- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote Rather than just parroting opologist, I'm not “just parroting opologist” as you falsely suggest. Perhaps you've noticed that this thread is called: “THE NEW WORLD'S TRANSLATION ON TITUS 2:13”
Since the argument is against that translation, do you consider it odd to at least here why they translated it that way?
From what I can remember, sharp was a guy who set out to prove the divinity of Christ.
I found some of these comments quite ammusing. i'm sure you'll disagree.
One of Granville's letters written in 1778 (published in 1798), propounded what has come to be known as The Granville Sharp Rule (in actuality only the first of six principles involving the article that Sharp articulated):
“When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, 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 …”[3]
This rule, if true, has a profound bearing on Unitarian doctrine, which led to a ‘celebrated controversy’, in which many leading divines took part, including Christopher Wordsworth.
Daniel B. Wallace says about Sharp:
“His strong belief in Christ’s deity led him to study the Scriptures in the original in order to defend more ably that precious truth … As he studied the Scriptures in the original, he noticed a certain pattern, namely, when the construction article-noun-και-noun involved personal nouns which were singular and not proper names, they always referred to the same person. He noticed further that this rule applied in several texts to the deity of Jesus Christ.”[4]
But Wallace claims that this rule is often too broadly applied. “Sharp’s rule Number 1” does not always work with plural forms of personal titles. Instead, a phrase that follows the form article-noun-“and”-noun, when the nouns involved are plurals, can involve two entirely distinct groups, two overlapping groups, two groups of which is one a subset of the other, or two identical groups.[5] In other words, the rule is of very specific and limited application.
Of Granville Sharp's most successful critic, Calvin Winstanley, 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'[6] – an obvious concession that he could find no exceptions save for the ones he supposed exist in the christologically pregnant texts.”[7]
What Wallace neglects by use of ellipses (…) is the flow of Winstanley's argument as well as the character of his theology.[8] 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.”[9]
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.”[10] 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.”[11]
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granville_SharpQuote (david @ June 09 2009,00:40) Quote Rather than just parroting opologist, I'm not “just parroting opologist” as you falsely suggest. Perhaps you've noticed that this thread is called: “THE NEW WORLD'S TRANSLATION ON TITUS 2:13”
Since the argument is against that translation, do you consider it odd to at least here why they translated it that way?
From what I can remember, sharp was a guy who set out to prove the divinity of Christ.
I found some of these comments quite ammusing. i'm sure you'll disagree.
One of Granville's letters written in 1778 (published in 1798), propounded what has come to be known as The Granville Sharp Rule (in actuality only the first of six principles involving the article that Sharp articulated):
“When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, 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 …”[3]
This rule, if true, has a profound bearing on Unitarian doctrine, which led to a ‘celebrated controversy’, in which many leading divines took part, including Christopher Wordsworth.
Daniel B. Wallace says about Sharp:
“His strong belief in Christ’s deity led him to study the Scriptures in the original in order to defend more ably that precious truth … As he studied the Scriptures in the original, he noticed a certain pattern, namely, when the construction article-noun-και-noun involved personal nouns which were singular and not proper names, they always referred to the same person. He noticed further that this rule applied in several texts to the deity of Jesus Christ.”[4]
But Wallace claims that this rule is often too broadly applied. “Sharp’s rule Number 1” does not always work with plural forms of personal titles. Instead, a phrase that follows the form article-noun-“and”-noun, when the nouns involved are plurals, can involve two entirely distinct groups, two overlapping groups, two groups of which is one a subset of the other, or two identical groups.[5] In other words, the rule is of very specific and limited application.
Of Granville Sharp's most successful critic, Calvin Winstanley, 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'[6] – an obvious concession that he could find no exceptions save for the ones he supposed exist in the christologically pregnant texts.”[7]
What Wallace neglects by use of ellipses (…) is the flow of Winstanley's argument as well as the character of his theology.[8] 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.”[9]
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.”[10] 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.”[11]
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granville_Sharp
Hi DavidThat is simply opologetics with no examples in the NT scriptures proving the Grandville Sharp rule is wrong. Biased words against him because he is Trinitarian with out any proof he is wrong is just hot air and more oppologetic nonsense.
”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.
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.
Please David give us an example!
