6 Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses

[hopesprings]

Hello hopesprings,

Thanks for the response.

I don't think you have an answer that can be tested. And that's my point.


This is how objection was expressed in Bible times. It's like when Jesus asks Mary, literally, "What is there in common between me and you?" (John 2:4) It's a rhetorical question; he's objecting to something she said.


If Jesus was truly asking the man, and not making a rhetorical question in order to correct him, you'd think he'd wait for the man to answer his question. He doesn't.


Wouldn't this be a super great time then for Jesus to tell the man exactly that, that in order to receive everlasting life like he wants, he must believe that Jesus is God himself? Why does Jesus disregard completely what is to you an appalling lack of faith here?


You keep saying things like this, that you feel like I didn't answer you, when I absolutely did! I said exactly why Jesus objected in this one instance to an adjective that is commonly accepted elsewhere. Did you miss that?

Why did you disregard the text I showed where Barnabas is called "good"? Is that also proof that Barnabas is God, hopesprings? If not, how is it different? Please don't ignore things like this and say that you don't feel like I answered you. Please tell me why you don't think that applies.


Well, we were already discussing Philippians 2 and how the word in verse 6, as well as the preceding comparison, support that the pre-existent Jesus didn't try to seize equality with God. Now I've been trying to get anyone here to discuss Proverbs 8:22-31 with me and its application to the Messiah. There it explains the very same scenario I've explained at places like Colossians 1 and Revelation 3, i.e. that the Son was the very first creature, and that God then proceeded to create everything through him. Thoughts?

Hi TJ,

I said that I do have an answer to your question, but that I do not consider it a real answer.
The list I have would contradict much of what Jesus did in his earthly ministry.

You asked: if Jesus was God then why didn’t he give the young man a chance to respond to his question? My answer is because Jesus already knew the answer to the man’s question, because he already knew the condition of the man’s heart. We know that sometimes Jesus would ask a question without waiting for an answer (like in Matt. 8:26-27); we also know that sometimes Jesus would ask a question that he already knew the answer to (like in John 21:15-17); and we also know that Jesus was able to perceive things about people without being told (like in John 4) – so it is possible that Jesus already knew the answer, just like he already knew the one thing the young man was holding back from God. You also asked why Jesus didn’t tell the young man that he was God, and my answer to that is – read John 14:21-23. Jesus instructed many who knew him not to tell anyone who he really was (like in Mark 1:34, 3:11-12, 5:42-43, 8:29-30). Believing that Jesus is God doesn’t automatically buy you eternal life; eternal life is defined as ‘knowing God’…but yet the young man counted his wealth on equal ground as eternal life, that is a condition of the heart; Jesus reveals the fact that the man’s heart is in the wrong place by showing him how much he values his wealth.


The fact that the young man dropped the ‘good’ the second time shows that he really didn’t believe Jesus to be God. It was all a lack of faith on the man’s part…the young man shows this by walking away grieved at having been told to give up his earthly possessions.

I would like to ask you to forgive me for calling your explanation of John 10, a dance. It was unfair of me to withhold a better explanation as to WHY I think that this is what you were doing. I’m sorry for doing that and will refrain from doing it in the future.

I find your response to Jesus calling himself ‘good’, insufficient. Here is why I think that: If Barnabas had said ‘don’t call anyone good because only God is good’, and then proceeded to call HIMSELF good – then the example would be comparable. As it stands, someone else called Barnabas good on the basis of God’s work in his life. That is different from the situation with Jesus, because Jesus is the one who said ‘don’t call anyone good because only God is good’, and then he says ‘I am the good shepherd’. There is a contradiction there. In order for Jesus to call himself good (since only God is good) he would have to have the authority to do that, but how can he call himself good if only God is good? And, how can he rebuke someone for calling him good when he calls himself good? Barnabas wasn’t called good based on his own merit, but on the Holy Spirit working in him as evidenced through his ministry. And, Barnabas didn’t say ‘I am a good man’…how could he ever say that about himself if only God is good? If he were to say such a thing he would be taking some of the glory that belongs to God. Jesus, on the other hand, says of himself…I am the Good Shepherd. That has huge implications. I think that Jesus claiming no one is good except God, and then later calling himself good deserves more consideration then what you are giving it. This conclusion is especially true if you continue to read on in John 10; that is why I find your answer insufficient.


I feel that your explanation of Phil. 2 is lacking as well, because it does not take into account the first half of the verse (v.6). I would like to hear why it is that you believe Jesus can be pre-existent in the form of God, yet not be equal to God. I am going to go back and look at your previous posts on Prov. 8, and I will get back to you on that.

‘till later…
hopesprings

 

[Bea22]

Your example shows that Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. It shows distinction.

Further, your example never says that Jesus' Spirit dwells within the believer...only the Holy Spirit.

What would you be saying 'Christ be in you' means then? Or verse 9, saying 'if any man have not the 'Spirit of Christ'...?

Unless you believe there is more than one Spirit in the Bride..?

 

[Bowman]

What would you be saying 'Christ be in you' means then? Or verse 9, saying 'if any man have not the 'Spirit of Christ'...?

