Sharp&#39;s rule&#8230;.

Participant

“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.–the thinker

First, we all make mistakes. Don't beat yourself up too much.

(I'm just having fun with you by saying that, am since you've said your blood is boiling, I'm actually wondering what will happen when your head explodes…figuratively speaking, of course. I don't want that, but am curious.)

I have found examples in the Bible of “the chief priests and scribes.”

And I've found examples in the Bible of “the chief priests and the scribes.”

Do these both imply different things, and if so what? Do they have to imply different things?

I've also found “the chief priests and the pharisees.” What does this prove given that sometimes we are told of as you mention “the chief priests and pharisees”?

What does it all mean?

December 21, 2009 at 3:27 am#165600

Participant

Quote

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

Please stop trying to switch the subject. I'm not sure why you keep saying this, or why you keep using this false reasoning. Please go see the “Title Confusion Trick” Thread.

Question: Could not God use Jesus to save the world? Is this not EXACTLY what scripture says–that God, through Jesus, saved the world? Please go see the Confusion thread. I think that thread is more suited to your arguments.

December 21, 2009 at 3:31 am#165602

terraricca

Participant

hi David
I always wander i have seen so many ingeneering done to estabish the right or wrong way of a word in the scriptures,
did the apostels took a look at all what they have written before writting it and go to the all possible means of interpretation of there writting in their mind,i don't think so.

December 21, 2009 at 6:09 am#165628

Participant

Quote

terraricca, I completely agree. Hence, this thread. And if you look at my post on the top of this page, that is pretty much the point I made there.

December 21, 2009 at 8:03 am#165641

Participant

“Both substantitives “God” and “Jesus Christ” have the article. So they are two different persons.”–thinker (bold and underline in the original quote.)

Thinker, aren't they always “two different persons”? Or is it only sometimes that they are? Are they sometimes two different persons and sometimes not? I thought I was the one that was arguing they are “two different persons.”

Here's your quote in full:

Quote

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?

December 21, 2009 at 8:31 am#165642

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 17 2009,20:27)

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

But if you read the Greek, (or re-read it) it does not say “the” God and “the” Christ Jesus.

It says:
“THE God the (one) generating alive THE all (things) and of Christ Jesus THE (one) having borne witness…

Does it matter that the definite article is after “Christ Jesus”?

I'm not an expert on Sharp's first rule. But no one else on the internet seems to be arguing this point. What they argue and maybe what you should be saying is:

'It is possible that “God” can be used as a proper name in this verse.'

December 21, 2009 at 3:59 pm#165649

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 19 2009,00:41)

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.

Kerwin

Then debunk it!

“The NET Bible is a completely new translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts“. Turn the pages and see the breadth of the translators’ notes, documenting their decisions and choices as they worked. The translators’ notes make the original languages far more accessible, allowing you to look over the translator’s shoulder at the very process of translation.

This is the commentary of the experts in Greek!

The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. “Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on Sharp’s rule see ExSyn 270-78, esp. 276. See also 2 Pet 1:1 and Jude 4“.

I hear all the chitter chatter from those with no credentials in Greek Grammar denying the facts because to them it cannot be so for if it was then they may have to forsake their false doctrines!

“Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on Sharp’s rule see ExSyn 270-78, esp. 276. See also 2 Pet 1:1 and Jude 4” Source

So have at it.

“But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears. Zech 7:11

December 21, 2009 at 4:02 pm#165650

Participant

Kerwin

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 20 2009,12:05)

Please! The only argument is to support it is to cherry pick the documents that you apply it to.

Then prove it wrong and give us a scriptural example where the rule fails!

December 23, 2009 at 5:57 am#166098

Participant

Quote

I hear all the chitter chatter from those with no credentials in Greek Grammar denying the facts because to them it cannot be so for if it was then they may have to forsake their false doctrines!

No, we're more so pointing out that other people with Greek credentials (and who are even trinitarian) often question Sharps Rule.