WJ
David,
If the terms “God” and “Savior” are to be distinguished as you say then Paul denies that God is the Savior at the same time he denies that Jesus is God. You need only a course in Logic 101 to comprehend this. But you want to make it a matter of having a degree in rocket science.Either confess Jesus is God or deny that God is Savior.
thinker
It seems to me that in Titus 1:4 that there is reference to God the Father distinct from Jesus our Saviour in other places we are told that God is our Saviour that does not mean that they are the same person or that one and not the other is our saviour – to me it seems that God is our Saviour and he is saving us THROUGH his son Jesus Christ.
Titus 1:4 To Titus, [mine] own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
There are a lot of passages that say that the way to God the Father is through Jesus Christ our Lord
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 09 2009,22:14) Hi TT,
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. God saves through Jesus.
I agree, NickMeerkat said:
Quote It seems to me that in Titus 1:4 that there is reference to God the Father distinct from Jesus our Saviour in other places we are told that God is our Saviour that does not mean that they are the same person or that one and not the other is our saviour – to me it seems that God is our Saviour and he is saving us THROUGH his son Jesus Christ. Meerkat,
You are correct that 1:4 distinguishes between God the Father and the Savior Jesus Christ. I have made two observations:1. The Father is not mentioned in 2:13. It simply says, “the great God and our savior Jesus Christ.
2. Verse 1:4 says that Jesus Christ is the Savior which you deny. How is it that you can say that the Father is our Savior when it clearly says that Jesus Christ is our Savior? Show me from the Bible where the Father was spit upon and tortured and hanged on a torture stake for your sins.
Thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 09 2009,20:14) Hi TT,
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. God saves through Jesus.
Nick,
The end result was that Christ became the AUTHOR of eternal salvation,Quote And having been perfected He became the AUTHOR of eternal salvation to all who obey Him (Heb. 5:9) God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. This resulted in the Son becoming the AUTHOR of salvation. After all is said and done it is the Son who became the AUTHOR of salvation. What does the word “author” mean Nick? Note too that he is the AUTHOR of salvation to all who obey HIM (the Son).
thinker
Quote (meerkat @ June 09 2009,05:55) It seems to me that in Titus 1:4 that there is reference to God the Father distinct from Jesus our Saviour in other places we are told that God is our Saviour that does not mean that they are the same person or that one and not the other is our saviour – to me it seems that God is our Saviour and he is saving us THROUGH his son Jesus Christ. Titus 1:4 To Titus, [mine] own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
There are a lot of passages that say that the way to God the Father is through Jesus Christ our Lord
Hi MKThe word Father “pater” is not in the verse. So the translation you use is not correct!
WJ
Thinker………Author means the one who wrote the book. Doesn't mean He is the BOOK. Jesus wrote the book (so to speak), by becoming the (FIRST) of man kind to MAKE IT of all of mankind. He know how to get us saved and we must do it the same way he did, by total reliance of GOD the FATHER as He did. In this sense He is the Author of salvation. We are not save by Jesus but through him, God is reconciling the world to (HIMSELF) Through JESUS. IMO
peace and love……………………………..gene
Quote (Gene @ June 10 2009,04:19) Thinker………Author means the one who wrote the book. Doesn't mean He is the BOOK. Jesus wrote the book (so to speak), by becoming the (FIRST) of man kind to MAKE IT of all of mankind. He know how to get us saved and we must do it the same way he did, by total reliance of GOD the FATHER as He did. In this sense He is the Author of salvation. We are not save by Jesus but through him, God is reconciling the world to (HIMSELF) Through JESUS. IMO peace and love……………………………..gene
Gene,
See Strong's# 159. It says that “author” means “causer” of eternal salvation. It appears as if you are saying that we become co-authors with Christ in salvation. Anti-trinitarians misapprehend what is meant by “God in Christ.” It means that God was in Christ working TOGETHER with Christ. It resulted in Jesus Himself becoming the “author” (or cause) of eternal salvation.thus saith the scriptures,
thinker
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 09 2009,12:17) Quote (meerkat @ June 09 2009,05:55) It seems to me that in Titus 1:4 that there is reference to God the Father distinct from Jesus our Saviour in other places we are told that God is our Saviour that does not mean that they are the same person or that one and not the other is our saviour – to me it seems that God is our Saviour and he is saving us THROUGH his son Jesus Christ. Titus 1:4 To Titus, [mine] own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
There are a lot of passages that say that the way to God the Father is through Jesus Christ our Lord
Hi MKThe word Father “pater” is not in the verse. So the translation you use is not correct!