Unless you believe there is more than one Spirit in the Bride..?

Look to the Greek.

Only the Holy Spirit is said to indwell in the believer.

Christ's Spirit conditions our heart to accept the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Bea22]

Look to the Greek.

Only the Holy Spirit is said to indwell in the believer.

Christ's Spirit conditions our heart to accept the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

The Greek doesn't say anything that takes from the meaning as it is written.

With all due respect Bowman, the idea that Christ has a Spirit and it conditions our hearts to accept the indwelling of another Spirit, the Holy Spirit is.... quite frankly, a false stretch of scripture.
There are more than enough scriptures to state that Christ dwells in His Bride. How else is She One with Him, or perhaps She is One with the Holy Spirit, which is not Christ's Spirit?

I have shown you scriptures yet you still see what you want to from them, stating that it is Christ's Spirit that conditions the heart first, then where does Christ's Spirit go once the heart of the believer is conditioned and the Holy Spirit comes in?

I understand to believe what I am saying is to say that there is One Eternal Spirit which is God, and that you cannot do because of your beliefs. There are not three spirits, that is all there is to say. There never was in the beginning and there will never be. It is the same Spirit of God.
I will not reply again, God bless.

 

[TJ12]

Hello Bowman

Thanks for your many responses. Could you perhaps consolidate these into one response next time?

With regards to Revelation 1:4-6, you said:

As seen by the text, and as already stated, there are not two ‘individuals’ but three, as thus…
...
That each is God is declared by the ‘grace’ favor upon man as bestowed via the three-fold greeting from ‘opo’ each.

Once again, Bowman, there are nine mentioned there, you haven't even attempted to explain this. And your evidence that that scripture is teaching the doctrine that there's three (not nine) hypostases in one ousia is that the preposition is used with each? I suppose if you get a card from (signed by) more than one person you just assume they all share one being, correct? This is the silliness that is the Trinity and your 'hard proof' of it.

Further, you seem to be hung-up on the term ‘Almighty’… of which, is applied to the Son in Rev Chapter 4.

Strange you didn't quote this. Allow me:

"Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying:
'Holy, holy, holy
is the Lord God Almighty,
who was, and is, and is to come.'"


Bowman, who is the one 'who was, and is, and is to come' according to Revelation 1:4-5? Is it Jesus?

In your 1 Tim 5.21 example, God and Jesus are not separated with the article; however the angels are separated with the article...

Please explain to me what you think the article(s) there means exactly.

In response to my example of Luke 9:26, which like Matthew 28:19 gives the article with each noun, you said:

Not the Trinity…why would it be?

Are you sure that you are comprehending the article, brother?

I do, but I'm not sure you do. Please tell me exactly what the article means to you in these instances. You're getting very hazy and seem to think that by just saying it's different that somehow that constitutes proof. It does not. Tell me why.

Of course, demonstrating that the Father is not the Son is not the Spirit. However, you conveniently forgot to mention that while they are not each other, they have the same singular name (onoma)….i.e. they are each the One God!

This is the Trinity, brother.

You just owned yourself royally on this verse; hand-picked by yourself.

Study it and learn it.

So, to be clear, that's your absolute, foolproof evidence of the Trinity that, as you put it, 'royally owned me'?

Bowman, please turn in your Bible to Genesis 48:16, where it says, "and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac." The Greek rendering of this likewise uses "the same singular name (onoma)." According to you logic then, Abraham and Isaac are literally one being!

I asked you to show me one scriptural instance where 'arche' means "origin/active cause"and you responded with this:

G746
ἀρχή
archē
Thayer Definition:
1) beginning, origin
2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4) the extremity of a thing
4a) of the corners of a sail
5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
5a) of angels and demons
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G756
Citing in TDNT: 1:479, 81

Well that's a very nice lexicon quote and thank you for that, but where's the actual scripture that has this definition, Bowman? You didn't answer me.

Even in the plain English of your NWT, you can easily see the Trinity proclaimed.

No Bible that I've ever read says anything like "God is three". It all depends on you accepting what is a logical absurdity and then looking for the 'hints' that confirm it.

Furthermore, it’s painfully clear that you can’t be bothered with the study of scripture in the original languages…yes?

Oh, the irony.

I'll just say that in my experience, it's usually the ones that feel the need to talk up their education/credentials while putting down others that are the ones that are most uncomfortable with their own abilities.

Observe your error…


1 Chron 29.20

And David said to all the congregation, Now bless Yahweh your God. And all the congregation blessed Yahweh, the God of their fathers, and worshiped Yahweh, and bowed to the king. And they sacrificed sacrifices to Yahweh, and offered burnt offerings to Yahweh, on the next day after that day: a thousand bulls, a thousand rams, a thousand lambs, with their drink offerings, and sacrifices in great plenty for all Israel.


See the difference in worship here, brother?

Only Yahweh received the worship and blessing and animal sacrifices.

What about David?

Oh yeah…he was bowed to.

It's amazing that you make all these strained arguments based off of an article or preposition, but then you turn around and serve up a paraphrase like this where you render the same word in two different ways. Where's your accompanying original language version of this verse? Not very convenient here, is it?

