Part 1 of 2, John 1:18
Guillermo Rodrmguez
Hello:
Barry Hardy wrote:
>
> This verse clearly speaks of the fact that no one has seen "God"
> at any time.
In the NT "God" refers to the Father by convention. What John is saying
here is that nobody has seen God, the Father. If this was intended to
mean all three, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, then it would
be a false statement since several characters from the OT saw God: Adam,
Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc. John simply si saying here that
they didn't see the Father, commonly called "God" in the NT, but one of
the other two persons of the Trinity, the Son or the Holy Spirit (most
likely the Son).
> The verse then speaks of the "only-begotten god,"
> which from the context is obviously Jesus.
Or the "Only-begotten God", matter of taste.
> It is therefore quite
> obvious in the plain and unambiguous reading of this verse that
> the created "god" Jesus has been seen, and he has witnessed
> about his Father, which is shown as God here, the one who has
> never been seen.
Oh, but nowhere in the Bible we see that Jesus or the Son or the Word is
a created "god".
> This verse does not refer to ordinary man at
> all. This verse does not have to state these two persons are
> not the same being because such a concept was completely
> alien to the writer's culture and religion, both being Jewish.
They should have not been. In the OT we can find two persons in the same
verse being called Jehovah, which was supposed to be One. The concept
was alien not to the writer's culture, but to the greek audience.
> The Bible teaches no such thing. There is no doubt, however,
> that men have attempted to use the Bible to teach this doctrine.
Says you.
> Yes, do look at John 17:11 closely. You will notice that in his
> prayer to Jehovah, Jesus asks that his disciples be as one,
> just as Jesus and Jehovah are one. I would guess that you are
> not suggesting that Jesus' disciples were all one entity but made
> up of different persons.
Yes I do, this entity is called "the Church", you guessed wrong.
> Also Hebrews 5:5 states: "So also Christ did not glorify himself
> so as to become a high priest, but He who said to him, "You are
> my Son, today I have begotten you." (NASB)
>
> Glorify (the Greek "doxazo") primarily means to magnify, extol,
> or praise. John 17:1 merely shows that Jesus is asking his
> Father to give him the strength to accomplish his purpose
> which is evident from the remaining verses.
Excuse me, but in Spanish and in my limited knowledge of English,
Magnify, extol and praise mean one thing and strehgthen means something
else. But then, Jesus used a very poor grammar throughout the entire
Gospel of John, righ? Even to the point that no matter how evidiently a
claim for Deity Christ is making, you can find a way to twist and bend
and end up with something else.
> Please notice that at John 1:3 Jesus states: "This is eternal life,
> that they may know You, the _only true God_, and Jesus Christ
> whom you have sent." (NASB) This verse, and Jesus himself,
> clearly identifies the Father Jehovah as the _only true God_ and
> distinguishes Jesus from the only true God by stating that the
> only true God sent him. He did not say that Jehovah divested
> himself of a coequal divine personage.
He did say that the Father is Jehovah, the only true God, but He didn't
excluded Himself from being Jehovah, He distinguished Himself from the
Father, not from Jehovah. He Even associated Himself to "Eternal Life"
(a theme that John would expand in his 1st. letter). How could a created
being be "Eternal" life?
> You are again arguing from what the scripture _does not_
> say. Jesus simply says that he had this glory before the world
> was, he does not say how he obtained it, or in what capacity
> he enjoyed it.
Exactly, He simply had it, because it was His.
> >Finally, Jesus even says that the Father has given Him His
> >own Name, this is, Jehovah. Nobody can clame the Name of
> >Jehovah for himself except Jehovah Himself.
>
> John 17:11 refers to the character or attributes of Jehovah.
Yes of course, ALL the Gospel of John says something but meaning
something else altogether. Right <g>.
> You forgot Rev. 5:13: "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the
> Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever
> and ever." (NASB). This verse again distinguishes between the
> One on the throne and the Lamb. Further, the people are giving
> each their own worship or respect. Jehovah is worshiped as the
> creator and only true God. Jesus is worshipped or respected
> as the king of the kingdom, a title that Jehovah has given him.
> There are many examples of humans even being "worshipped"
> in the Bible, and not in a negative sense.
Can you mention some, please?
They are both being praised and with equal praise, this goes against the
Key Verse, Jehovah would NOT share His Glory with others.
> These are not
> the exact same worship, and the scriptures clearly show this.