December 23, 2009 at 6:07 am#166099

Participant

Wikipedia, under “Granville Sharp” says:

Of Granville Sharp's most successful critic, Calvin Winstanley [a trinitarian], [Daniel] Wallace says:

“Winstanley conceded 'There are, you say, no exceptions, in the New Testament, to your rule; that is, I suppose, unless these particular texts be such … it is nothing surprising to find all these particular texts in question appearing as the exceptions to your rule, and the sole exceptions … in the New Testament'[7] – an obvious concession that he could find no exceptions save for the ones he supposed exist in the christologically pregnant texts.”[8]

What Wallace neglects by use of ellipses (…) is the flow of Winstanley's argument as well as the character of his theology.[9] Winstanley's quote argued that one could not apply Sharp's rule to the possible exceptions unless it could be shown that extra-biblical literature also followed Sharp's rule. Through multiple examples Winstanley showed that in classical Greek and in patristic Greek – all the literature surrounding the New Testament, the rule simply did not apply consistently. Wallace's quote comes from the end of Winstanley's argument in which he clearly is not conceding the point. To complete Winstanley's argument:

“There are, you say, no exceptions, in the New Testament, to your rule; that is, I suppose, unless these particular texts be such; which you think utterly improbable. You would argue, then, that if these texts were exceptions, there would be more. I do not perceive any great weight in this hypothetical reasoning. But, however plausible it may appear, the reply is at hand. There are no other words so likely to yield exceptions; because there are no other words, between which the insertion of the copulative, would effect so remarkable a deviation from the established form of constructing them to express one person; and of course, would so pointedly suggest a difference of signification.”[10]

Winstanley was a trinitarian Christian, but cautioned that a rule that held true only in the New Testament in all but the disputed cases was too flimsy a ground on which to try to prove the divinity of Christ to the Socinians (Unitarians). Instead he said, “ there are much more cogent arguments in reserve, when [Sharp's] rule of interpretation shall be abandoned.”[11] His biggest criticisms of Sharp's rule rest in the fact that 1) the early church fathers do not follow it and 2) the early church father's never invoked this rule to prove the divinity of Christ (though it would have been an obvious tool against such heresy). He concludes, “Hence it may be presumed that the doctrine then rested on other grounds.”[12]

While it is affirmed by Wallace and other biblical scholars that there is more and more confirmation of this rule, there are trinitarian scholars who continue to believe Winstanley's refutation sufficient.

david

December 23, 2009 at 6:30 am#166101

Participant

The more I study this rule, the more it seems a “fit for purpose” rule, that being to defend the divinity of Christ.

Sharp was a trinitarian and a grammarian, and he set out to help establish the divinity of Christ. He definitely developed that rule with the Trinity in the back of his mind. That's why he came up with so many exceptions to fit in to this belief. He was 'sharp' enough to forumulate many exceptions to this rule.

December 23, 2009 at 4:43 pm#166129

Participant

Quote (david @ Dec. 21 2009,13:54)

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,
Anti-trinitarianism is indeed anti-christian because it leads to the denial that Jesus Christ is THE Savior. This does not mean all anti-trinitarians are lost. But anti-trinitarian-ism is indeed anti-christian.

thinker

December 23, 2009 at 4:57 pm#166130

Participant

Quote (david @ Dec. 21 2009,14:06)

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,
Titus 2 clearly says that Jesus Christ is the Savior “who gave HIMSELF for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity and purify for HIMSELF a peculiar people, zealous of good works.”

If Jesus is not God shouldn't He be purifying us for God and not FOR HIMSELF? Your “savior” is an idolater.

To be the Savior is to be Divine. Your distinction between “God” and “Savior” in Titus 2 is artificial.

Oh, btw, the angel who spoke to Joseph was also an idolater. He said that “His name shall be called Jesus, for He shall save HIS people from their sins.” The angel should have said, “He shall save GOD'S people.”

David:

Quote

This argument actually makes me vomit in my mouth a little.

Let it hit the key board.

thinker

December 23, 2009 at 5:09 pm#166132

Participant

David said:

Quote

Could not God use Jesus to save the world?

Only if Jesus was Jehovah because there is no Savior besides Jehovah:

“I – I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior” (Is. 43:11, NWT)

Check mate! Your distinction between “God” and “Savior” in Titus 2 is artificial. To be THE Savior is to be Divine. Jesus Christ is THE Savior. Therefore, He is Divine.

You're getting so easy to refute I have a lot of time left over to spend with my daughter while she is home from college for the Christmas break. :;):

thinker

December 23, 2009 at 5:14 pm#166134

dirtyknections

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 24 2009,03:43)

Quote (david @ Dec. 21 2009,13:54)

Quote

–The….um hum…”Thinker.”

Quote

–CON

david.

thinker

And this type of thinking my friend is exactly why “Christianity” is in shambles and woefully disarrayed…smh…

I asked in a thread a while back if trinitarians believed that the belief in the “Holy Trinity” was one that was necessary for survival..there was a lot of “hemming” and “hawing”….but unfortunately I and many others KNOW that most devout trinitarians (if you don't fit this group..plz say so) believe you basically will “burn” ..(isn't funny how MOST of the people who believe in the trinity..believe in a LITERAL HELL ) if you don't believe that doctrine

All I can say is the world is LAUGHING at how DIVIDED and JUDGEMENTAL so called “CHRISTIANITY” is…”CHRISTIANITY” is being made a mockery…That is why i KNOW that AGE of RELIGION is Over…We are now in an age of RELATIONSHIP…which is what JESUS WHOLE MINISTRY WAS ABOUT!!!

