Sharp's rule….

[Constitutionalist]

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.

[KangarooJack]

Constitutionalist said:

Quote

You can have two Saviors, so to speak.

Then you can have two Gods “so to speak.” I am glad that David started this thread. It helps to expose anti-trinitarian double talk.

thinker

[KangarooJack]

David wrote:

Quote

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”

Okay David, you got me on the matter of Sharp's rule in reference to participles. Now two questions for you: Is not Sharp's rule in tact in the verses you give as examples above? And how would your example from Matthew 21:12 be different since those who were buying and selling comprised a SINGLE GROUP?

Matthew 21:12:

τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας [tous po·loun′tas kai a·go·ra′zon·tas].

Your source says this:

Quote

No one can reasonably suppose that the same persons are here described as both selling and buying. In Mark the two classes are made distinct by the insertion of τούς before ἀγοράζοντας; here it is safely left to the intelligence of the reader to distinguish them.

No! The definite article indicates that the buyers and sellers comprised a single group.

John 7:45 is an example:

Ἦλθον οὖν οἱ ὑπηρέται1 πρὸς τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ Φαρισαίους, καὶ εἶπον αὐτοῖς ἐκεῖνοι, διατί2 οὐκ ἠγάγετε αὐτόν;

“The officers came to the chief priests and pharisees”

“Note: The implication is that the chief priests and pharisees comprised a single group at this juncture” (Syntax of New Testament Greek, p. 76).

I am indebted to you for correcting me on Sharp's rule in reference to participles. I should have double checked before I ran off that post. However, you have not debunked Sharp's rule. All the scriptural examples you gave of Sharp's rule in reference to participles establish the rule. And the buyers and the sellers in Matthew 21:12 comprised a single group.

You have NOT debunked Sharp's rule in Titus 2:13. In fact, you have become even more incoherent because Jesus could not be “Savior” if He were not God.

thinker

[Worshipping Jesus]

Jack

Here is some more info on your points which are right on…

Many modern Greek Grammars include a section on Sharp's rule. Here is Vaughn's & Gideon's summary.

“If two nouns of the same case are connected by a “kai” [and] and the article is used with both nouns, they refer to different persons or things. If only the first noun has the article, the second noun refers to the same person or thing referred to in the first.” (Vaughn and Gideon, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1979, p. 83.)

You may notice that this version of Sharp's first rule does not limit it to exclusively personal, singular nouns, but also includes plural and non-personal nouns in the first rule. Daniel B. Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 278-290) has noted that when non-personal or plural nouns appear in a TSKS construction, at least some kind of unity is being expressed between the substantives. They may be:

a) distinct but united
b) overlapping entities
c) first entity subset of second
d) second entity subset of first
e) both entities identical

As a general exegetical rule, we have found that the following general rule is helpful.

“TSKTS or SKS- If two nouns of the same case are connected by a “kai” (and) and the article is used with BOTH nouns (TSKTS), or with neither noun (SKS), the nouns point to different persons, things, or qualities. That is, the nouns are being distinguished in the context for a specific reason. This is true even when both nouns are applicable to the same person. eg., “I am the Alpha and Omega.” The two nouns are opposites, and are being distinguished as extreme opposites, even though Jesus claims both for Himself.

TSKS – If only the first noun has the article, the second noun refers to the same person referred to in the first when the nouns are singular, personal, and not proper names. When only the first noun has the article in plural or non-personal constructions, the nouns are being united for a purpose. In this case, even though the nouns themselves may individually refer to different things, qualities, or persons, they are being united for a specific reason in the context. For example, “the scribes and Pharisees.” In this TSKS construction the writer meant to unite the two groups in pointing out their common opposition to Jesus, even though the two groups are completely distinct individually.

WJ

[KangarooJack]

WorshippingJesus said to thinker:

Quote

You may notice that this version of Sharp's first rule does not limit it to exclusively personal, singular nouns, but also includes plural and non-personal nouns in the first rule. Daniel B. Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 278-290) has noted that when non-personal or plural nouns appear in a TSKS construction, at least some kind of unity is being expressed between the substantives. They may be: a) distinct but united b) overlapping entities c) first entity subset of second d) second entity subset of first e) both entities identical

Keith,
Thanks buddy. I highlighted “distinct but united” (a) above. David has no case against Sharp's rule from Matthew 21:12. The buyers and sellers were two yet united in their merchandizing. Sharp's rule still stands.

thinker

[Constitutionalist]

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 17 2009,03:47)

Constitutionalist said: Quote You can have two Saviors, so to speak. Then you can have two Gods “so to speak.” I am glad that David started this thread. It helps to expose anti-trinitarian double talk. thinker

Absolutly, if your a trinitarian.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 18 2009,13:34)

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 17 2009,03:47) Constitutionalist said: Quote You can have two Saviors, so to speak. Then you can have two Gods “so to speak.” I am glad that David started this thread. It helps to expose anti-trinitarian double talk. thinker Absolutly, if your a trinitarian.