Again, the very same words are used for praising one and the other, yet
being this book also written by John, then we must assume that what John
says is NOT what he means, right?
> It is amazing that such a key doctrine is not simply spelled out.
> The NT could have simply said that Jehovah is Jesus and Jesus
> is Jehovah. Of course it did not, because the NT writers knew
> this not to be true, and clearly differentiated between the Father
> and the Son.
But that is not the only reason. This is a difficult concept, I don't
blame you for not being able to. In fact nobody can fully understand
this, since our God goes far beyond our conprehension. The doctrine is
there, but not directly because spelling it out directly as you propose
would only confuse the audience, it is shown step by step, letting the
reader draw his own conclussions at his own pace.
> Jesus is never "ho theos," though he is called "god" or "divine."
HA!!!!! Got you!
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (KJV)
kai apekriqh o qwmaj kai eipen autw o kurioj mou kai *o qeoj* mou (MT)
kai apekriqh qwmaj kai eipen autw o kurioj mou kai *o qeoj* mou (TR)
The KJV, as well as many other translations is very weak here. What
Thomas said was not "My Lord and my God", but rather something like "The
Lord of me and the God of me". Here Jesus IS "ho theos".
> Notice Rev. 11:15: "The kingdom of the world has become the
> kingdom of our Lord (Jehovah) and of His Christ; and He will
> reign forever and ever." (NASB) Here again we see the crucial
> distinction between Jehovah and Christ, and we even see that
> Jehovah is over Christ by the use of the word "his." Only
> Jehovah is addressed as Sovereign Lord, and this title
> appears over 300 times in the Scriptures. (Gen. 15:2; Rev. 6:10)
No such thing. The Kingdom is of the Lord Jehovah, yes, but also of His
Christ (there is no distinction, and a Kingdom cannot be divided, having
two different kings is the best way to divide a kingdom, ask the
Romans).
Jesus is also called Sovereign Lord, King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
There can only be one King of kings and only one Lord of Lords (and if
you ask me, these two titles should be for only one being), in the OT
this is Jehovah and in the NT this is Christ. Conclussion: Christ is
Jehovah.
> I think you are getting tradition mixed up with Scripture. The
> scripture calls Jesus the "only-begotten" god. That is, he is
> called the "created god."
"Begotten" is not the same as "Created". In our Creed we explicitly say
this "Begotten, not Created (or Made)".
> Are you now saying that this god is
> the same as the Almighty God?
Yes. That is my Faith, that is the Faith of the One True Church, thanks
be to the Lord Jesus Christ.
Shalom,
Memo.
**********
To leave the list CHRISTIA, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA
to LIST...@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU or, if you experience difficulties,
write to CHRISTIA...@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU.
Gene Whitcher
>"Begotten" is not the same as "Created". In our Creed we explicitly say
>this "Begotten, not Created (or Made)".
>
>> Are you now saying that this god is
>> the same as the Almighty God?
>
>Yes. That is my Faith, that is the Faith of the One True Church, thanks
>be to the Lord Jesus Christ.
>
>Shalom,
>Memo.
Memo, you have a lot of knowledge and enthusiasm for telling others
about it. However, I don't believe you are qualified to speak for all
believers. Or to decide for all what is the true church.
Gene
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Whitcher
Psa 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall
offend them. www.spiritman.org
Gene Whitcher
>You may call yourself whatever you like, but if you don't assent to the
>content of the Nicene Creed, you are not in communion with the Church
>that held the Nicene Council, that is a fact, and it is not a personal
>opinion, it was the declaration of the Council.
>
>Shalom,
>Memo.
By the way, Memo, here is some more of the Bible that Christians are
supposed to believe.
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and
shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with
the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be
ashamed.
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth
say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him
take the water of life freely.
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the
gospel to every creature.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned.
Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name
shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly
thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they
shall recover.
Further, Jesus said: Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be
preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall
the end come.
I know it must seem strange to you, but I find nothing mentioned about
the Council of Nicea or the opinions of the men who sat there and
made a declaration as to who could have communion and who
couldn't. Maybe Jesus just wasn't concerned about what those men
thought anymore than he was concerned about the opinions of the
men of his day. In fact, the verse comes to mind that says:
Rom 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the
faith of God without effect?
Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is
written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest
overcome when thou art judged.
Shalom,
Sarah
Thanks for the encouragement and I have a genuine love for you as my brothers
and sisters in Christ.
