were really “absolute,” not only must every Sharp's construction refer to a single person, but every instance of a single person having two titles or descriptions joined by “and” must be in a “Sharp's construction”! But many times God and Christ have titles joined by “and” without a “Sharp's construction” being used! – James 1:1; 1 Thess. 3:11; 1 Tim. 1:1; Rev. 14:4. And many times in the scriptures we find personal nouns for the same individual connected by “and” even though they are not in a “Sharp's construction”: Acts 2:36; 5:31; 7:35; 1 Tim. 1:13; 2 Tim. 1:11; Heb. 11:10; 2 Peter 1:1 (`slave and apostle'); Rev. 1:4, 5; 1:17; 2:8; 21:6; 22:13; and many more.
In fact we even find a statement written with “Sharp's Rule” by one inspired Bible writer and a parallel statement written without “Sharp's Rule” by another inspired Bible writer![8]
Even a doctrinal/grammatical examination should convince trinitarians that Sharp's Rule cannot prove Jesus' deity. It is the “orthodox” understanding that, whereas there is only one God, that God is composed of three persons. Therefore “God” is singular as an entity but plural in perso
ns!!This is somewhat like saying there is one Senate which is a singular entity but plural in persons. We cannot say that the single person, Senator Smith, is the Senate! Likewise, if we are trinitarians, we should not say that Jesus is the only true God! There is only one God, trinitarians say, but that God is composed of three persons! (But analyze John 17:1, 3 !!)
Wallace himself, in discussing John 1:1 (p. 96), tells us that the attempt by some trinitarians to say that Jesus (in the last part of John 1:1) is the same person as “the God” (in the first part of John 1:1) is “Sabellianism or modalism—in other words, heresy!” And, “Since there are 3 Persons in the Trinity, it is not proper to conceive of `God' as being summed up by `the Word' [Jesus].”
Now notice that each of the 4 “proofs” is interpreted by Wallace himself as proving that “the God” is the same person as Jesus Christ! This is certainly a major contradiction!
We should also be aware that Wallace rejects plural personal nouns from his list of “Sharp's constructions” (since plural nouns often disprove the “absolute” validity of this “rule”). And yet, “The God” (according to trinitarians) is plural in persons! (Some trinitarians even try to claim that the Old Testament Hebrew word for “God,” since it is plural – elohim – is proof of the “plurality of persons” who make up the single God. In reality, of course, it's the well-known Hebrew “plural of excellence.” – see the ELOHIM study.)
Since Wallace himself insists (although improperly) that personal nouns that are plural must not be used as proper examples, the use of the “plural” (in persons, according to trinitarians) “The God” in each of the 4 Sharp's “proofs” would invalidate the “rule” before we even start!
Jehovah's Witnesses, however, know that the only true God is really only one person: Jehovah, the Father. This is clearly shown throughout the Old and New Testaments (without the necessity of attempting to formulate a special grammatical “rule” to “prove” it[9]). It's also significant that (as in nearly all “proofs” of the trinity doctrine) the Holy Spirit is never included in the “proofs” of Sharp's Rule. Is that any way to show the respect, honor, and worship that are required by the only true God whom we must know (John 17:3; 2 Thess. 1:8): ignoring completely the third “person” who, allegedly, is “equally God with the Father and Son”?
But even if we examine this “rule” in a strictly grammatical sense we find fatal flaws.
It is relatively rare that singular titles are used in a copulative pair or series (other than for God and Jesus who have many titles and are frequently mentioned together because of their close relationship: Father/Son, Master/Servant, etc.). Therefore, the majority of all examples for singular persons who are actually found in “Sharp's constructions” use personal names. (The bulk of Wallace's “examples” are not even nouns at all but participles which are improperly used as examples by him.)[10]
When we look for other examples of other individuals (besides those of God and Jesus) where titles or common nouns alone are used in Wallace's “exhaustive list for the NT” (see Appendix for Wallace's lists of “Sharp's constructions”), we end up with only 6 valid examples (pp. 102-103). If we include plural constructions – which obviously would use titles and common nouns much more frequently (or if we use personal names[11] ) – we can then find enough examples to be meaningful and statistically significant, but, unfortunately for Sharp's rule, when we do this, they show that the two persons or groups connected in such a manner do not always equal each other.[12]
The same thing happens when non-personal nouns are used[13] (and there is no reason, grammatical or otherwise, why they should be rejected as proper examples except that they, like plural personal nouns, prove Sharp's rule is not “absolute” as Wallace claims). Therefore, if Sharp's rule is not “absolute” (and it certainly isn't), there is no reason to insist that it works at the 4 “trinitarian” scriptures claimed by Wallace!
In addition to the extreme sparsity of examples (far too few to be valid) for singular personal nouns which Wallace allows (since he improperly rejects plurals and non-personal nouns) there is the problem of “prepositional” constructions (“the house of God;” “of the man of God”).