WJ
Hi MKJack has pointed out to me that Titus 1:4 the Greek word for Father “patēr” is there.
He is correct. My oppology. The thread is about Titus 2:13 and I assumed that was the verse you quoted.
The Grandville sharp rule stands. Both the Father and Jesus are our Saviour and our God!
Blessings WJ
Hi WJ,
God was IN Christ reconciling the world to Himself.[2cor5]
Will you need to rewrite this verse too?Quote (thethinker @ June 10 2009,05:54) Meerkat said: Quote It seems to me that in Titus 1:4 that there is reference to God the Father distinct from Jesus our Saviour in other places we are told that God is our Saviour that does not mean that they are the same person or that one and not the other is our saviour – to me it seems that God is our Saviour and he is saving us THROUGH his son Jesus Christ. Meerkat,
You are correct that 1:4 distinguishes between God the Father and the Savior Jesus Christ. I have made two observations:1. The Father is not mentioned in 2:13. It simply says, “the great God and our savior Jesus Christ.
2. Verse 1:4 says that Jesus Christ is the Savior which you deny. How is it that you can say that the Father is our Savior when it clearly says that Jesus Christ is our Savior? Show me from the Bible where the Father was spit upon and tortured and hanged on a torture stake for your sins.
Thinker
Thinker,I do not deny that Jesus is our Saviour – Because Jesus is our Saviour does not mean that God is not the Saviour of mankind. He is saving mankind through his mediator – the man Jesus whom he has raised to his right hand.
See 1 Tim 2:3-5
God is our Saviour, he has raised up Jesus from the dead for that purpose, to save us.
Thinker and WJ
I have noticed that the wording in the KJV is different from what was quoted in the starter post
before Saviour Jesus Christ is the word “our”
are there any other examples of the rule that have this – does this additional word separate the 2 persons of “the great God” and our “Saviour Jesus Christ” ??
Quote (meerkat @ June 09 2009,16:25) Thinker and WJ I have noticed that the wording in the KJV is different from what was quoted in the starter post
before Saviour Jesus Christ is the word “our”
are there any other examples of the rule that have this – does this additional word separate the 2 persons of “the great God” and our “Saviour Jesus Christ” ??
Hi MeerkatThe Grandville Sharp rule is based on the litteral text.
“megalou qeou kai swthrov hmwn Ihsou Xristou”,
“Great God and Saviour our Jesus Christ”.
Blessings WJ
Hi WJ,
Of course he is not the one true God.
For us there is one God the Father ….and one Lord Jesus Christ[1cor8]Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 09 2009,17:32) Hi WJ,
Of course he is not the one true God.
For us there is one God the Father ….and one Lord Jesus Christ[1cor8]
Hi HNWell then you deny the scriptures that says he is God, unless you believe he is a false god!
As you say there is only “One True God” now you have to decide if Jesus is “True” or not. Or is he just some little god that the Father called “God”.
Believe all the scriptures NH! Or believe some and reject the others, the choice is yours!
WJ
Hi WJ,
So no matter how Jesus is described in scripture 1Cor 8 defines their relationship to us.
FOR us their roles are defined.Or would you rather it had not been written so you could support your trinity theory about the nature of God?
Does 1 cor 8 not define your relationship with God?
Is God not the head of Christ in your view?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 09 2009,17:53) Hi WJ,
So no matter how Jesus is described in scripture 1Cor 8 defines their relationship to us.
FOR us their roles are defined.Or would you rather it had not been written so you could support your trinity theory about the nature of God?
Does 1 cor 8 not define your relationship with God?
Is God not the head of Christ in your view?
HI NHOf course 1 Cor 8 defines my relationship with God, but without the contradictions that you have.
Tell my NH if “One God and One Lord” means that only the Father is God, then it must mean that only Jesus is Lord? Right?
Is the Father “Lord” or not? If he is then you cannot claim 1 Cor 8:6 to say Jesus is not God.
So you live with the contradictions, for it is Paul that also said…
while we wait for the blessed hope-the glorious appearing of our “GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST“, Titus 2:13
And also…
For certain men whose condemnation was written about [fn] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and “DENY JESUS CHRIST OUR ONLY SOVEREIGN AND LORD“. Jude 1:4
Do you believe these scriptures? If not then you have no right to accuse anyone else on this board for not staying with the word.
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