Evasive

thinker

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 18 2009,13:34)

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 17 2009,03:47) Constitutionalist said: Quote You can have two Saviors, so to speak. Then you can have two Gods “so to speak.” I am glad that David started this thread. It helps to expose anti-trinitarian double talk. thinker Absolutly, if your a trinitarian.

Jesus Christ is not a “god of sorts” to the trinitarian. He is the “great God and Savior.”

thinker

[942767]

Hi:

And so, what the Trinitarians are aguing that since the Granville Sharp rule is true that God and Jesus are the same person based on Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, but there are many scriptures which show that Jesus is not the Father, and so, Jesus cannot be God in that sense, but God did call him God when he exalted him to his position as head of the church. He is God in this sense through his authority in the church he speaks for God as His representative. God has given him in this position the authority to judge all of mankind by the Word that the Father has spoken to humanity through him.

When he comes for the church he is coming to judge all, but he said no one knows when that time will be but the Father, and so again, he is God through the authority given him as God's representative, and so this explains Titus 2:13.

2 Peter 1:1 reads:

Quote

Simeon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who did obtain a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ:

This verse is speaking of “faith in the righteousness of Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ”. Jesus is God in that he is the express image of God's person. If the arguement is that Jesus and God are the same person be cause God has said that “besides Him there is no saviour”, Jesus has said that He and His Father were “one”. They are “one” in the God's plan for the salvation of mankind. The name Jesus means “Jehovah is salvation”. There is no saviour without God intervening and giving us “His Only begotten Son”. And Jesus obeyed Him without sin even unto death on the cross, and so, he is our saviour, but he would not exist apart from the Father.

God is not a “trinity”. He made man in His own image, and Jesus is God in that he is the express image of God's person, and in the authority that God has given him as head of the church.

Quote

Jhn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Quote

1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Love in Christ,
Marty

[Constitutionalist]

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 18 2009,10:57)

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 18 2009,13:34) Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 17 2009,03:47) Constitutionalist said: Quote You can have two Saviors, so to speak. Then you can have two Gods “so to speak.” I am glad that David started this thread. It helps to expose anti-trinitarian double talk. thinker Absolutly, if your a trinitarian. Jesus Christ is not a “god of sorts” to the trinitarian. He is the “great God and Savior.” thinker

But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself [rather] unto godliness.

[kerwin]

Marty wrote:

Quote

And so, what the Trinitarians are aguing that since the Granville Sharp rule is true that God and Jesus are the same person based on Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1,

I see your point but it has to concede that there is a possibility of Granville Sharp's rule being true which it quite obviously is not. To me that means that the argument becomes meaningless since the opponent's reasoning is based on an untruth.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 19 2009,13:59)

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 18 2009,10:57) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 18 2009,13:34) Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 17 2009,03:47) Constitutionalist said: Quote You can have two Saviors, so to speak. Then you can have two Gods “so to speak.” I am glad that David started this thread. It helps to expose anti-trinitarian double talk. thinker Absolutly, if your a trinitarian. Jesus Christ is not a “god of sorts” to the trinitarian. He is the “great God and Savior.” thinker But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself [rather] unto godliness.

“4For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

5Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 4-5 ESV)

According to Constitutionalist the earlier manuscripts are the Word of God. Therefore, Jesus is God by Con's standards for judging manuscripts.

thinker

[KangarooJack]

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 19 2009,16:41)

Marty wrote: Quote And so, what the Trinitarians are aguing that since the Granville Sharp rule is true that God and Jesus are the same person based on Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, I see your point but it has to concede that there is a possibility of Granville Sharp's rule being true which it quite obviously is not.  To me that means that the argument becomes meaningless since the opponent's reasoning is based on an untruth.

Sharp's rule is accurate:

τὸν μόνον δεσπότην8 καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι. Jude 4

“And deny the only Master and Lord Jesus Christ.” Jude 4

The same grammatical construction is present in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Do you deny that Jesus Christ is the “ONLY Master and Lord?”

Verse 5 solidifies this by saying that “the Lord” saved the people out of Egypt. The “Lord” who saved the people out of Egypt is identified as Jesus Christ in verse 4. Earlier manuscripts read that “Jesus” saved the people out of Egypt. So no matter which manuscripts you choose it is conclusive that the substantives “Master” and “Lord” refer to the same person which is Jesus Christ.

Sharp's rule stands.

thinker

[uoflfan]

Actually it is not true. Jesus can be called Master and other names even Father in some cases because God is in Jesus. But there is a difference between being called something and saying that the Father is the only true God.