TheThinker and those like him…when you learn the meaning of this scripture…then you will learn the error of the way you go about your..how shall we say..”Christianity”

Hebrews 13:11-14 (New International Version)

11The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.

December 23, 2009 at 6:05 pm#166147

kerwin

Participant

Worshipping Jesus wrote:

Quote

Then debunk it!

I don’t have to as an expert who is also a Trinitarian has done so long ago. That expert is Calvin Winstanley. Even Grandville Sharp claimed his observations were based on the New Testament. That would lead to the conclusion that the rule is true only if the writers of the New Testament used the Greek Language in way specialized to themselves.

You seem to be arguing that experts disagree. That appears to be the case.

Or in other words those experts who accuse God of being tempted by evil may or may not hold to the theory that Greek is written according to Sharp’s rule. Interesting!

I am never going to level that accusation against God as I find it abominable but you can do as you choose.

December 23, 2009 at 7:00 pm#166157

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 23 2009,11:57)

Quote (david @ Dec. 21 2009,14:06)

Quote

—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,
Titus 2 clearly says that Jesus Christ is the Savior “who gave HIMSELF for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity and purify for HIMSELF a peculiar people, zealous of good works.”

If Jesus is not God shouldn't He be purifying us for God and not FOR HIMSELF? Your “savior” is an idolater.

To be the Savior is to be Divine. Your distinction between “God” and “Savior” in Titus 2 is artificial.

Oh, btw, the angel who spoke to Joseph was also an idolater. he said that “His name shall be called Jesus, for He shall save HIS people from their sins.” The angel should have said, “He shall save GOD'S people.”

David

Quote

:This argument actually makes me vomit in my mouth a little.

Let it hit the key board.

thinker

Jack

Excellent points!

The unbelievers always seek to make Jesus into just a mere man.

Jesus is not our Saviour by proxy! It was Gods own blood that was shed on that tree. Acts 20:28

Jesus “Alone” could forgive sins against God!

Jesus is also the Good Shephard and calls his sheep “his sheep” and makes himself equal to the Father when he says “no man shall pluck them out of “His Hand”. The Jews sought to kill him for making himself equal to God by his statements in John 10.

December 23, 2009 at 7:11 pm#166158

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 23 2009,13:05)

Worshipping Jesus wrote:

Quote

Then debunk it!

You seem to be arguing that experts disagree. That appears to be the case.

Or in other words those experts who accuse God of being tempted by evil may or may not hold to the theory that Greek is written according to Sharp’s rule. Interesting!

I am never going to level that accusation against God as I find it abominable but you can do as you choose.

Kerwin

No he didn't. He gives no example nor do you of the Greek text debunking the rule.

As far as God being tempted to evil you will have to define Evil, for I find many case where YHWH was moved to kill and destroy many by his judgment in the Torah and Tanakh.

Now give me an example where Jesus was tempted to do evil?

Jesus said satan comes and finds nothing in him! Jesus also said that he had no sin. Jesus also said that that which comes out of the heart of man is what defiles him not what goes in the mouth. Jesus had no uncleanus in him unlike every other man that ever lived or walked the earth.

Therefore that which was in his earthly vessel was God for he was God the Word that was with God and was God and that was made flesh and dwelt among us! The Spirit of Jesus which was God was not tempted to evil!

December 23, 2009 at 7:33 pm#166159

Participant

Quote (dirtyknections @ Dec. 23 2009,12:14)

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 24 2009,03:43)

david,Dec. wrote:

Quote

–The….um hum…”Thinker.”

Quote

–CON

david.

thinker

Quote (dirtyknections @ Dec. 23 2009,12:14)

And this type of thinking my friend is exactly why “Christianity” is in shambles and woefully disarrayed…smh…

Circular! For it can also be argued that “anti-trinitarianism is the reason Christianity is in disaray.

Personally I do not see “True Christianity” in disaray. They are about the Fathers buisness preaching the Gospel to the nations, feeding and clothing the poor, bringing relief to the oppressed.

You do realize that the majority of those things I mentioned are done by “Christianity” which are by majority Trinitarian, don't you?

December 23, 2009 at 10:01 pm#166182