Sarah
Barry Hardy
>In the NT "God" refers to the Father by convention. What John is
>saying here is that nobody has seen God, the Father. If this was
>intended to mean all three, the Father, the Son and the Holy
>Spirit, then it would be a false statement since several
>characters from the OT saw God: Adam, Abraham, Moses,
>Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc. John simply si saying here that they didn't
>see the Father, commonly called "God" in the NT, but one
>of the other two persons of the Trinity, the Son or the Holy Spirit
>(most likely the Son).
That is not what John said here. It is what you are attempting
to claim he said. John said simply that no one had seen God
at any time, but his Son explained him, not that his Son was
God in the flesh. No character in the OT saw God, though they
did see faint representations of his glory. God himself said that
no man may see his face and live. (Ex. 33:20). Jehovah is not
visible to human eyes. (1 Tim. 1:17). John clearly is referring
to the Almighty God, Jehovah, when he says that no man has
seen "God." Further, John clearly says that the people did not
see another "person" of God, but that his Son explained God
to them. You are stretching the text quite a bit here to make
your point.
>> It is therefore quite
>> obvious in the plain and unambiguous reading of this verse that
>> the created "god" Jesus has been seen, and he has witnessed
>> about his Father, which is shown as God here, the one who has
>> never been seen.
>Oh, but nowhere in the Bible we see that Jesus or the Son
>or the Word is a created "god".
He is indeed a created "god" in the sense that the term "god"
[theos] is used as a title of respect. Try a literal interpretation
of Psalm 8:5: "You also proceeded to make him a little lower
than the gods, and have crowned him with glory and honor."
Angels were often referred to as "elohim" in the Bible and in
contemporary Jewish literature, and not a problem for a
strictly monotheistic religion. Further, the scriptures do show
that he was created and lesser than Jehovah. (Rev. 3:14;
Col. 1:15; John 14:28; 1 Cor. 11:3; 1 Cor. 15:28; John 5:19).
1 Cor. 8:6 clearly states that the Father the only true God who
is the source of all creation, and the Lord Jesus whom God
granted the power to create all things. (After he himself was
created). (John 17:1-3).Jesus is not Jehovah, but the mediator
between Jehovah and man. (1 Tim. 2:5-6).
>> This verse does not refer to ordinary man at
>> all. This verse does not have to state these two persons are
>> not the same being because such a concept was completely
>> alien to the writer's culture and religion, both being Jewish.
>They should have not been. In the OT we can find two persons
>in the same verse being called Jehovah, which was supposed
>to be One. The concept was alien not to the writer's culture,
>but to the greek audience.
Please direct me to the verse in the OT where two persons
are addressed as Jehovah. The concept was alien to the writer's
culture because it was not the truth. The writer understood that
a person is a separate entity, that a Father and a Son cannot
be the same person or entity when the relationship exists
between themselves. Of course, human philosophers that
were not satisfied with this scriptural truth had much more
creative ideas about the nature of God and Christ.
>> Yes, do look at John 17:11 closely. You will notice that in his
>> prayer to Jehovah, Jesus asks that his disciples be as one,
>> just as Jesus and Jehovah are one. I would guess that you are
>> not suggesting that Jesus' disciples were all one entity but made
>> up of different persons.
>Yes I do, this entity is called "the Church", you guessed wrong.
I guess you simply do not see the parallelism here. If the
"church" is to be "one" as trinitarians claim that Jesus and
Jehovah are "one," then all of the separate members of the
church must really just be one entity that share the same
mind, have coequal positions (the pope wouldn't like that
one), and can communicate telepathically. This is simply
ridiculous. It is clear that the passage is speaking of the
sharing of a common purpose, not in some common
mystical bond that defied the disciples understanding at
this time.
>> Also Hebrews 5:5 states: "So also Christ did not glorify himself
>> so as to become a high priest, but He who said to him, "You are
>> my Son, today I have begotten you." (NASB)
>> Glorify (the Greek "doxazo") primarily means to magnify, extol,
>> or praise. John 17:1 merely shows that Jesus is asking his
>> Father to give him the strength to accomplish his purpose
>> which is evident from the remaining verses.
>Excuse me, but in Spanish and in my limited knowledge of
>English, Magnify, extol and praise mean one thing and
>strengthen means something else. But then, Jesus used a
>very poor grammar throughout the entire Gospel of John,
>righ? Even to the point that no matter how evidiently a
>claim for Deity Christ is making, you can find a way to twist
>and bend and end up with something else.