[kerwin]

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 20 2009,22:11)

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 19 2009,16:41) Marty wrote: Quote And so, what the Trinitarians are aguing that since the Granville Sharp rule is true that God and Jesus are the same person based on Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, I see your point but it has to concede that there is a possibility of Granville Sharp's rule being true which it quite obviously is not.  To me that means that the argument becomes meaningless since the opponent's reasoning is based on an untruth. Sharp's rule is accurate: τὸν μόνον δεσπότην8 καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι. Jude 4 “And deny the only Master and Lord Jesus Christ.” Jude 4 The same grammatical construction is present in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Do you deny that Jesus Christ is the “ONLY Master and Lord?” Verse 5 solidifies this by saying that “the Lord” saved the people out of Egypt. The “Lord” who saved the people out of Egypt is identified as Jesus Christ in verse 4. Earlier manuscripts read that “Jesus” saved the people out of Egypt. So no matter which manuscripts you choose it is conclusive that the substantives “Master” and “Lord” refer to the same person which is Jesus Christ. Sharp's rule stands. thinker

Please!  The only argument is to support it is to cherry pick the documents that you apply it to.  If you look at other Greek language transcripts than those belonging to the New Testament then it does not hold true.  If it is not universal, or close to universal, then it is not a rule of the Greek written language of that period.

I am assuming it hold true for New Testament manuscripts where there is a mere five points where it can be applied.   I question what scientist would form a rule from a statistically insignificant number of observations.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 21 2009,04:05)

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 20 2009,22:11) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 19 2009,16:41) Marty wrote: Quote And so, what the Trinitarians are aguing that since the Granville Sharp rule is true that God and Jesus are the same person based on Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, I see your point but it has to concede that there is a possibility of Granville Sharp's rule being true which it quite obviously is not.  To me that means that the argument becomes meaningless since the opponent's reasoning is based on an untruth. Sharp's rule is accurate: τὸν μόνον δεσπότην8 καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι. Jude 4 “And deny the only Master and Lord Jesus Christ.” Jude 4 The same grammatical construction is present in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Do you deny that Jesus Christ is the “ONLY Master and Lord?” Verse 5 solidifies this by saying that “the Lord” saved the people out of Egypt. The “Lord” who saved the people out of Egypt is identified as Jesus Christ in verse 4. Earlier manuscripts read that “Jesus” saved the people out of Egypt. So no matter which manuscripts you choose it is conclusive that the substantives “Master” and “Lord” refer to the same person which is Jesus Christ. Sharp's rule stands. thinker Please!  The only argument is to support it is to cherry pick the documents that you apply it to.  If you look at other Greek language transcripts than those belonging to the New Testament then it does not hold true.  If it is not universal, or close to universal, then it is not a rule of the Greek written language of that period. I am assuming it hold true for New Testament manuscripts where there is a mere five points where it can be applied.   I question what scientist would form a rule from a statistically insignificant number of observations.

The consensus is and Constitutionalist even agrees that the oldest manuscripts are more reliable. Disprove what I say. The “Lord” who saved the people from Egypt in verse 5 is Jesus Christ the “only Master and Lord” in verse 4. My point stands with or without the earlier manuscripts which read “Jesus”.”  It doesn't matter. But their existence strengthens my point.

thinker

[david]

Quote

This is just one example of David's anti-Christian [meaning “non-trinarian and therefore non-Christian”] bag of tricks. I will get to the rest of his post soon. He really has my blood boiling profusely now.

–The….um hum…”Thinker.”

Quote

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

I too find it odd how TT's blood seems to boil whenever I say anything lately.  TT, please don't say or do anything that would involve you getting too many more of those little yellow squares.  We would miss you.

david.

[david]

Quote

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.

“Woman without man is nothing.”

Depending on where you put the punctuation, this sentence can mean opposite things.

Woman, without man, is nothing.
(means that a lady who has no man is nothing)

Woman-without man is nothing.
(means a man without a woman is nothing)

And guess what?  When you ask people to put the punctuation in themselves, there is a distinct leaning of men towards the first and women towards the second.

Because of this insanely strong bias to see what we want, we have to be careful of what others see, and the “rules” they make up to support what they see.

Also, equally interesting, is that once you've read it one way, it's hard to see the other possible way to read it.

[david]

Quote

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.

—the …um …”thinker.”

PLEASE!!!!

This argument actually makes me vomit in my mouth a little. It's so simplistic.

I created another thread “Title Confusion Trick, Savior.” Please find your obvious answer to this question there.

[david]

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 17 2009,22:47)

Constitutionalist said: Quote You can have two Saviors, so to speak. Then you can have two Gods “so to speak.” I am glad that David started this thread. It helps to expose anti-trinitarian double talk. thinker

Why don't you go attempt to discuss your multiple “saviors” theories in the “Title Confusion Trick” thread. I would enjoy that.

[Author]

Posts