Kenosis Heresy

johnny guitar

Well-known member
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, if you apply such a rule to 2 Peter i:1, you end up with a phrase containing "righteousness of Christ" which appears nowhere else in the bible and is bad theology for Christ said "no one is good except God alone."
And Jesus Christ is 100% Good.
Wow! He must be God.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
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.
 

Anthony

Active member
Those who are truly God's election by grace, will eventually come out of the apostasy and accept the truth in the scriptures and everyone else will remain blind to it, and that is just the way it is, for the Bible also reveals this.
Apostasy is related to the two houses of Israel falling away from their beginning with faith in Messiah and going back to literal elements of the Torah.

All prophecies are related to Israel. Messiah is the Personification of Torah ruling our minds and hearts in the New Covenant. That's why it's important to understand that we must interpret scriptures from the perspective of Torah or else it's private interpretation. You are misapplying scriptures.

Gal 3:1-2
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
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.
Every strong believer in a doctrine seeks to prove their points by Greek grammar, on either side of the spectrum, whether JWs, or Trinitarians. This tendency is universal.

Grammatical rules have no "doctrine".
Absolutely they do. Sharp's rule was specifically formulated to counter Socinian tendencies.

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 "best sense" rule is I think an altogether better rule than Sharp's. I can't see any need for a rule in Roms 15:6, or 2 Pet 1:11, or Phil. 2:25 or Eph. 6:21 or 1 Pet. 5:1. In all there is an obvious "best sense meaning" without the need for any rule.

It's when you start to (mis)apply a simple rule to complex clauses, e.g. concerning the "righteousness of God" or the "glory of God," that the application of the "rule" breaks down, partly because it hasn't been properly formulated. It is being misapplied with a specific Trinitarian slant which clearly undermines the substantive meaning of the text.

However for the sake of appeasement (of sorts), I will grant to you that "the righteousness of God" == "savior Jesus Christ" and "the glory of God" == "savior Jesus Christ."

I think a central problem is that the rule itself has not been properly formulated, e.g. to take into account qualifying nouns, because it talks only about "nouns" and "participles." Any rule must also take into account indivisible grammatical or theological constructs and phrases, such as "the righteousness of God" and "the glory of God." These surely cannot be detracted from because they are fundamental theological concepts in their own right and so not to be tinkered with by grammarians.

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.
I reject your contention for the reasons I have explained. The reason for the rejection is the "dishonest" mistranslation of Titus 2:13 by Trinitarians to make the text say something it does not convey.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
Apostasy is related to the two houses of Israel falling away from their beginning with faith in Messiah and going back to literal elements of the Torah.

All prophecies are related to Israel. Messiah is the Personification of Torah ruling our minds and hearts in the New Covenant. That's why it's important to understand that we must interpret scriptures from the perspective of Torah or else it's private interpretation. You are misapplying scriptures.

Gal 3:1-2
However God intended it to be understood, it is sure that it wasn't the way that you are pushing it to be understood, so take it somewhere else, for I am not interested.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
So you contradict his own words. "Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone." Mark 10:18.

No contradiction.
Jesus isn't denying being God.
He's simply asking the man to explain why he's calling Him good.
You don't seem to recognize the bias you bring to Scripture.

Did Jesus say, "Don't call me good!" ? Nope.

Can someone be sinless (1 Pet. 2:22, 1 John 3:5), yet still be considered "not good"? For some reason, you seem unwilling to answer this question.
 

Tanachreader

Well-known member
No contradiction.
Jesus isn't denying being God.
He's simply asking the man to explain why he's calling Him good.
You don't seem to recognize the bias you bring to Scripture.

Did Jesus say, "Don't call me good!" ? Nope.

Can someone be sinless (1 Pet. 2:22, 1 John 3:5), yet still be considered "not good"? For some reason, you seem unwilling to answer this question.
And Jesus did say He is good.

11 “I am(A) the good shepherd.(B) The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.(C) 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away.(D) Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

14 “I am the good shepherd;(E) I know my sheep(F) and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father(G)—and I lay down my life for the sheep.(H) 16 I have other sheep(I) that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock(J) and one shepherd.(K
 

civic

Well-known member
So you contradict his own words. "Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone." Mark 10:18.