That's funny, you deny the plain meaning of "monogenes" as
being created, but then appeal to plain meaning to support
your position. John used very good grammar, unfortunately
theologians and translators did less than an honest job in
translating many of his writings. I completely believe in Jesus'
divinity, in that he had a heavenly existence before coming to
earth, just that he was not Jehovah. I believe in his divinity just
as Arius did, not his deity as the Almighty God.
>> Please notice that at John 1:3 Jesus states: "This is eternal life,
>> that they may know You, the _only true God_, and Jesus Christ
>> whom you have sent." (NASB) This verse, and Jesus himself,
>> clearly identifies the Father Jehovah as the _only true God_ and
>> distinguishes Jesus from the only true God by stating that the
>> only true God sent him. He did not say that Jehovah divested
>> himself of a coequal divine personage.
>He did say that the Father is Jehovah, the only true God, but He
>didn't excluded Himself from being Jehovah, He distinguished
>Himself from the Father, not from Jehovah.
What does an "and" between "only true God" and "Jesus Christ"
indicate to you? The word "and" excludes Jesus from the
category of the "only true God." Jesus cannot be part of the
only true God by the express terms of the verse.
>He Even associated Himself to "Eternal Life" (a theme that
>John would expand in his 1st. letter). How could a created
>being be "Eternal" life?
It is really very simple. Knowledge of Jehovah is essential
to eternal life. Jesus provided us with that knowledge and
that sin atoning sacrifice that was necessary to have the
benefit of such knowledge. Hence, as the chief leader or
pioneer of Life," Jesus Christ introduced a new and essential
element for gaining eternal life in the sense of being an
intermediary or go-between, but he is such in an
administrative sense as well. He is God s High Priest who
can effect full cleansing from sin and liberation from sin s
death-dealing effects (Heb. 3:1, 2; 4:14; 7:23-25; 8:1-3); he is
the appointed Judge into whose hands all judgment is
committed, so that he judiciously administers his ransom
benefits to individuals among mankind according to their
worthiness to live under his kingship (John 5:22-27; Acts 10:42,
43); through him the resurrection of the dead also comes.
(John 5:28, 29; 6:39, 40) Because Jehovah so ordained to
use his Son, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there
is not another name under heaven that has been given
among men by which we must get saved. (Acts 4:12;
cf. 1 John 5:11-13).
>> You are again arguing from what the scripture _does not_
>> say. Jesus simply says that he had this glory before the world
>> was, he does not say how he obtained it, or in what capacity
>> he enjoyed it.
>Exactly, He simply had it, because it was His.
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but the scripture does
not support this position. It is said that he was created, so
it is understandable that his creator also gave him glory.
>> >Finally, Jesus even says that the Father has given Him His
>> >own Name, this is, Jehovah. Nobody can clame the Name of
>> >Jehovah for himself except Jehovah Himself.
>> John 17:11 refers to the character or attributes of Jehovah.
>Yes of course, ALL the Gospel of John says something but meaning
>something else altogether. Right <g>.
There are many references exactly like this one in the OT. It
was common for Jews of this period to say that a Son that
had the attributes of his Father had "his name." I would be
happy to point out some articles regarding this if it would
help you to understand the practice.
Continued In Part 2 of 3.
Sincerely,
Barry L. Hardy
barry...@juno.com
"Men are generally more careful of the breed of their
horses and dogs than of their children." -William Penn
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Guillermo Rodrmguez
Hi Gene:
Gene Whitcher wrote:
>
> That's right, Memo. I am not in communion with the church that
> held the Nicene Council.
If you say so.
> However, I am in communion with the
> God of the Bible through His Christ.
Assuming that the Church that held the Nicene Council has nothing to do
with being in communion with the God of the Bible. This assumption I do
not share with you.
> God is still judge, not the men who sat on the Council of Nicea.
Yes, of course, but that doesn't mean that what the Nicean Fathers
taught has no bearing in God's Judgement. Not because it was taught by
them, but rather because that might be the correct Christian Faith, the
one you're supposed to confess in order to be saved.
> By the way, Memo, here is some more of the Bible that Christians are
> supposed to believe.
>
> Rom 10:9-11
>
> Rev 22:17
>
> Mark 16:15-18
>
> Further, Jesus said: Mat 24:14
Yes, so what?
> I know it must seem strange to you, but I find nothing mentioned about
> the Council of Nicea or the opinions of the men who sat there and
> made a declaration as to who could have communion and who
> couldn't.
