Jesus was "made Lord" (Acts 2:36)

cjab

Well-known member
It's already been considered by Greek Scholar A.T.Robertson here:

"Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ (του θεου ημων κα σωτηρος Ιησου Χριστου). So the one article (του) with θεου and σωτηρος requires precisely as with του κυριου ημων κα σωτηρος Ιησου Χριστου (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in 2 Peter 1:11 (NAS)
11 for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you."

So cjab, do you know more than A.T.Robertson? Notice 2 Peter 1:11 which is the exact same construction as vs1. Tell me, does Sharp's rule apply to this verse? I personally do not know Greek, do you?

IN GOD THE SON,
james
Shows how easily you allow yourself to be be deceived by Trinitarian (modalist) "scholars". Robertson isn't even revealing the content of this rule, or its inherent weaknesses. First Sharps rule contains an inbuilt exception for proper names and quasi-proper names. Secondly Trinitarians pre-emptively and arbitraily make "ὁ Θεὸς" denote a mere "noun" and not a proper name. This is a fatal weakness of Sharp's rule, when applying it to establish anything pertaining to Trinitarianism, where ὁ Θεὸς is directly applied to the Father in so many biblical passages, including John 1:1b.

Thirdly, if the biblical doctrine was that ό Θεός and ό λόγος were interchangeable, as you and all Trinitarians make out, then Jn 1:1c would surely have said "και ό Θεός ήν ό λόγος" rather than "και Θεός ήν ό λόγος," where Θεός is used impersonally without the article.

Fourthly, why is the article studiously put before Θεός in 2 Peter 1:1 but not before Σωτῆρος? In other words, why is it "The God of us and Savior" and not "The Savior of us and God"? Surely ό Θεός was very familiar to his hearers and meant only the Father.

I don't see any possible of applying Sharp's rule. ό Θεός defers to a person, the Father, and this is affirmed by 2 Peter 1:2. Otherwise we would effectively have Sabellianism, with ό Θεός referring to different persons in 2 Peter 1:1 & 1:2., in which case ό Θεός wouldn't denote any person at all (i.e. its contended for Trinitarian sense), and so couldn't be contrasted directly with the person Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν in 1:2, and where to do so would be completely illogical.

Thus the application of Sharp's rule in respect of ό Θεός leads to theological incongruity, uncertainty and gobbledygook at every stage.

(That's just for starters)
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
Well cjab apparently Stephen never got the memo because at Acts 7:59 Stephen upon getting murdered prayed the following to Jesus, "And they went on stoning Stephen as he CALLED UPON THE LORD AND SAID, "LORD JESUS, RECEIVE MY SPIRIT.! Suppose you explain why Stephen would as a man (who you believe is just that, a man) to receive his spirit? Why did he not specifically pray to God the Father?

IN GOD THE SON,
james
Because Jesus had just revealed himself to Stephen.
 

OldShepherd

Well-known member
Shows how easily you allow yourself to be be deceived by Trinitarian (modalist) "scholars". Robertson isn't even revealing the content of this rule, or its inherent weaknesses. First Sharps rule contains an inbuilt exception for proper names and quasi-proper names. Secondly Trinitarians pre-emptively and arbitraily make "ὁ Θεὸς" denote a mere "noun" and not a proper name. This is a fatal weakness of Sharp's rule, when applying it to establish anything pertaining to Trinitarianism, where ὁ Θεὸς is directly applied to the Father in so many biblical passages, including John 1:1b.
Thirdly, if the biblical doctrine was that ό Θεός and ό λόγος were interchangeable, as you and all Trinitarians make out, then Jn 1:1c would surely have said "και ό Θεός ήν ό λόγος" rather than "και Θεός ήν ό λόγος," where Θεός is used impersonally without the article.
Fourthly, why is the article studiously put before Θεός in 2 Peter 1:1 but not before Σωτῆρος? In other words, why is it "The God of us and Savior" and not "The Savior of us and God"? Surely ό Θεός was very familiar to his hearers and meant only the Father.
I don't see any possible of applying Sharp's rule. ό Θεός defers to a person, the Father, and this is affirmed by 2 Peter 1:2. Otherwise we would effectively have Sabellianism, with ό Θεός referring to different persons in 2 Peter 1:1 & 1:2., in which case ό Θεός wouldn't denote any person at all (i.e. its contended for Trinitarian sense), and so couldn't be contrasted directly with the person Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν in 1:2, and where to do so would be completely illogical.
Thus the application of Sharp's rule in respect of ό Θεός leads to theological incongruity, uncertainty and gobbledygook at every stage.
(That's just for starters)
I have 3-4 grammars in my personal library. All of them written by Christian scholars with either a PhD or ThD who have had their published works reviewed by other scholars in the field. If there were any substantial errors other scholars, who OBTW know what they are doing, would have made them public. The only place I have seen such objections is on forums like this posted by anonymous people.
Perhaps if you earned an advanced degree and had a few peer reviewed publications your objections might be worth considering.
 

cjab

Well-known member
I have 3-4 grammars in my personal library. All of them written by Christian scholars with either a PhD or ThD who have had their published works reviewed by other scholars in the field. If there were any substantial errors other scholars, who OBTW know what they are doing, would have made them public. The only place I have seen such objections is on forums like this posted by anonymous people.
Perhaps if you earned an advanced degree and had a few peer reviewed publications your objections might be worth considering.
Well then, I will cease this debate, as this is not the type of debate I desire: parading qualifications. BTW what academic qualifications did Jesus have to recognize YHWH as his Father rather than the Trinity?
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
So if Jesus needed no qualifications to determine that YHWH was his father, why do I to determine that "o theos" also refers to Jesus' Father?
God refers to Father, Son, Holy Spirit and NO ONE needs any special qualifications to determine that, and Jesus repeatedly said His Father was God. What is your problem???
 

cjab

Well-known member
God refers to Father, Son, Holy Spirit and NO ONE needs any special qualifications to determine that, and Jesus repeatedly said His Father was God. What is your problem???
My problem is that you are asserting something that isn't true. "o theos" isn't used of the Son or the Holy Spirit in the bible.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
I agree !!!

But just to clarify how you connect Jesus and YHWH via incarnation...

You would leave the blank empty. Correct?

Jesus is the incarnation of _______________ YHWH.

I would leave the blank empty.
Jesus is the son of YHWH... incarnation would be one coming as himself...Hindu mythology
 
Top