As we discovered in our detailed investigation in the study papers of John 1:1 (E.g. the DEF study paper), it is just as proper to reject examples of “prepositional” constructions[14] as it is to reject examples of personal names since both cause irregular, inconsistent definite article usage in the NT Greek! (Except for the irregular article usage, personal names would be the very best examples for Sharp's rule since nothing else is as explicitly a personal singular noun).
Therefore, we must either include personal names as proper examples (which would absolutely destroy the validity of the “absolute” Sharp's rule – examine Matt. 17:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10; Acts 15:22; Micah 6:4 in the Septuagint), OR, more properly, we must reject all examples which include “prepositional” constructions.
If we properly exclude “prepositional” constructions, we must necessarily exclude all of the 4 “Jesus is God” proofs: 2 Thess. 1:12 – “of the God of us and of Lord Jesus Christ;” 1 Tim. 5:21 – “in sight of the God and of Christ Jesus;” Titus 2:13 – “of the great God and of Savior OF us Christ Jesus;” 2 Peter 1:1 – “of the God of us and of Savior Jesus Christ.” (Isn't it more likely that a single article at the beginning of a series of nouns – especially nouns associated with “prepositional” constructions – can be understood to apply to each noun that follows?)
We can see that not only is each one of the 4 “proofs” part of a “prepositional” construction (which can cause irregular definite article usage) but each one includes the personal name of the Son (which can also cause great irregularity in article usage).
In fact, the influence of the anarthrous (without the article) personal name is enough to make the descriptive nouns accompanying it anarthrous also. Trinitarian NT Greek expert A. T. Robertson tells us:
“words in apposition with proper names are usually anarthrous”! [In addition to “Jesus” he includes the titles “Lord” and “Christ” in this category]. – pp. 791, 760, 761, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research.
In fact, trinitarian Robertson says:
“but the fact that kurios [`Lord'] is so often anarthrous like a proper name slightly weakens it [Sharp's Rule application]. The same remark also applies to 2 Thess. 1:12… and Eph. 5:5 … (since theou [`of God'] often occurs without the article).” [It may only “slightly weaken it” for some trinitarians, but, in reality, it destroys any validity of such examples!] – p. 786. Also see Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. iv, p. 46.[15]
Moulton reaffirms Robertson's statement about words in apposition with proper names being anarthrous and specifically applies it to “Jesus” (p. 166). He also tells us that “Christ”, at least as used in Paul's and Peter's writings, functions similarly:
“The Epistles also usually omit the article with [`Christ']: it is here regarded as a proper name rather than = Messiah” – A Grammar of New Testament Greek, J. H. Moulton, Vol. III, p. 167, 1963.
(Wallace himself admits the distinct possibility that Sharp's constructions by Paul may be invalid examples if, as some NT grammarians believe, Paul used “Christ” as a proper name. Wallace even excluded Eph. 5:5 from his examples because of this possibility!) So it is to be expected that the article would be missing in these particular “Trini
tarian” examples whether Sharp's Rule actually works or not! These 4 trinitarian “proofs” must be considered as invalid examples.And when we actually examine the NT Bible writers' use of the terms found in the 4 “Sharp's `proofs'” (“Lord,” “Christ Jesus,” and “Savior”), we find that, regardless of grammatical reasons, they are frequently used without the definite article even in non-Sharp's constructions! To find them so used occasionally in a “Sharp's construction,” then, is to be expected and indicates no special significance.[16]
Another exception used by Wallace is mentioned on p. 102. Here he is commenting on an exception to Sharp's rule that is found in the Greek Septuagint Version at Proverbs 24:21. In this scripture “the God and king” refer to two different persons in spite of Sharp's rule, but Wallace tells us this is merely a fault of a too literal translation of the original Hebrew into the Greek of the Septuagint!
Whether we accept such reasoning or not is another question.[17] What interests me is his further qualification: It's not surprising to see such an exception, he says,
“—especially since the two nouns `god' and `king' are so distinct that no confusion could possibly have arisen through the omission of a second article.” (We often find the same thing in English, e.g., “the President and Vice President” in Amendment XX of the Constitution of the United States of America.) – cf. Thayer, p. 437, #3588, III., 1., (includes “God,” “Christ,” etc.)
A footnote on p.109 of C. F. D. Moule's An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed., 1960, tells us:
“T. F. Middleton, The Doctrine of the Greek Article, … points out that in the idiom [`the Alexander and Phillip' in Greek] one article is manifestly sufficient, since the two names are obviously not predicated of the same person. Cf. Acts xv. 22, and … Mark ix. 2.”
The point being (even if `Sharp's Rule' were accurate) if it is clearly known that two individuals are being spoken of, they may be described in a “Sharp's construction,” anyway!