Of course not, the Council of Nicea was held several centuries after
these texts were written. What surprises me is that you bothered to
check out, well, guess that when you have to be sure, you have to be
sure.
> Maybe Jesus just wasn't concerned about what those men
> thought anymore than he was concerned about the opinions of the
> men of his day. In fact, the verse comes to mind that says:
Maybe, but then, maybe not. BTW it was this same Jesus who said:
Mattew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon
this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it. {Peter: this name signifies a rock}
Mattew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven.
Shalom,
Memo.
Gene Whitcher
>Maybe, but then, maybe not. BTW it was this same Jesus who said:
>
>Mattew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon
>this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not
>prevail against it. {Peter: this name signifies a rock}
>Mattew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
>heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in
>heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in
>heaven.
>
>Shalom,
>Memo.
Of course, Jesus was saying that he was building his church upon the fact
that he is the "Christ, the son of the living God", not upon Peter.
I had assumed that you knew that. Apparently not. You did notice that Peter
did not say that Jesus was God. Or, did you?
Gene
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Whitcher
Psa 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall
offend them. www.spiritman.org
robert charles weiss
>did not say that Jesus was God. Or, did you?
robert charles weiss the journeyman
home: rwe...@buffnet.net post tenebris lux
work: rwe...@ford.com
robert charles weiss
Gene Whitcher writes to Memo...
[Peter and Rock stuff deleted]
>You did notice that Peter
>did not say that Jesus was God. Or, did you?
I notice that he did.
2 Peter 1:1:
"Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have
received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our
God and Savior Jesus:"
2 Pet 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:
Barry Hardy
On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 20:23:44 -0400 robert charles weiss
<rwe...@buffnet.net> writes:
>>Gene wrote:
>>You did notice that Peter
>>did not say that Jesus was God. Or, did you?
>I notice that he did.
>2 Peter 1:1:
>"Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those
>who have received a faith as precious as ours through the
>righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus:"
Actually a consideration of parallel examples found in 2 Peter
are proof to the fact that there are two entities being referred
to here. Please look carefully at 2 Pet. 1:1 as compared to
2 Pet. 1:11; 2:20; 3:2; and 3:18. From a careful comparison
of these verses you can see that four out of the five articulated
nouns are the same; one is significantly different. In 2 Pet. 1:1
we have "theos" and in the other four Peter uses "kyrios."
The question asked is why would Peter call Christ "God"
in verse 1, but in 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, and 3:18 use "Lord"?
That he might do just that is, of course, not impossible. But
he uses "Lord" for Jesus in a number of instances. In addition
to the four passages above, he refers to Christ as "kyrios"
in 1 Pet. 1:3, 2:3, 13, 3:15, 2 Pet. 1:2, 8, 14, 16, a total of 12
times. Yet nowhere else in his letters does he call Jesus
"God." However, when referring to the Father, Peter uses
"theos" 45 times, excluding 2 Pet. 1:1 (1 Pet. 1:2-3, 5, 21
[twice], 23; 2:4-5, 10, 12, 15-17, 19-20; 3:4-5, 17-18, 20-22;
4:2, 6, 10-11 [three times], 14, 16-17 [twice], 19; 5:2 [twice],
5-6, 10, 12; 2 Pet. 1:2, 17, 21; 2:4; 3:5, 12).
Thus, it is very likely that in 2 Pet. 1:1 the apostle did not
repeat the article before the second noun because the use
of "theos" in the first verse made it clear enough to his readers
that he was speaking of the Father, while the addtion of
"Jesus Christ" after "Savior" would have stood on its own
as a second subject. (So in "A Greek Grammar of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature," Blass and
Debrunner, trans. Funk, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press,
1961, p. 145, sec. 276(3), we read that the disputed
expression "may be taken by itself and separated from the
preceding.") This would give us another example of an
opening reference to both God and Jesus Christ, which is
typically made in the epistles of the NT. As Karl Rahner
observed: "St Paul often speaks of the Father as the [theos]
where he predicates [kyrios] of Christ; and a mention of the
Father as well as the Son is to be expected at the beginning
of 2 Peter, in accordance with the usual practice at the
beginning of a letter." (Karl Rahner, "Theological Investigations,"
vol. 1, trans. Cornelius Ernst, Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1961,
p. 136).