Mark 10:13-27

13
People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." 16 And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.

17 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 "You know the commandments, ' DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Do not defraud, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.'" 20 And he said to Him, "Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up." 21 Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, "One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." 22 But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property. 23 And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, "How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!" 24 The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus * answered again and said to them, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 26 They were even more astonished and said to Him, " Then who can be saved?" 27 Looking at them, Jesus said, "With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God."


Jesus point in His questioning of the ruler was rhetorical in nature. Do you know who you are calling good? Only God is good. He was saying to the ruler "Do you know who I Am and who you are speaking too? If you read on it becomes obvious for Jesus turned him away from gaining eternal life. He knew what was in his heart and keeping him away from the kingdom. Only God knows what is in mans heart and can allow a person into His Kingdom. Jesus was clearly claiming to be God in this passage.


No prophet, apostle or teacher has ever talked in this presumptuous way in which Jesus did in the gospels and especially in this passage in the synoptic gospel. The young ruler runs up to Jesus kneels to Him in worship and asks Him how can I obtain eternal life? Jesus answers back and said come "Follow ME!" Do you see what Jesus is claiming? He does not say, these are the teachings that God has given me or follow these rules and you will get into heaven. He did not say to follow God or submit to God. Jesus tells the man to follow Me! Only God has that prerogative.

He was saying indirectly to the ruler, know that whom you are speaking to is God. He was letting the young ruler understand who he was talking to and addressing as good. Look at it this way, Is He saying He is not good, and therefore not God? Or is He saying that He is good, and the reason this man can call Him good is because He is God? I opt for the second statement.

Let’s examine the context of the passage and what is going on when this man approaches Jesus. He says why do you call me good and points out to the man that only God is good. The man is unaware of His identity which Jesus who knew men’s hearts was aware of with the young ruler. This man thought of Jesus as just a mere man and not the Son of God. Jesus response was not one of denying His own sinlessness or deity. The context clearly shows just the opposite to be true. Jesus claims absolute authority over the young ruler by asking him to come and Follow Me. To call Him "good teacher" you better recognize who you are speaking to and this is exactly the point Jesus was getting across to the young ruler. Jesus is eternal life and the man was unaware of this truth which is rather obvious by his questions.

How does one obtain eternal life? Jesus confronted him with His Lordship when He said come and follow Me. Jesus confronted the man's sin of covetousness. It was a sin of indulgence and materialism. He was indifferent to people who were poor and in need. So Jesus gave him the ultimate test, would he obey His Lordship? The antis and non trins get all hung up on who is good and cannot see past the plank in their own eyes to see what one must do to be saved. They're still in an unbelieving state and miss out on eternal life from its very source, Jesus. Rather sad indeed.

If we further examine the context of the question asked by the young ruler in verse 13 we read; people were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw this, He was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." 16 And He took the children in His arms, put His hands on them and blessed them. 17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to Him and fell on his knees before Him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18 "Why do you call Me good?" Jesus answered. Let’s see what question was asked of Jesus. How can I get eternal life?" is the question. "Follow ME!" is the answer that he gets from Jesus. Do you see what He is claiming? He does NOT say, these are the teachings that God has given Me. Follow these rules and you will get to heaven. He did not say, "follow God or submit to God", but he said "Follow ME!". Jesus is Lord and had the authority to command mankind, Follow Me!

John 1:6-8
John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through Him. 8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.

John 5:39-40
39 " You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.

John 8:14
" Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.

John 8:18-20
18 I am one who testifies for Myself; My other witness is the Father, who sent Me."

19 Then they asked Him, "Where is your father?"

"You do not know Me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew Me, you would know My Father also."

Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

Luke 24:44-45
44 Now He said to them, " These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,

Its all about Jesus from beginning to end. He is the First and the Last, the Alpha and Omega ! He is the Great I Am. The Good Shepherd indeed !

hope this helps,
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Every strong believer in a doctrine seeks to prove their points by Greek grammar, on either side of the spectrum, whether JWs, or Trinitarians. This tendency is universal.

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

Jesus not only told them that He pre-existed Abraham, but He also invoked the Divine name (cf. Ex. 3:14, which most Bibles cross reference). Jesus didn't say, "before Abraham I WAS", which would be more grammatically correct, He said, "I AM" (without a predicate nominative).

What was the response of the Jews? They attempted to stone Him, for claiming to be God. They knew what He said, and what He meant. And Jesus didn't say, "Hold off, you got me all wrong, I never claimed to be God!"

John 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
John 10:31
The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.

Once again, they hear Jesus calling God His "Father", and that He and the Father "were one". And their response was to stone Him, for they knew He was claiming to be God, which they thought was blasphemy. And again, Jesus never denied being God. He never told them they were mistaken.
 
Last edited:

Theo1689

Well-known member
Every strong believer in a doctrine seeks to prove their points by Greek grammar, on either side of the spectrum, whether JWs, or Trinitarians. This tendency is universal.

In my experience, that is not true.
JW's don't do that.
Mormons don't do that.
Oneness don't do that.
You don't do that.

All you (and they) do is read a verse, interpret it in a way that supports your theology, and then claim it is the "plain" meaning of the verse, and that any other interpretations are "dishonest". And that's not implementing "rules of grammar", that's nothing but a bankrupt "ipse dixit".

Absolutely they do. Sharp's rule was specifically formulated to counter Socinian tendencies.

While it is true that the rule was studied based on the impetus in studying constructions about Christ, this alone does not invalidate the rule or make it in any way biased.

Sharp studied the construction in ALL instances in the New Testament, and it remained true without exceptions, even in non-Christological contexts. So it is a general rule that is based on the ENTIRETY of the New Testament, not merely on Christological contexts.

Again, if you accept the interpretation of the construction in ALL non-Christological contexts, but only reject it in the context of Christ being God, it is YOU who is acting in a biased fashion, not Trinitarians.

The "best sense" rule is I think an altogether better rule than Sharp's. I can't see any need for a rule in Roms 15:6, or 2 Pet 1:11, or Phil. 2:25 or Eph. 6:21 or 1 Pet. 5:1. In all there is an obvious "best sense meaning" without the need for any rule.

Can you please give the precise wording and authority of this 'best sense" rule? And can you explain to me how you OBJECTIVELY evaluate it, and why we shouldn't simply dismiss it as hopelessly biased?

As for your comment, "I can't see any need for a rule", that seems like an admission that the rule goes contrary to your interpretation, and you refuse to accept correction.

Regardless of whether you "see any need for a rule", or whether you want to apply the rule or not, the rule EXISTS, and it is correct and has no exceptions.

It's when you start to (mis)apply a simple rule to complex clauses, e.g. concerning the "righteousness of God" or the "glory of God," that the application of the "rule" breaks down,

It is nothing but your bankrupt accusation that the rule is "misapplied".
That's simply an excuse because you don't like the conclusions the rule provides.

As for your "concerning the righteousness of God", all you're doing here is using your doctrinal understanding to reject the rule, when in point of fact your doctrinal understanding could be completely wrong. We get our doctrine from proper exegesis, which includes the proper application of rules of grammar. We don't evaluate rules of grammar based on whether they support our a priori theology (well, heretics do).

partly because it hasn't been properly formulated. It is being misapplied with a specific Trinitarian slant which clearly undermines the substantive meaning of the text.

No, there is no evidence by you that it has been "misapplied".
There are COUNTLESS examples where the rule is proved true in contexts not about Christology. That should be enough confirmation that it works just as well in Christological contexts.

I think a central problem is that the rule itself has not been properly formulated, e.g. to take into account qualifying nouns, because it talks only about "nouns" and "participles."

You have no evidence that it "has not been properly formulated".
You're simply looking for excuses to reject it.

It is a very specific rule, and it holds true for ALL passages which hold that construction. If you want to try to discover an ADDITIONAL rule that includes the addition of "a qualifying noun", and whether or not that affects the meaning of the TSKS construction, you are free to try to do so.

