Yes they can, because the context and the meaning demands it. There is no benefit in applying any "rule of grammar" because as with Titus 2:13,
This is the problem I have with KJVO's, Mormons, and anti-Trinitarians.
They all hate rules, because rules constrain them, and prevent them twisting Scripture in a particular way they like.
Grammatical rules have no "doctrine".
Sharp's Rule works for God (Rom. 15:6), for Christ (2 Pet. 1:11), for Epaphroditus, (Phil. 2:25), for Tychicus (Eph. 6:21), and for Peter (1 Pet. 5:1). And you would likely agree with EVERY example I've listed here.
The fact of the matter is that there are NO exceptions to Sharp's Rule. NONE. And the application of it is colour-blind, doctrinally. It doesn't get swayed by theology, it simply looks at the words and their particular structure.
Now, can you give an example a Sharp's rule construct found in the Bible, not related to the deity of Christ, which fails at showing one individual is spoken of? If not, there is no valid reason to reject it when it shows a doctrine that you don't like.