But, as we have seen, Jesus and God are clearly separated throughout the NT (with the extremely unlikely “exceptions” of the four verses in question which are the ONLY places Wallace found an “absolute grammatical certainty” to the contrary). An in-depth study of the history of early Christianity also shows the very first Christians (for the first 150 years at least) never confused the two. They always considered Jesus to be separate from God. (See the HIST study)
Therefore, even if there were some validity to Sharp's rule, and even if they were really valid examples, it would not be surprising to see four “exceptions” in the New Testament – – especially since “the God” and “Savior Jesus Christ” are
“so distinct that no confusion could possibly have arisen through the omission of a second article.”
And, finally, isn't it more than strange that Paul, who is credited by Wallace with 3 of the 4 “absolute” Sharp's construction “proofs” that Jesus is absolutely equal to God is considered by so many trinitarian scholars as having never called Jesus “God” or “god” (theos)?
As the highly respected (and highly trinitarian) United Bible Societies' (UBS) Greek New Testament committee explains it in a comment expressing the likelihood of a non-trinitarian interpretation of Ro. 9:5:
“nowhere else … does Paul ever designate [the Christ] as theos [`God' or `god']. In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was considered tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ's greatness by calling him God blessed forever [as some trinitarians wish to interpret Ro. 9:5].” – A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, UBS, 1971.
For an honest picture of Paul's understanding of Jesus' relationship to God see: 1 Cor. 3:23; 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 1:3; Eph. 1:17; 1 Tim. 1:1; 1 Tim. 2:5; Titus 1:1.
And even stranger, perhaps, is the fact that, even though Wallace's examples show Paul using “Sharp's rule” many times, John (who most trinitarians consider the Bible writer who most frequently and most clearly “declares Jesus' deity” and who, undeniably, is the only Gospel writer who ever actually applied the term theos [“God” or “god”] directly to Jesus) never uses Sharp's “Rule” to show Jesus' alleged equality with god!
And we can see John's understanding of Jesus' relationship to God at John 17:1, 3; John 20:17; Rev. 1:6 (RSV – Compare Rev. 5:9, 10); Rev. 3:12.
There are many places where (if the trinity doctrine were really true, and if Sharp's rule really worked “absolutely”) John should have used the “Rule.” For example, see Rev. 14:4 – “the firstfruits to the God and to the Lamb.” (Compare Rev. 7:10 and examine Revelation chapters 4 and 5.)
If Sharp's “Rule” is the only way (as even Wallace admits) that one can find even four passages which show with “absolute grammatical certainty” that “Jesus Christ is God,” then the “Jesus = God” concept is actually grammatically uncertain in all of the Bible. Certainly this would not be the case in God's inspired word if Jesus were really equally God!! – 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
CONCLUSION
1. Prepositional constructions (including genitives) frequently do not use the article (anarthrous). All 5 of the 'Christological' instances of Sharp's constructions (Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21; and Eph. 5:5) are filled with such exceptions to article usage! It is, therefore, not unusual that so many 'Sharp's constructions' lack the second article.
2. The use of such nouns as 'Lord,' Savior,' and 'Christ' frequently do not use the article in the Epistles regardless of sentence construction. This, alone, is sufficienty to explain the lack of following articles in all 5 instances.
3. The use of a personal name such as 'Jesus' (including 'Christ' in the Epistles) as an appositive also explains the lack of the articles in the first 3 examples above of the 'Christological' Sharp's constructions.
4. The concept of 'God' and 'Christ' were so distinct in the first century that no confusion could have possibly arisen through the omission of the second article!
* * * * * * * *
Wallace's “Exhaustive List” of Sharp's Constructions with nouns:
1. Mark 12:26 – “The God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of …”
2. Jn. 20:17 – “The God of me and Father of you and God of me and …”
3. Ro. 15:6 – “The God and Father of the Lord of us”
4. 1 Cor. 15:24 – “To the God and Father”
5. 2 Cor. 1:3 (a) – “the God and Father of the Lord of us”
6. 2 Cor. 1:3 (b) – “the Father of the mercies and God of all comfort”
7. 2 Cor. 11:31 – “The God and Father of the Lord Jesus”
8. Gal. 1:4 – “the will of the God and Father of us”
9. Eph. 5:20 – “to the God and Father”
10. Eph. 6:21 – “the loved brother and faithful servant in Lord”
11. Eph. 4:20 – “to the but God and Father of us”
12. Col. 3:17 – (Not in Westcott and Hort, Nestle, or UBS text as a Sharp's construction)
13. Col. 4:17 – “the loved brother & faithful servant and fellow slave in Lord”
14. 1 Thess. 1:3 – “Of the God and Father of us”
15. 1 Thess. 3:2 – “the brother of us and servant of the God”
16. 1 Thess. 3:11 – “the God and Father of us and the Lord of us Jesus Christ”
17. 1 Thess. 3:13 – “of the God and Father of us”
18. 1 Tim. 6:15 – “the King of … and Lord of …”
19. James 1:27 – “beside the God and Father”
20. 1 Pet. 1:3 – “the God and Father of the Lord of us of Jesus Chris
t”21. 1 Pet. 2:25 – “upon the shepherd and overseer of …”
22. 1 Pet. 5:1 – “the fellow older man and witness of …”
23. 2 Pet. 1:11 – “Of the Lord of us and of Savior Jesus Christ”
24. 2 Pet. 2:20 – “Of the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ”
25. 2 Pet. 3:2 – “Of the Lord and Savior”
26. 2 Pet. 3:18 – “Of the Lord of us and of Savior Jesus Christ”
27. 1 Jn. 5:20 – “this is the true God and LIFE [abstract] everlasting”
28. Jude 4 – “the only master and Lord of us, Jesus Christ”
29. Rev. 1:6 – “To the God and Father of him”
30. Rev. 1:9 – “the brother of you and co-sharer in …”
Also Examined Separately by Wallace (pp. 102-103)
31. Eph. 1:3 – “the God and Father of …”
32. James 3:9 – “the Lord and Father”
33. Mark 6:3 – “the son of Mary and brother of James”
34. Luke 20:37 – “the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob”
35. Phil. 2:25 – “the brother and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier of me”
The above list is Wallace's “exhaustive list” of all nouns used in Sharp's constructions (except, of course, for the 4 trinitarian “proofs”).