Further, even if we assume that Jesus is called god here,
there would be no support for a trinitarian formula for
Arians often referred to Jesus as god. So if Jesus is called
"theos" here, it would be with the understanding communicated
throughout scripture, that Jesus is a divine being who is
dependant on the Father, his God, for his life and his
authority. (John 5:26-27).
Sincerely,
Barry L. Hardy
barry...@juno.com
"Men are generally more careful of the breed of their
horses and dogs than of their children." -William Penn
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Barry Hardy
On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 22:26:46 -0400 robert charles weiss
<rwe...@buffnet.net> writes:
> I have an article on my page =
>http://www.buffnet.net/~rweiss/granville.htm that was written
>by James White that gives a brief introduction to the Granville
>Sharp construction that applies both here and in Titus 2:13.
Actually Sharp's "rule" does little for you either in Titus 2:13
or in 2 Pet. 1:1 (as previously discussed). It is curious as to
why so many translations don't follow the NASB translation,
such as the KJV, NKJV, ASV, NAB, The New Testament in
Modern English (J. B. Phillips), The Emphasized Bible
(J. B. Rotherham), the translations of James Moffat, Richard
Lattimore, A. S. Way (the noted translator of Homer, Virgil, and
other classics), and others.
As an aside I would encourage you to list an excellent
source for information concerning the Granville Sharp Rule
with the aforementioned article found at your website:
Daniel B. Wallace, "The Article with Multiple Substantives
Connected by Kai in the New Testament: Semantics and
Significance" (Ph.D. dissertation: Dallas Theological
Seminary, 1995). This dissertation is to be published
by Peter Lang, as volume 7 of Studies in Biblical Greek
(SBG), D. A. Carson, ed. Wallace's grammar also contains
a valuable discussion of Sharp's rule.
Unfortunately the 1798 rendition of Sharp's rule has been
found inadequate by the majority of modern biblical scholars.
In his investigation into the rule, Wallace references the
areas in which Sharp himself qualified his rule, and Wallace
limits it further. There are two key differences between Sharp's
rule and what Wallace considers the "Sharper" rule: 1) this
rule would not apply when the Greek is that used to translate
another language (like from Hebrew to Greek, as in the case
of the LXX), and 2) the nouns must not only be grammatically
singular, but _semantically_ singular as well (that is, not
generic nouns, which are used in a general or universal
sense). Wallace makes other refinements, particularly as
they relate to proper names and what constitutes them.
Of course there are exceptions to the historical Sharp
rule, see Proverbs 24:21 (LXX) for example. Understanding
this, let's look more carefully at Titus 2:13.
There is no question that Sharp himself believed that the
text applied to one person, Jesus Christ. There are problems
with this view. First, should or should not one of the two nouns
be considered a compound proper name. Here, I think, the
question must be posed with respect to both "the great God"
and "Savior Jesus Christ."
First, it is quite likely that "the great God" could have been a
fixed title of the Father that the first century Christians
regarded as a virtual proper name. In light of the OT
description of Jehovah as "the great God" (LXX numbering,
Deut. 7:21; 10:17; 2 Ch. 2:4; Ne. 1:5; 8:6; 9:32; Ps. 77:12[14];
85:10; Da. 2:45; 9:4) it is equally possible, if not highly likely,
that "the great God" was understood as the equivalent of
a proper name, and a clear reference to the Father. The
subsequent mention of "Jesus Christ," then, would naturally
indicate a distinct individual.
So, next it must be seen if "Savior Jesus Christ" may also
be considered a compound proper name. According to
Alford, "there is no doubt that [Savior] was one of those words
which gradually dropped the article and became a quasi
proper name." (Henry alford, "The Greek Testament," vol. 3,
rev. Everett F. Harrison, Chicago: Moody, 1958, p. 420;
also consider another excellent source on the subject,
Calvin Winstanely, "A Vindication of Certain Passages in
the Common English Version of the New Testament.
Addressed to Granville Sharp, Esq." Cambridge: University
Press, Hilliard and Metcalf, 1819, p. 49-50).
There is obviously many other points that can be made on
both sides of this argument, some grammatical, some
contextual, some semantic. However, I think I have "pierced
your pleadings" so to speak and would now defer any further
comments until such time as a rebuttal is given.
Sincerely,
Barry L. Hardy
barry...@juno.com
"Men are generally more careful of the breed of their
horses and dogs than of their children." -William Penn
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
**********
For help on using CHRISTIA's listserv processor to change
your subscription, search the archives, or use the library,
send the command GET FAQ PART1 to LIST...@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU