Sharp's rule

civic

Well-known member
2 Peter 1:1 and 2 Peter 1:11 are identical in the Greek.

2 Peter 1:1
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:11
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:1
our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

2 Peter 1:11
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

We have a second person possessive pronoun "Our" modifying two different improper nouns (God and Savior) joined by "and" (Kia) to identify a proper noun (Jesus) [Granville/Sharp's]. Therefore, by basic grammar, we are identifying Jesus as God and Savior. We don't even have to know the Greek to see that Jesus is being called both God and Savior/ Lord and Savior in Peters 2nd Epistle. 2 Peter 2:20 and 2 Peter 3:18 also have the same Greek construction as 1:1 and 1:11.

But for those interested in the Greek here is the comparison of 1:1 and 1:11.

τοῦ is the same.
ἡμῶν is the same.
καὶ
is the same.
Σωτῆρος
is the same.
Ἰησοῦ
is the same.
Χριστοῦ·
is the same.

And all in the same order.

The only difference is the noun "Θεοῦ" in v.1, while "Κυρίου" is in v.11.

So if any person wants to deny that Jesus is "God" ("theou") in v.1, then he has to deny that Jesus is "Lord" ("kuriou") in v.11. Otherwise he's being inconsistent and dishonest with the text. To say otherwise is proof positive one has an agenda when reading scripture and using eisegesis rather than exegesis of the biblical text in question.

hope this helps !!!





 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
2 Peter 1:1 and 2 Peter 1:11 are identical in the Greek.

2 Peter 1:1
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:11
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:1
our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

2 Peter 1:11
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

We have a second person possessive pronoun "Our" modifying two different improper nouns (God and Savior) joined by "and" (Kia) to identify a proper noun (Jesus) [Granville/Sharp's]. Therefore, by basic grammar, we are identifying Jesus as God and Savior. We don't even have to know the Greek to see that Jesus is being called both God and Savior/ Lord and Savior in Peters 2nd Epistle. 2 Peter 2:20 and 2 Peter 3:18 also have the same Greek construction as 1:1 and 1:11.

But for those interested in the Greek here is the comparison of 1:1 and 1:11.

τοῦ is the same.
ἡμῶν is the same.
καὶ is the same.
Σωτῆρος is the same.
Ἰησοῦ is the same.
Χριστοῦ· is the same.

And all in the same order.

The only difference is the noun "Θεοῦ" in v.1, while "Κυρίου" is in v.11.

So if any person wants to deny that Jesus is "God" ("theou") in v.1, then he has to deny that Jesus is "Lord" ("kuriou") in v.11. Otherwise he's being inconsistent and dishonest with the text. To say otherwise is proof positive one has an agenda when reading scripture and using eisegesis rather than exegesis of the biblical text in question.

hope this helps !!!




Thanks civic. Your resident Greek defender of Trinitarian theology has confirmed that the esteemed and highly regarded Trinitarian grammar BDF says that "Saviour" is definite and so is separated from the God which precedes it. You cannot see this from your comparison.
 

civic

Well-known member
Thanks civic. Your resident Greek defender of Trinitarian theology has confirmed that the esteemed and highly regarded Trinitarian grammar BDF says that "Saviour" is definite and so is separated from the God which precedes it. You cannot see this from your comparison.
Titus 2:13 is the same its One Person described who is Christ.

Also every time parousia and epiphinea are used in the N.T. it is describing to Son never the Father. Its always the Son who is coming(parousia) and appearing(ephiphnia).

There is more than one way to skin that cat in Titus 2:13 :)
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Titus 2:13 is the same its One Person described who is Christ.

Also every time parousia and epiphinea are used in the N.T. it is describing to Son never the Father. Its always the Son who is coming(parousia) and appearing(ephiphnia).

There is more than one way to skin that cat in Titus 2:13 :)

Titus 2:13 already came up at
Post in thread 'BDF on 2 Peter 1:1 - It's shocking'
https://forums.carm.org/threads/bdf-on-2-peter-1-1-its-shocking.1649/post-107701

Your Trinitarian defender is still on the ropes. Get some popcorn.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Titus 2:13 is the same its One Person described who is Christ.

Also every time parousia and epiphinea are used in the N.T. it is describing to Son never the Father. Its always the Son who is coming(parousia) and appearing(ephiphnia).

There is more than one way to skin that cat in Titus 2:13 :)

Could you help me understand your position better? At Titus 2:13 it is appearing of glory not the appearing of Jesus.

What is your closest parallel?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Look up every usage of epiphinea in the NT

It's not just epiphinea. It's the blessed hope and appearing of glory. Note the TSKS? It's The Hope and Appearing that is one thing, not just appearing. And it's hope and appearing of glory.

The closest parallel with those two words is in the same book, Titis 3:4-7.

The kindness of God appeared (verb epiphaino) is in verse 4 and results in saving through Jesus (v6) which results in the hope of eternal life (v7).

This is the hope and appearing of God and Christ from Titus 2:13.

This is a parallel from the next chapter of the same book that explains hope and appearing at Titus 2:13.
 
2 Peter 1:1 and 2 Peter 1:11 are identical in the Greek.

2 Peter 1:1
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:11
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:1
our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

2 Peter 1:11
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

We have a second person possessive pronoun "Our" modifying two different improper nouns (God and Savior) joined by "and" (Kia) to identify a proper noun (Jesus) [Granville/Sharp's]. Therefore, by basic grammar, we are identifying Jesus as God and Savior. We don't even have to know the Greek to see that Jesus is being called both God and Savior/ Lord and Savior in Peters 2nd Epistle. 2 Peter 2:20 and 2 Peter 3:18 also have the same Greek construction as 1:1 and 1:11.

But for those interested in the Greek here is the comparison of 1:1 and 1:11.

τοῦ is the same.
ἡμῶν is the same.
καὶ is the same.
Σωτῆρος is the same.
Ἰησοῦ is the same.
Χριστοῦ· is the same.

And all in the same order.

The only difference is the noun "Θεοῦ" in v.1, while "Κυρίου" is in v.11.

So if any person wants to deny that Jesus is "God" ("theou") in v.1, then he has to deny that Jesus is "Lord" ("kuriou") in v.11. Otherwise he's being inconsistent and dishonest with the text. To say otherwise is proof positive one has an agenda when reading scripture and using eisegesis rather than exegesis of the biblical text in question.

hope this helps !!!
And by Basic Grammar in accordance with Jesus' words, who do you identify as The Only True God as in John 17:3?

And by Basic Grammar how do you interpret Jesus' words in John 5:26 "For just (in the same way) as the Father has life in himself, so he has given unto the Son to have life in himself also"?


And by Basic Grammar how do you interpret Jesus' word in John 6:57 "For just as The Living Father has sent me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats of me shall live because of me".

Notice Jesus very clearly tells us that just as or (in the same way) as he lives because of the Father, they will also live because of him if they eat of him (receive his flesh and blood sacrifice for their sins).


So then by that Basic Grammar that you use, what do you think that this reveals about your false doctrine that Jesus had life in himself as being God equal unto the Father?

For when he said "just as" he was saying that he lived because of God the Father in the same way that they would live because of him also and which means that it had to be given him the same way that it would have to be given unto them also and that is some simple grammar 101 dude.


And by Basic Grammar, who alone did Jesus tell us knows the day and hour of the end of the age and his return in Matthew 24:36 "But of that day and hour no man knows, not the angels, nor the Son but BUT THE FATHER ONLY".


And by Basic Grammar what does it mean when both Paul and Peter in the address of their letter when they right "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
 
Last edited:

civic

Well-known member
And by Basic Grammar in accordance with Jesus' words, who do you identify as The Only True God as in John 17:3?

And by Basic Grammar how do you interpret Jesus' words in John 5:26 "For just (in the same way) as the Father has life in himself, so he has given unto the Son to have life in himself also"?


And by Basic Grammar how do you interpret Jesus' word in John 6:57 "For just as The Living Father has sent me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats of me shall live because of me".

Notice Jesus very clearly tells us that just as or (in the same way) as he lives because of the Father, they will also live because of him if they eat of him (receive his flesh and blood sacrifice for their sins).


So then by that Basic Grammar that you use, what do you think that this reveals about your false doctrine that Jesus had life in himself as being God equal unto the Father?

For when he said "just as" he was saying that he received his life from God the same way that they would receive it from him and which means that it had to be given him the same way that it would have to be given unto them also and that is some simple grammar 101 dude.


And by Basic Grammar, who alone did Jesus tell us knows the day and hour of the end of the age and his return in Matthew 24:36 "But of that day and hour no man knows, not the angels, nor the Son but BUT THE FATHER ONLY".


And by Basic Grammar what does it mean when both Paul and Peter in the address of their letter when they right "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
Not worth my time since you are clueless regarding the argument.
 
2 Peter 1:1 and 2 Peter 1:11 are identical in the Greek.

2 Peter 1:1
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:11
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:1
our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

2 Peter 1:11
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

We have a second person possessive pronoun "Our" modifying two different improper nouns (God and Savior) joined by "and" (Kia) to identify a proper noun (Jesus) [Granville/Sharp's]. Therefore, by basic grammar, we are identifying Jesus as God and Savior. We don't even have to know the Greek to see that Jesus is being called both God and Savior/ Lord and Savior in Peters 2nd Epistle. 2 Peter 2:20 and 2 Peter 3:18 also have the same Greek construction as 1:1 and 1:11.

But for those interested in the Greek here is the comparison of 1:1 and 1:11.

τοῦ is the same.
ἡμῶν is the same.
καὶ is the same.
Σωτῆρος is the same.
Ἰησοῦ is the same.
Χριστοῦ· is the same.

And all in the same order.

The only difference is the noun "Θεοῦ" in v.1, while "Κυρίου" is in v.11.

So if any person wants to deny that Jesus is "God" ("theou") in v.1, then he has to deny that Jesus is "Lord" ("kuriou") in v.11. Otherwise he's being inconsistent and dishonest with the text. To say otherwise is proof positive one has an agenda when reading scripture and using eisegesis rather than exegesis of the biblical text in question.

hope this helps !!!



Nope, for the full statement of Titus 2:13 is "the appearing of the glory of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ and not only "our great God and and Savior Jesus Christ".

You have to understand Paul's words in the full context of the sentence and not just cherry pick "our Great God and Savior" out of the verse without the rest of the sentence because it fits with your false doctrines.


The same goes for 2 Peter 1:1, for it is "the righteousness of God and our Savior" and not only "our God and Savior" like you want to cherry pick it apart as saying and that is why you don't know what you are talking about either.

Again, this is because God manifested his righteousness through Jesus in his life, death and resurrection and therefore Peter is calling Jesus "the righteousness of God and our Savior".

Therefore in Titus 2:13 Paul is calling Jesus the appearing of the glory of our Great God and Savior" because the glory of God is manifested through Jesus when he appears and therefore it is the same as Paul in Colossians 1:15 calling Jesus "the image of the invisible God", because God and his glory is only now manifested through Jesus.


Jesus also said the same thing in John 14:8-10, notice the reason that Jesus gives in the 10the verse for why when they saw him, they also saw the Father, for here is what he said, "The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself, it is the Father who dwells within me, he is doing the works.

Where did Jesus tell them that the reason for why when they saw him they saw God was because he was also God Civic?

He didn't but he revealed the reason to be because the Father himself was dwelling within him and manifesting himself to the disciples thorugh Jesus the man period.

Peter says the same thing in Acts 2:22 also " "Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know." ... God publicly endorsed Jesus the Nazarene by doing powerful miracles, wonders, and signs through him, as you well know."