Notice that all but James 3:9 and 1 John 5:20 are part of “prepositional” constructions (Col. 3:17 is not in a Sharp's Construction in the best trinitarian texts and refers only to the Father who is God). 1 John 5:20 violates Wallace's own rule: it has a non-personal noun (“life”)! “Life” is also abstract (see study on Wallace's “Qualitative” Rule for John 1:1).
We must also ask ourselves: Why were 1 Tim. 6:13 and 2 Tim. 4:1 left out of this “exhaustive list” by Wallace? – See pages 2-3 above .
Wallace's “Exhaustive List” of Sharp's Constructions (participles)
1. Matt. 7:26 – “the (one) hearing of me … and not doing them”
2. Matt. 13:23 – “the (one) the word hearing and comprehending”
3. Mark 15:29 – “the (one) tearing down the temple and building (it)”
4. Mark 16:16 – “the (one) having believed and having been baptized”
5. Luke 6:49 – “the (one) but having heard and not having done”
6. Luke 12:47 – “the (one) having known the will … not having prepared”
7. Luke 13:34 – “the (one) killing the prophets and stoning the (ones) having been sent forth”
8. John 3:29 – “the (one) having stood and hearing”
9. John 5:24 – “the (one) the word of me hearing and believing”
10. John 5:35 – “the (one) burning and shining”
11. John 6:33 29. 2 Cor. 5:15
12. John 6:40 30. 2 Cor. 5:18
13. John 6:45 31. Gal. 1:15
14. John 6:54 32. Gal. 2:20
15. John 6:56 33. Gal. 3:5
16. John 8:50 34. Eph. 2:14 (listed separately, p. 103)
17. John 9:8 35. 2 Thess. 2:4
18. John 11:2 36. 2 Thess. 2:16
19. John 11:26 37. 1 Tim. 5:5
20. John 12:29 38. 2 Tim. 1:9
21. John 12:48 39. Heb. 7:1
22. John 14:21 40. James 1:5
23. Acts 10:35 41. 1 Pet. 1:21
24. Acts 15:38 42. 1 John 2:9
25. Romans 2:3 43. Rev. 1:5
26. 1 Cor. 11:29 44. Rev. 3:7
27. 1 Cor. 16:16 45. Rev. 16:15
28. 2 Cor. 1:21 46. Rev. 22:8Taken from:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/sharps-rule.htmlDavid wrote:
Quote Also, 1 Tim. 6:13 is translated in trinitarian Bibles as: “before (in the sight or presence of) God … and before Christ Jesus….” Although Sharp's Rule insists that this should be translated to show that it is speaking of the same person, it obviously is not! Obviously, most trinitarian grammar experts simply do not believe Sharp's Rule is a valid absolute rule!
TO ALL:I am about to retire for the evening but wanted to run off one quickie reply to David. In the statement from 1 Timothy 6:13 above Sharp's rule does not apply because the substantitives “God” and “Jesus Christ” are BOTH accompanied by the definite article. Remember: The nouns would refer to the same person ONLY if the first noun has the article and the second does not. In 1 Timothy 6:13 BOTH nouns have the article which means that “God” and “Jesus Christ” are distinguished in the verse. So the rule does not apply here.
παραγγέλλω1 ἐνώπιον θεοῦ τοῦ ζῳογονοῦντος2 τὰ πάντα καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος ἐπὶ Ποντίου3 Πειλάτου τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν4,
(The Greek characters in bold are the definite articles. One goes with “God” and the other goes with “Jesus Christ.” Therefore, they are distinguished.)This is just one example of David's anti-Christian bag of tricks. I will get to the rest of his post soon. He really has my blood boiling profusely now.
My third tile may be a comin
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 16 2009,18:54) David wrote: Quote Also, 1 Tim. 6:13 is translated in trinitarian Bibles as: “before (in the sight or presence of) God … and before Christ Jesus….” Although Sharp's Rule insists that this should be translated to show that it is speaking of the same person, it obviously is not! Obviously, most trinitarian grammar experts simply do not believe Sharp's Rule is a valid absolute rule!
