- This topic is empty.
- Posts
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
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.
Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 17 2009,02:56) 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.
Could not agree more.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