So then who does Peter say was doing the Miracles and through whom was he doing them Civic?
 
Not worth my time since you are clueless regarding the argument.
I didn't write what I did to be involved in your argument dude, for what I was saying had nothing to do with that but only what the whole passages say and not only the part that you like and want them to say.

It pleasures me to remind you over and over again of the truths within the scriptures that you want to avoid, so that when we both stand before God and Jesus on that day, Jesus will say unto me "well done you good and faithful servant" because I continued to give you the truth no matter how much you try to avoid it and reject it.


For that way, all of the arrogant mouths will indeed be silenced from all of their false doctrines that they have taught and they will have give an account of it before God without any accuses for not having known.
 

Stephen

Active member
Who believes in Sharp's rule?

I just brought up some Greek grammar in the Languages forum.


Thread 'BDF on 2 Peter 1:1 - It's shocking'
https://forums.carm.org/threads/bdf-on-2-peter-1-1-its-shocking.1649/

Sharps rule. Let's see:
  • It was created specifically to make the English Bible say Christ is his own father. (since apparently the KJV translators were wrong according to Mr. Sharp)
  • It was Formerly 6 rules.
  • Five of those 6 rules were so awful that even the worst "Jesus is his own father" believer had to acknowledge they were bad.
  • Now just one rule.
  • Except that the last remaining rule was re-written to "The Sharper Rule" in the 1990s.

To answer the question, "do I believe in" Sharps's rule? - - No.

If some trinitarian invents a Rule of Greek grammar specifically for the purpose of inserting his doctrine into scripture, then it should be dismissed out of hand. Especially one with the track record similar to Sharp's rule.


(Not to mention the mental gymnastics that it takes to think that the NT writers were identifying Jesus as his own father in their writings.)
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
It's not just epiphinea. It's the blessed hope and appearing of glory. Note the TSKS? It's The Hope and Appearing that is one thing, not just appearing. And it's hope and appearing of glory.

The closest parallel with those two words is in the same book, Titis 3:4-7.

The kindness of God appeared (verb epiphaino) is in verse 4 and results in saving through Jesus (v6) which results in the hope of eternal life (v7).

This is the hope and appearing of God and Christ from Titus 2:13.

This is a parallel from the next chapter of the same book that explains hope and appearing at Titus 2:13.

@civic

bump
 
Who believes in Sharp's rule?
I don't believe in "Sharp's Rule" because no Greek speaker in the 1st century would've heard about it--much less followed it (considering it didn't exist).

One may be able to call it (at most) "Sharp's observation"; but a rule--no.
I just brought up some Greek grammar in the Languages forum.


Thread 'BDF on 2 Peter 1:1 - It's shocking'
https://forums.carm.org/threads/bdf-on-2-peter-1-1-its-shocking.1649/
Do you believe Sharp's Rule applies to 2 Thessalonians 1:12 as well(, which, when we compare it to 2 Peter 1:1 is also identical--the only difference being that 2 Thessalonians 1:12 uses KURIOU while 2 Peter 1:1 uses SWTHROS):

του θεου ημων και κυριου ιησου χριστου (2 Thessalonians 1:12)
του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου (2 Peter 1:1)
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I don't believe in "Sharp's Rule" because no Greek speaker in the 1st century would've heard about it--much less followed it (considering it didn't exist).

One may be able to call it (at most) "Sharp's observation"; but a rule--no.

Do you believe Sharp's Rule applies to 2 Thessalonians 1:12 as well(, which, when we compare it to 2 Peter 1:1 is also identical--the only difference being that 2 Thessalonians 1:12 uses KURIOU while 2 Peter 1:1 uses SWTHROS):

του θεου ημων και κυριου ιησου χριστου (2 Thessalonians 1:12)
του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου (2 Peter 1:1)

You seem very savvy.

What do you think about
Post in thread 'Sharp's rule'
https://forums.carm.org/threads/sharps-rule.1656/post-108204

@civic has not replied yet.
 

OldShepherd

Active member
2 Peter 1:1 and 2 Peter 1:11 are identical in the Greek.

2 Peter 1:1
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:11
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:1
our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

2 Peter 1:11
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

We have a second person possessive pronoun "Our" modifying two different improper nouns (God and Savior) joined by "and" (Kia) to identify a proper noun (Jesus) [Granville/Sharp's]. Therefore, by basic grammar, we are identifying Jesus as God and Savior. We don't even have to know the Greek to see that Jesus is being called both God and Savior/ Lord and Savior in Peters 2nd Epistle. 2 Peter 2:20 and 2 Peter 3:18 also have the same Greek construction as 1:1 and 1:11.

But for those interested in the Greek here is the comparison of 1:1 and 1:11.

τοῦ is the same.
ἡμῶν is the same.
καὶ is the same.
Σωτῆρος is the same.
Ἰησοῦ is the same.
Χριστοῦ· is the same.

And all in the same order.

The only difference is the noun "Θεοῦ" in v.1, while "Κυρίου" is in v.11.

So if any person wants to deny that Jesus is "God" ("theou") in v.1, then he has to deny that Jesus is "Lord" ("kuriou") in v.11. Otherwise he's being inconsistent and dishonest with the text. To say otherwise is proof positive one has an agenda when reading scripture and using eisegesis rather than exegesis of the biblical text in question.

hope this helps !!!
Yes! What he said.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Yes! What he said.

There is a big difference that is reported by Blass-Debrunner-Funk Greek grammar.

"Savior" is semanticly definite based on being at the beginning of an epistle. So It's not TSKS, but TSKDS.

 

OldShepherd

Active member
Sharps rule. Let's see:
  • It was created specifically to make the English Bible say Christ is his own father. (since apparently the KJV translators were wrong according to Mr. Sharp)
  • It was Formerly 6 rules.
  • Five of those 6 rules were so awful that even the worst "Jesus is his own father" believer had to acknowledge they were bad.
  • Now just one rule.
  • Except that the last remaining rule was re-written to "The Sharper Rule" in the 1990s.
To answer the question, "do I believe in" Sharps's rule? - - No.
If some trinitarian invents a Rule of Greek grammar specifically for the purpose of inserting his doctrine into scripture, then it should be dismissed out of hand. Especially one with the track record similar to Sharp's rule.
(Not to mention the mental gymnastics that it takes to think that the NT writers were identifying Jesus as his own father in their writings.)
Do you have the slightest clue about grammar rules in language? Have you ever formally studied Hebrew or Greek or any other language. Grammar rules are NOT created they are observed and documented.
It is not "6 rules" Sharp's rule still has 6 parts.
If you know anything about language please show us lesser beings how Sharp's rule is invalid and while you are at it show how a few of the other grammar rules are invalid so we might know if you know what you are talking about. I will not hold my breath.
Here is a link to a 12 page article on Sharp's rule by Dr. Daniel Wallace who has taught graduate level Greek for 40+ years. If you wish to challenge Dr. Wallace or Sharp's rule you need to bring at least that much scholarship to the table. A short quote from the article.
In short, my explicit purpose in the monograph was to seek out the semantics of the various permutations of the TSKS construction rather than to canonize Sharp’s principle. Even then, I discovered that Sharp’s rule, when further nuanced to capture the intent that he saw in the personal, singular, non-proper TSKS, had an overwhelming validity across the centuries of Attic and Hellenistic Greek. I articulated this as the “Sharper” Rule: In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by "kai" (thus, article-substantive-kai -substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent.36​
 

OldShepherd

Active member
There is a big difference that is reported by Blass-Debrunner-Funk Greek grammar.
"Savior" is semanticly definite based on being at the beginning of an epistle. So It's not TSKS, but TSKDS.
I have been studying Greek for about 4 decades and have more than one Greek grammar and I have never heard of a rule that a noun at the beginning of an epistle makes it definite. Looks like DBF is reading their biases into the text.
 
Top