But since you haven't done so, there is no basis for your false assumption that it "has not been properly formulated".

Any rule must also take into account indivisible grammatical or theological constructs and phrases, such as "the righteousness of God" and "the glory of God."

Why?
They are specific doctrinal issues, which introduce bias into GENERAL rules.

These surely cannot be detracted from because they are fundamental theological concepts in their own right and so not to be tinkered with by grammarians.

... which is precisely WHY grammatical rules should NOT include specific doctrinal terms, which YOU are trying to do.

I reject your contention for the reasons I have explained. The reason for the rejection is the "dishonest" mistranslation of Titus 2:13 by Trinitarians

<sigh>
This is nothing but worthless name-calling.
Not only have you not demonstrated it to be a "mistranslation" at all,
but you also have not come even CLOSE to demonstrating that the translation is "dishonest".

to make the text say something it does not convey.

And that simply begs the question.
You hold your (mis)interpretation of the passage as the "standard" by which to judge everything else. You would never allow anyone who disagreed with you to do that, so why do you get to do it?
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

Jesus not only told them that He pre-existed Abraham, but He also invoked the Divine name (cf. Ex. 3:14, which most Bibles cross reference). Jesus didn't say, "before Abraham I WAS", which would be more grammatically correct, He said, "I AM" (without a predicate nominative).

What was the response of the Jews? They attempted to stone Him, for claiming to be God. They knew what He said, and what He meant. And Jesus didn't say, "Hold off, you got me all wrong, I never claimed to be God!"

John 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
John 10:31
The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.

Once again, they hear Jesus calling God His "Father", and that He and the Father "were one". And their response was to stone Him, for they knew He was claiming to be God, which they thought was blasphemy. And again, Jesus never denied being God. He never told them they were mistaken.
The trinitrian idea of the words "I am" spoken by Jesus without the predicate nominative proves he was claiming to be God is false and I can prove this by one of the passages where this occurs.

Let's look at John 18:2-11 below and I will show you that Jesus was not at all saying that he was Yahweh in this passage but only answering to the name Jesus of Nazareth that they were asking for.

John 18:
2 Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. 3 So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.

4 Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?”

5 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied.

“I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) 6 When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.

7 Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?”

“Jesus of Nazareth,” they said.

8 Jesus answered, “I told you (already) I am he". If you are looking for me, then let these men go.” 9 This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me.”


Right here, Jesus is agreeing to go with them of his own will but only requests that they let his disciples go.

10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)

11 Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”




Notice the words in the bold red above, and answer this question, what did Jesus already tell them, that he was Yahweh God or that he was Jesus of Nazareth whom they were asking for?

You see, when after he asked them again, "whom do you seek" and they answered him again, "Jesus of Nazareth" and he answers again with "I told you (already), I am", it makes it clear that the words "I am" refers to him being Jesus of Nazareth and not Yahweh God.

Now let's clear something else up here, for most trins want to believe that it was because he called himself "I am" that the soldiers fell backwards but it is important to understand, that Jesus had no sin and therefore was not worthy of death like Adam and all of his descendants.

Therefore death had no claim on him because he had no sin worthy of death for himself, and he even told us this in John 10:17-18 when he said "no man takes my life from me, but I lay it down of my own self".

Therefore it was up to Jesus whether or not he would go to his death at the hand of the soldiers who came to get him.

Then you will remember also that when Jesus was tempted of the Devil in the wilderness, that the Devil quoted Psalm 91 "for he shall give his angels charge over you to keep you in all your ways, lest you dash your foot against a stone", for the Devil knew that Jesus was pure from sin and therefore every single word in this Psalm was applicable for him to claim for himself.

Don't worry, I am getting to the point here real soon.

So whereas Judas came out with that army to take Jesus by force, God also had an army of heavenly host standing by to make sure that Jesus only went with these soldiers if he chose to of his own will being he had no sin within himself by which they could take him to his death against his will.


Therefore when the soldiers asked for "Jesus of Nazareth" and Jesus answered and told them "I am he" I believe at this point that God opened their eyes just like he did for those with Gideon in the book of Judges so that the soldiers would see the greater army of God that was standing by to make sure Jesus was not taken against his will.

I believe this is why they fell backward and withdrew to the ground for that moment until Jesus said again, "whom do you seek" and they answered again, "Jesus of Nazareth and he answered them again "I told you, I am he but let these go" and his telling them this, was to say that he would allow them to take him by his own will.

If you want to get obstinate and argumentative about this, let me remind you, that you no longer have a proof text in John 18:2-11 to prove that Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh God and therefore neither do you have a proof text that the soldiers fell backward to the ground because he addressed himself as Yahweh.

For I have just proven from the context that Jesus was not calling himself Yahweh here but rather answering to the name Jesus of Nazareth and which also did warrant the need for a predicate nominative to be used in this case and which also disproves your theory that if there is no predicative nominative, this means he was claiming to be God.
 
Last edited:

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

Jesus not only told them that He pre-existed Abraham, but He also invoked the Divine name (cf. Ex. 3:14, which most Bibles cross reference). Jesus didn't say, "before Abraham I WAS", which would be more grammatically correct, He said, "I AM" (without a predicate nominative).

What was the response of the Jews? They attempted to stone Him, for claiming to be God. They knew what He said, and what He meant. And Jesus didn't say, "Hold off, you got me all wrong, I never claimed to be God!"

John 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
John 10:31
The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.

Once again, they hear Jesus calling God His "Father", and that He and the Father "were one". And their response was to stone Him, for they knew He was claiming to be God, which they thought was blasphemy. And again, Jesus never denied being God. He never told them they were mistaken.
Another scripture that you falsely use to say that because the predicate nominative is not present in the passage, it means that Jesus is claiming to be God is found in John 8:24.

The problem here, is that trins don't want to view this in it's proper context, for what Jesus said in John 8:24 is directly related also to what he said right before it and in context with verse 23, so let's also have a look at that one.


John 8:23 And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. 24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”


Therefore Jesus use of the words "I am" in verse 24 refers to what he just got through saying right before it in the 23rd verse, and that is "unless you believe that I am from above and not of this world" you will die in your sins and which to put it plainly means, that unless you believe that Jesus was the Messiah that the prophets said God would send, then they would die in their sins.


Now also, to add to what I said in my other reply to you on this, Jesus actually told his disciples that God had angels assigned and ready to rescue him if he decided not to subject himself unto his death and go with the soldiers and that is found in Matthew 26:53'54 below




Matthew 26:53 Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?”


So we see then, that the angels were there and ready if indeed Jesus wanted to back down from his commission from God and as I said, he had no sin that made him subject to death and therefore it was his choice to make by the grace and power of God and therefore he by his own choice submitted himself unto God's will for him to die for the sins of all men.


Therefore, I believe that God only for a brief moment opened the eyes of the soldiers who came to take Jesus by force unto his death in order for them to see the heavenly armies of God's angels that were standing by and in order for them to realize that Jesus would only be taken to his death if he choice to be and not by their forcing him to.
 
Last edited:

Tanachreader

Well-known member
Another scripture that you falsely use to say that because the predicate nominative is not present in the passage, it means that Jesus is claiming to be God is found in John 8:24.

The problem here, is that trins don't want to view this in it's proper context, for what Jesus said in John 8:24 is directly related also to what he said right before it and in context with verse 23, so let's also have a look at that one.


John 8:23 And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. 24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”


Therefore Jesus use of the words "I am" in verse 24 refers to what he just got through saying right before it in the 23rd verse, and that is "unless you believe that I am from above and not of this world" you will die in your sins and which to put it plainly means, that unless you believe that Jesus was the Messiah that the prophets said God would send, then they would die in their sins.


Now also, to add to what I said in my other reply to you on this, Jesus actually told his disciples that God had angels assigned and ready to rescue him if he decided not to subject himself unto his death and go with the soldiers and that is found in Matthew 26:53'54 below




Matthew 26:53 Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?”


So we see then, that the angels were there and ready if indeed Jesus wanted to back down from his commission from God and as I said, he had no sin that made him subject to death and therefore it was his choice to make by the grace and power of God and therefore he by his own choice submitted himself unto God's will for him to die for the sins of all men.


Therefore, I believe that God only for a brief moment opened the eyes of the soldiers who came to take Jesus by force unto his death in order for them to see the heavenly armies of God's angels that were standing by and in order for them to realize that Jesus would only be taken to his death if he choice to be and not by their forcing him to.
The prophets did not JUST say He would be the Messiah!
Scripture says a mere man can not pay for another's sin.

Psalm 49
7None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
,,,
15But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah.

Than you have Isaiah 9:6
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
The prophets did not JUST say He would be the Messiah!
Scripture says a mere man can not pay for another's sin.

Psalm 49
7None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
,,,
15But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah.

Than you have Isaiah 9:6
Sorry but the context of Psalm 49 is that money or riches cannot ransom ones soul from death, for it would cost more than money to provide a ransom for ones life from death and just like Peter says below also and no doubt he knew this Psalm 49 very well and said what he did accordingly.

1 Peter 1:18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.

It is that no man by his money or riches can redeem another from death and not that no man can at all or that God couldn't provide a man who could, for he did and in fact Jesus in John 6 very clearly reveals that it was his flesh that was sent from heaven to redeem men and not his being God and Paul in Romans 5:12-22 says the same thing.


For it was men who sinned and therefore it would take a perfect man without sin sent by God to be the sacrifice for all men who sinned and not God himself or a God man and it is just that simple also.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
Sorry but the context of Psalm 49 is that money or riches cannot ransom ones soul from death, for it would cost more than money to provide a ransom for ones life from death and just like Peter says below also and no doubt he knew this Psalm 49 very well and said what he did accordingly.

1 Peter 1:18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.

It is that no man by his money or riches can redeem another from death and not that no man can at all or that God couldn't provide a man who could, for he did and in fact Jesus in John 6 very clearly reveals that it was his flesh that was sent from heaven to redeem men and not his being God and Paul in Romans 5:12-22 says the same thing.


For it was men who sinned and therefore it would take a perfect man without sin sent by God to be the sacrifice for all men who sinned and not God himself or a God man and it is just that simple also.
Jesus' body did NOT come from heaven; it was CONCEIVED in Mary's womb.
NO man, no matter how sinless can redeem ALL men from sin and death, UNLESS He is also Gpd.
 

cjab

Well-known member
so why do you get to do it?
I don't have time right now to address your whole post. May be later. However I'll add some more points.

(1) Applying to both 2 Pet 1:1 & Titus 2:13, the first noun is part of a noun clause, "righteousness of God," "glory of God." Because of this, it is reasonable to conclude that καὶ is really being used as an adverb, i.e. "even," and not a conjunction. That is, "our savior Jesus Christ" stands in apposition to the first clause. Sharp's rule doesn't appear to take account of καὶ's use as an adverb.

(2) "our savior Jesus Christ" is a reference to a person, Jesus Christ. Sharp agreed that his rule could never be pressed in the case of proper names. But surely "our Savior Jesus Christ" is a quasi-proper name.

(3) The Trinitarian Wallace discounts "the glory of God as a christological title" to apply Sharp's rule. He says: "Third, the evidence for δόξα θεοῦ as a primitive christological title is, at best, inconclusive."

But this isn't the real semantic issue. The "title" is only being used contextual to his appearance. What is being equated is the appearing of Christ with the appearing of the glory of God. It can't honestly by disputed that, as far as appearances are concerned, the second appearance of Jesus Christ is synonymous with the appearance of the glory of God.

Yet even as a christological title or rather attribute of Christ, the glory of God is attested as associated with Christ.
Heb 1:3 "The Son is the radiance of God's glory." James 2:1 "Jesus Christ, 'the Lord of glory.'" The angels sang “Glory to God” at Christ’s birth. The heavenly elders give glory to God around His throne. Eph 1:17 "The God of the Lord of us, Jesus Christ, the Father of glory."

Also by analogy in 1 Cor 11, woman is the glory of man, whilst man is her head. Thus if God is the head of Christ, Christ is the glory of God by analogy.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I don't have time right now to address your whole post. May be later. However I'll add some more points.

(1) Applying to both 2 Pet 1:1 & Titus 2:13, the first noun is part of a noun clause, "righteousness of God," "glory of God." Because of this, it is reasonable to conclude that καὶ is really being used as an adverb, i.e. "even," and not a conjunction. That is, "our savior Jesus Christ" stands in apposition to the first clause. Sharp's rule doesn't appear to take account of καὶ's use as an adverb.

I don't find your argument "reasonable".
All you're doing is looking for excuses to deny Sharp's rule.
What is your expertise in Koine that you think allows you to make such pronouncements?

(2) "our savior Jesus Christ" is a reference to a person, Jesus Christ. Sharp agreed that his rule could never be pressed in the case of proper names. But surely "our Savior Jesus Christ" is a quasi-proper name.

"Savior" is nont a proper name.
Neither "God" nor "Savior" are proper names.
Therefore the Sharp TSKS consntruct, "the God and Savior", doesn't include a proper name.
Therefore it is a valid Sharp connstruct.
The rest of the verse refer to "the God and Savior" (neither noun being a name) as being identified as "Jesus Christ".
You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

(3) The Trinitarian Wallace discounts "the glory of God as a christological title" to apply Sharp's rule. He says: "Third, the evidence for δόξα θεοῦ as a primitive christological title is, at best, inconclusive."

Um, okay....?
In the SAME PARAGRAPH, Wallace writes:

"It is an intriguing speculation, but little more. Titus 2:13 appears to be secure as a reference to Christ as θεός."

So he considers that "factoid" to be irrelevant, as do I.

But this isn't the real semantic issue. The "title" is only being used contextual to his appearance. What is being equated is the appearing of Christ with the appearing of the glory of God.

That is YOUR anti-Trinitarian biased opinion, and nothing more.

It can't honestly by disputed that, as far as appearances are concerned, the second appearance of Jesus Christ is synonymous with the appearance of the glory of God.

So anyone who disagrees with you is, "dishonest"?
Got it.
So you don't have any valid arguments, and have to resort to ad hominem and personal attacks.
You should be embarrassed.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
I don't have time right now to address your whole post. May be later. However I'll add some more points.

(1) Applying to both 2 Pet 1:1 & Titus 2:13, the first noun is part of a noun clause, "righteousness of God," "glory of God." Because of this, it is reasonable to conclude that καὶ is really being used as an adverb, i.e. "even," and not a conjunction. That is, "our savior Jesus Christ" stands in apposition to the first clause. Sharp's rule doesn't appear to take account of καὶ's use as an adverb.

(2) "our savior Jesus Christ" is a reference to a person, Jesus Christ. Sharp agreed that his rule could never be pressed in the case of proper names. But surely "our Savior Jesus Christ" is a quasi-proper name.

(3) The Trinitarian Wallace discounts "the glory of God as a christological title" to apply Sharp's rule. He says: "Third, the evidence for δόξα θεοῦ as a primitive christological title is, at best, inconclusive."

But this isn't the real semantic issue. The "title" is only being used contextual to his appearance. What is being equated is the appearing of Christ with the appearing of the glory of God. It can't honestly by disputed that, as far as appearances are concerned, the second appearance of Jesus Christ is synonymous with the appearance of the glory of God.

Yet even as a christological title or rather attribute of Christ, the glory of God is attested as associated with Christ.
Heb 1:3 "The Son is the radiance of God's glory." James 2:1 "Jesus Christ, 'the Lord of glory.'" The angels sang “Glory to God” at Christ’s birth. The heavenly elders give glory to God around His throne. Eph 1:17 "The God of the Lord of us, Jesus Christ, the Father of glory."

Also by analogy in 1 Cor 11, woman is the glory of man, whilst man is her head. Thus if God is the head of Christ, Christ is the glory of God by analogy.
The Lord of glory is God.
 
Top