TO ALL:I am about to retire for the evening but wanted to run off one quickie reply to David. In the statement from 1 Timothy 6:13 above Sharp's rule does not apply because the substantitives “God” and “Jesus Christ” are BOTH accompanied by the definite article. Remember: The nouns would refer to the same person ONLY if the first noun has the article and the second does not. In 1 Timothy 6:13 BOTH nouns have the article which means that “God” and “Jesus Christ” are distinguished in the verse. So the rule does not apply here.
παραγγέλλω1 ἐνώπιον θεοῦ τοῦ ζῳογονοῦντος2 τὰ πάντα καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος ἐπὶ Ποντίου3 Πειλάτου τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν4,
(The Greek characters in bold are the definite articles. One goes with “God” and the other goes with “Jesus Christ.” Therefore, they are distinguished.)This is just one example of David's anti-Christian bag of tricks. I will get to the rest of his post soon. He really has my blood boiling profusely now.
My third tile may be a comin
thinker
I don't know TT, 1 Tim. 6:13 seems to be explained pretty well in his post. And it does make sense. I don't know why your blood is boiling, is it because it makes sense, or maybe because David is a “JW” as you claim (I don't see how it matters if he is)?
Quote (david @ Dec. 17 2009,12:21) The 5 “proofs” of Jesus' Godhood according to Sharp are (in the literal wording of the original manuscripts): (a) Titus 2:13:
“of the great God and savior of us Christ Jesus”
tou megalou qeou kai sothroV hmwn cristou Ihsou
(b) 2 Pet. 1:1:
“righteousness of the God of us and savior Jesus Christ”
dikaiosunh tou qeou hmwn kai sothroV Ihsou cristou
© 2 Thess. 1:12:
“the grace of the God of us and Lord Jesus Christ”
thn carin tou qeou hmwn kai kuriou Ihsou cristou
(d) 1 Tim. 5:21:
“in sight of the God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels”
enwpion tou qeou kai cristou Ihsou kai twn eklektwn aggelwn
(e) Eph. 5:5:
“…in the kingdom of the Christ and God”
en th basileia tou cristou kai qeou
Oh yeah, how many times have I heard Trinitarians quote these as if somehow they proved a Tri-God.Sometimes I can't be bothered pointing out that “of the great God and savior of us Christ Jesus” can be talking of two.
Seems funny that all the proof verses can be rendered useless if you move the comma.
If the Trinity doctrine were true, then you would see it written plain and simple. Instead playing around with a few verses is all the proof they need. But that is obviously not enough for a person who hasn't got a bias for pre-defined belief to defend and will take nothing but the truth.
Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 17 2009,13:54) (The Greek characters in bold are the definite articles. One goes with “God” and the other goes with “Jesus Christ.” Therefore, they are distinguished.)
Exactly.The God and the Jesus are distinguished and not the same.
God is not Jesus and Jesus is not the Most High God.
Jesus is the son of God. He is not his own father.
Thanks for your statement thethinker.
t8 said:
Quote If the Trinity doctrine were true, then you would see it written plain and simple.
It is written plain and simple for honest people. It is not plain and simple to the blind.I suppose it doesn't bother you that David invokes scriptures against Sharp's rule when Sharp's rule doesn't even apply.
The rule:
Quote If two substantives are connected by kai and both have the article, they refer to two different persons or things; if the first has the article and the second does not, the second refers to the same person (Syntax of the New Testament Greek, University Press of America, p.76). David's attempt to disprove the rule:
Quote Also, 1 Tim. 6:13 is translated in trinitarian Bibles as: “before (in the sight or presence of) God … and before Christ Jesus….” Although Sharp's Rule insists that this should be translated to show that it is speaking of the same person, it obviously is not! Obviously, most trinitarian grammar experts simply do not believe Sharp's Rule is a valid absolute rule! BUT SHARP'S RULE DOES NOT EVEN APPLY IN 1 TIMOTHY 6:13 BECAUSE BOTH NOUNS “GOD” AND “JESUS CHRIST” HAVE THE DEFINITE ARTICLE:
παραγγέλλω ἐνώπιον θεοῦ τοῦ ζῳογονοῦντος2 τὰ πάντα καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος ἐπὶ Ποντίου3 Πειλάτου τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν,
I highlighted the two definite articles in bold. David has not disproven Sharp's rule because it does not even apply in 1 Timothy 6:13. Both substantitives “God” and “Jesus Christ” have the article. So they are two different persons.
Do you want honesty from anti-trinitarians here?
thinker
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 17 2009,01:02) Quote (david @ Dec. 17 2009,12:21) The 5 “proofs” of Jesus' Godhood according to Sharp are (in the literal wording of the original manuscripts): (a) Titus 2:13:
“of the great God and savior of us Christ Jesus”
tou megalou qeou kai sothroV hmwn cristou Ihsou
(b) 2 Pet. 1:1:
“righteousness of the God of us and savior Jesus Christ”
dikaiosunh tou qeou hmwn kai sothroV Ihsou cristou
© 2 Thess. 1:12:
“the grace of the God of us and Lord Jesus Christ”
thn carin tou qeou hmwn kai kuriou Ihsou cristou
(d) 1 Tim. 5:21:
“in sight of the God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels”
enwpion tou qeou kai cristou Ihsou kai twn eklektwn aggelwn
(e) Eph. 5:5:
“…in the kingdom of the Christ and God”
en th basileia tou cristou kai qeou
Oh yeah, how many times have I heard Trinitarians quote these as if somehow they proved a Tri-God.Sometimes I can't be bothered pointing out that “of the great God and savior of us Christ Jesus” can be talking of two.
Seems funny that all the proof verses can be rendered useless if you move the comma.
If the Trinity doctrine were true, then you would see it written plain and simple. Instead playing around with a few verses is all the proof they need. But that is obviously not enough for a person who hasn't got a bias for pre-defined belief to defend and will take nothing but the truth.
Hebrew and Greeks didn't even use punctuation, but trinitarians rely on it. So much a comma can do.Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 17 2009,18:30) Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 16 2009,18:54) David wrote: Quote Also, 1 Tim. 6:13 is translated in trinitarian Bibles as: “before (in the sight or presence of) God … and before Christ Jesus….” Although Sharp's Rule insists that this should be translated to show that it is speaking of the same person, it obviously is not! Obviously, most trinitarian grammar experts simply do not believe Sharp's Rule is a valid absolute rule!
TO ALL:I am about to retire for the evening but wanted to run off one quickie reply to David. In the statement from 1 Timothy 6:13 above Sharp's rule does not apply because the substantitives “God” and “Jesus Christ” are BOTH accompanied by the definite article. Remember: The nouns would refer to the same person ONLY if the first noun has the article and the second does not. In 1 Timothy 6:13 BOTH nouns have the article which means that “God” and “Jesus Christ” are distinguished in the verse. So the rule does not apply here.
παραγγέλλω1 ἐνώπιον θεοῦ τοῦ ζῳογονοῦντος2 τὰ πάντα καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος ἐπὶ Ποντίου3 Πειλάτου τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν4,
(The Greek characters in bold are the definite articles. One goes with “God” and the other goes with “Jesus Christ.” Therefore, they are distinguished.)This is just one example of David's anti-Christian bag of tricks. I will get to the rest of his post soon. He really has my blood boiling profusely now.
My third tile may be a comin
thinker
I don't know TT, 1 Tim. 6:13 seems to be explained pretty well in his post. And it does make sense. I don't know why your blood is boiling, is it because it makes sense, or maybe because David is a “JW” as you claim (I don't see how it matters if he is)?
Con,
See my post immediately above yours.thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 17 2009,01:41) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 17 2009,18:30) Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 16 2009,18:54) David wrote: Quote Also, 1 Tim. 6:13 is translated in trinitarian Bibles as: “before (in the sight or presence of) God … and before Christ Jesus….” Although Sharp's Rule insists that this should be translated to show that it is speaking of the same person, it obviously is not! Obviously, most trinitarian grammar experts simply do not believe Sharp's Rule is a valid absolute rule!
TO ALL:I am about to retire for the evening but wanted to run off one quickie reply to David. In the statement from 1 Timothy 6:13 above Sharp's rule does not apply because the substantitives “God” and “Jesus Christ” are BOTH accompanied by the definite article. Remember: The nouns would refer to the same person ONLY if the first noun has the article and the second does not. In 1 Timothy 6:13 BOTH nouns have the article which means that “God” and “Jesus Christ” are distinguished in the verse. So the rule does not apply here.
παραγγέλλω1 ἐνώπιον θεοῦ τοῦ ζῳογονοῦντος2 τὰ πάντα καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος ἐπὶ Ποντίου3 Πειλάτου τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν4,
(The Greek characters in bold are the definite articles. One goes with “God” and the other goes with “Jesus Christ.” Therefore, they are distinguished.)This is just one example of David's anti-Christian bag of tricks. I will get to the rest of his post soon. He really has my blood boiling profusely now.
My third tile may be a comin
thinker
I don't know TT, 1 Tim. 6:13 seems to be explained pretty well in his post. And it does make sense. I don't know why your blood is boiling, is it because it makes sense, or maybe because David is a “JW” as you claim (I don't see how it matters if he is)?
Con,
See my post immediately above yours.thinker
TT, saw your post, I wasnt speaking about the debate I was speaking in generalized terms about punctuation, and how it depends upon the translators decide when and how its used.It wasn't against you directly. Take no offense, none was meant towards you.
Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 17 2009,20:46) Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 17 2009,01:41) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 17 2009,18:30) Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 16 2009,18:54) David wrote: Quote Also, 1 Tim. 6:13 is translated in trinitarian Bibles as: “before (in the sight or presence of) God … and before Christ Jesus….” Although Sharp's Rule insists that this should be translated to show that it is speaking of the same person, it obviously is not! Obviously, most trinitarian grammar experts simply do not believe Sharp's Rule is a valid absolute rule!
TO ALL:I am about to retire for the evening but wanted to run off one quickie reply to David. In the statement from 1 Timothy 6:13 above Sharp's rule does not apply because the substantitives “God” and “Jesus Christ” are BOTH accompanied by the definite article. Remember: The nouns would refer to the same person ONLY if the first noun has the article and the second does not. In 1 Timothy 6:13 BOTH nouns have the article which means that “God” and “Jesus Christ” are distinguished in the verse. So the rule does not apply here.
παραγγέλλω1 ἐνώπιον θεοῦ τοῦ ζῳογονοῦντος2 τὰ πάντα καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος ἐπὶ Ποντίου3 Πειλάτου τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν4,
(The Greek characters in bold are the definite articles. One goes with “God” and the other goes with “Jesus Christ.” Therefore, they are distinguished.)This is just one example of David's anti-Christian bag of tricks. I will get to the rest of his post soon. He really has my blood boiling profusely now.
My third tile may be a comin
thinker
I don't know TT, 1 Tim. 6:13 seems to be explained pretty well in his post. And it does make sense. I don't know why your blood is boiling, is it because it makes sense, or maybe because David is a “JW” as you claim (I don't see how it matters if he is)?
Con,
See my post immediately above yours.thinker
TT, saw your post, I wasnt speaking about the debate I was speaking in generalized terms about punctuation, and how it depends upon the translators decide when and how its used.It wasn't against you directly. Take no offense, none was meant towards you.
Con,
I was replying to your other post about 1 Timothy 6:13.thinker
David said:
Quote So compare the KJV rendering of Titus 2:13 (which “treats `God' and `Savior' separately”) with that of 2 Peter 1:1, KJV. The KJV says:
Quote Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
David,
Your reasoning is circular. Show how the KJV treats “God” and “Savior” seperately. And show how Jesus could be the “Savior” without being God. And explain how you can have two Saviors.This is the chief problem with anti-trinitarianism. It is not consistent. If Jesus is excluded as “God” in this verse then God is excluded as “Savior.” Yet anti-trinitarians say that God alone is Savior right?
You're too much David. Too much.
thinker
I have heard that Calvin Winstanley, as Trinitarian, has demonstrated that Sharp's rule did not apply consistently in Greek if you included more examples than those provided by Grandville Sharp. That makes it sound like Mr. Sharp shaped his evidence to fit his conclusion.
One must also concede that there are those that believe the earth is flat to this day.
Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 17 2009,02:05) David said: Quote So compare the KJV rendering of Titus 2:13 (which “treats `God' and `Savior' separately”) with that of 2 Peter 1:1, KJV. The KJV says:
Quote Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
David,
Your reasoning is circular. Show how the KJV treats “God” and “Savior” seperately. And show how Jesus could be the “Savior” without being God. And explain how you can have two Saviors.This is the chief problem with anti-trinitarianism. It is not consistent. If Jesus is excluded as “God” in this verse then God is excluded as “Savior.” Yet anti-trinitarians say that God alone is Savior right?
You're too much David. Too much.
thinker
You can have two Saviors, so to speak.'Elohim is the Savior, but you cannot get to the the Father except through the High Priest (Yeshua HaMoshiach).
Just like in the Old Testament, one could not get reconciled to 'Elohim unless they went through the High Priest.
Either one could hold the keys to Salvation.
Earthy shadows Heavenly.
Thats why to understand the New Testament we have the Old Testament to show us the example.
And the Temple (Sanctuary) is the perfect example.
Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 17 2009,02:19) I have heard that Calvin Winstanley, as Trinitarian, has demonstrated that Sharp's rule did not apply consistently in Greek if you included more examples than those provided by Grandville Sharp. That makes it sound like Mr. Sharp shaped his evidence to fit his conclusion. One must also concede that there are those that believe the earth is flat to this day.
The earth is flat for those not willing to walk around it.Gee, I am sounding like Nick, quick someone slap me.
Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 17 2009,16:21) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 17 2009,02:19) I have heard that Calvin Winstanley, as Trinitarian, has demonstrated that Sharp's rule did not apply consistently in Greek if you included more examples than those provided by Grandville Sharp. That makes it sound like Mr. Sharp shaped his evidence to fit his conclusion. One must also concede that there are those that believe the earth is flat to this day.
The earth is flat for those not willing to walk around it.Gee, I am sounding like Nick, quick someone slap me.
You better avoid those Chinese restaurants as you seem to be catching something from those fortune cookies.
Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 17 2009,21:19) Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 17 2009,02:05) David said: Quote So compare the KJV rendering of Titus 2:13 (which “treats `God' and `Savior' separately”) with that of 2 Peter 1:1, KJV. The KJV says:
Quote Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
David,
Your reasoning is circular. Show how the KJV treats “God” and “Savior” seperately. And show how Jesus could be the “Savior” without being God. And explain how you can have two Saviors.This is the chief problem with anti-trinitarianism. It is not consistent. If Jesus is excluded as “God” in this verse then God is excluded as “Savior.” Yet anti-trinitarians say that God alone is Savior right?
You're too much David. Too much.
thinker
You can have two Saviors, so to speak.'Elohim is the Savior, but you cannot get to the the Father except through the High Priest (Yeshua HaMoshiach).
Just like in the Old Testament, one could not get reconciled to 'Elohim unless they went through the High Priest.
Either one could hold the keys to Salvation.
Earthy shadows Heavenly.
Thats why to understand the New Testament we have the Old Testament to show us the example.
And the Temple (Sanctuary) is the perfect example.
Hey Con: You mentioned that in the old testament, one could not get reconciled to 'Elohim unless they went through the High Priest.Is it not a fact that starting with Abraham who was righteous by faith and thereby lived in the blessings of God and all the prophets who were considered righteous by faith before Jesus (the example high priest) had come, lived in union with God?
And the religion of the old testament was in darkness and sin. The reason Jesus had to come was to show the correct way to God and enlighten the path. The old testament was full of all sorts of hate, killing, and destruction done in the name of their gods. I don't see that as an example of the love of God that Jesus revealed. Just a thought. Bless you, TK
Tim Kraft wrote:
Quote And the religion of the old testament was in darkness and sin. The reason Jesus had to come was to show the correct way to God and enlighten the path. The old testament was full of all sorts of hate, killing, and destruction done in the name of their gods. I don't see that as an example of the love of God that Jesus revealed. Just a thought. Bless you, TK
You should remember that punishing wrongdoers is an act of love. It is hoped that punishment turns some from the path of evil.
Quote (Tim Kraft @ Dec. 17 2009,02:48) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 17 2009,21:19) Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 17 2009,02:05) David said: Quote So compare the KJV rendering of Titus 2:13 (which “treats `God' and `Savior' separately”) with that of 2 Peter 1:1, KJV. The KJV says:
Quote Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
David,
Your reasoning is circular. Show how the KJV treats “God” and “Savior” seperately. And show how Jesus could be the “Savior” without being God. And explain how you can have two Saviors.This is the chief problem with anti-trinitarianism. It is not consistent. If Jesus is excluded as “God” in this verse then God is excluded as “Savior.” Yet anti-trinitarians say that God alone is Savior right?
You're too much David. Too much.
thinker
You can have two Saviors, so to speak.'Elohim is the Savior, but you cannot get to the the Father except through the High Priest (Yeshua HaMoshiach).
Just like in the Old Testament, one could not get reconciled to 'Elohim unless they went through the High Priest.
Either one could hold the keys to Salvation.
Earthy shadows Heavenly.
Thats why to understand the New Testament we have the Old Testament to show us the example.
And the Temple (Sanctuary) is the perfect example.
Hey Con: You mentioned that in the old testament, one could not get reconciled to 'Elohim unless they went through the High Priest.Is it not a fact that starting with Abraham who was righteous by faith and thereby lived in the blessings of God and all the prophets who were considered righteous by faith before Jesus (the example high priest) had come, lived in union with God?
And the religion of the old testament was in darkness and sin. The reason Jesus had to come was to show the correct way to God and enlighten the path. The old testament was full of all sorts of hate, killing, and destruction done in the name of their gods. I don't see that as an example of the love of God that Jesus revealed. Just a thought. Bless you, TK
Quote Hey Con: You mentioned that in the old testament, one could not get reconciled to 'Elohim unless they went through the High Priest. Absolutly
Quote Is it not a fact that starting with Abraham who was righteous by faith and thereby lived in the blessings of God and all the prophets who were considered righteous by faith before Jesus (the example high priest) had come, lived in union with God? Absolutly
Quote And the religion of the old testament was in darkness and sin. The reason Jesus had to come was to show the correct way to God and enlighten the path. The old testament was full of all sorts of hate, killing, and destruction done in the name of their gods. I don't see that as an example of the love of God that Jesus revealed. Just a thought. Bless you, TK You skipped a time period between: “And the religion of the old testament was in darkness and sin.” and “The reason Jesus had to come was to show the correct way to God and enlighten the path. . .”
Because of that darkness and evil period came the “Temple / Sanctuary” to get those stiffnecked hardened folks back on the right path and back into the Covenant with 'elohim. Now I am not saying there was absolutly no faith and grace during the Temple / Sanctuary period, it abounded. But for those needing the shadow of things to come it was in place. Those who didn't need the temple their faith saw them through, and those who were convicted they had faith in Temple to receive that grace, either way grace can and was imparted, until the Messiah would come.
I hope I explained that well enough.
Many folks should study the shadowings of the Temple. It is pretty remarkable.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