This just proves that when the same act is performed towards God and his appointed king, to you it's perfectly acceptable to interpret it with two very different meanings. Now take what you did above and be consistent by applying that interpretation to God and his appointed king, Jesus.


Thanks Bowman.

 

[TJ12]

Hi hopesprings,

You asked: if Jesus was God then why didn’t he give the young man a chance to respond to his question? My answer is because Jesus already knew the answer to the man’s question, because he already knew the condition of the man’s heart....so it is possible that Jesus already knew the answer, just like he already knew the one thing the young man was holding back from God.

But didn't you just contradict yourself? The man was asking what he must do to have life, to be saved. You say that Jesus knew the man didn't accept him as God, but then that he also knew "the one thing the young man was holding back." Thus, either Jesus didn't think it was at all important for the man to believe that he was God to receive life or he was, as I argue, telling the man to leave such titles, not for himself, but for God alone. Which is it?

The fact that the young man dropped the ‘good’ the second time shows that he really didn’t believe Jesus to be God. It was all a lack of faith on the man’s part…the young man shows this by walking away grieved at having been told to give up his earthly possessions.

But again, even as you agree, Jesus says to the man, "One thing is missing about you." It wasn't his lack of faith in recognizing who Jesus was.


Thanks hopesprings

 

[Mediate]

What would you be saying 'Christ be in you' means then? Or verse 9, saying 'if any man have not the 'Spirit of Christ'...?

Unless you believe there is more than one Spirit in the Bride..?

Its not a supernatural spirit. It's a 'in the spirit of charity' spirit

The means. The will. The attitude. The way. The spirit.

 

[Bowman]

]The Greek doesn't say anything that takes from the meaning as it is written.

Why would the original language take away from the English?

If anything, the translated English would take away fron the Greek.

However, you don't srudy Greek...so this assertion is without merit...

With all due respect Bowman, the idea that Christ has a Spirit and it conditions our hearts to accept the indwelling of another Spirit, the Holy Spirit is.... quite frankly, a false stretch of scripture.

It is what scripture states.

There are more than enough scriptures to state that Christ dwells in His Bride. How else is She One with Him, or perhaps She is One with the Holy Spirit, which is not Christ's Spirit?

I have shown you scriptures yet you still see what you want to from them, stating that it is Christ's Spirit that conditions the heart first, then where does Christ's Spirit go once the heart of the believer is conditioned and the Holy Spirit comes in?

Bring forth scripture for your postion.

I understand to believe what I am saying is to say that there is One Eternal Spirit which is God, and that you cannot do because of your beliefs. There are not three spirits, that is all there is to say. There never was in the beginning and there will never be. It is the same Spirit of God.
I will not reply again, God bless.

The Trinity is not Three.

You just confirmed that you are fighting a straw man argument.

 

[Bowman]

Hello Bowman

Thanks for your many responses. Could you perhaps consolidate these into one response next time?

Not likely, TJ, for the simple reason that shorter posts can better address certain topics and are more likely to be read by the viewer.

My responses will be as long or short as needed to deliver the message...

With regards to Revelation 1:4-6, you said:

Once again, Bowman, there are nine mentioned there, you haven't even attempted to explain this. And your evidence that that scripture is teaching the doctrine that there's three (not nine) hypostases in one ousia is that the preposition is used with each? I suppose if you get a card from (signed by) more than one person you just assume they all share one being, correct? This is the silliness that is the Trinity and your 'hard proof' of it.

You keep vascillating between 2 and 9...which is it going to be?

The intro clearly separates the greeting into three sections, with the Spirit section mentioning seven spirits, of which, is revealed in Revelation.

You still have yet to acknowledge that divine grace is bestowed by the Son in the intro...making Jesus, God.

Strange you didn't quote this. Allow me:

"Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying:
'Holy, holy, holy
is the Lord God Almighty,
who was, and is, and is to come.'"


Bowman, who is the one 'who was, and is, and is to come' according to Revelation 1:4-5? Is it Jesus?

Let's look...

Rev 4.8 - 11...

And the four living creatures each one had six wings around, and within being full of eyes. And they had no rest day and night, saying, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty," the One who was, and is, and is coming! Isa. 6:3 And whenever the living creatures shall give glory and honor and thanks to the One sitting on the throne, to the One living to the ages of the ages, The twenty four elders fall down before Him sitting on the throne; and they will worship the One living to the ages of the ages, and will throw their crowns before the throne, saying, Lord, You are worthy to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because You created all things, and through Your will they exist and were created.


Please tell us what God had to do to become 'worthy to receive' anything.

What did He do...and who did He receive it from?

 

[TJ12]

Hello Bowman,

You still have yet to acknowledge that divine grace is bestowed by the Son in the intro...making Jesus, God.

Right, and if you receive a card signed by more than one person, you assume they're all the same being, correct? This is what you're asking me to believe here.

Let's look...

Rev 4.8 - 11...

And the four living creatures each one had six wings around, and within being full of eyes. And they had no rest day and night, saying, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty," the One who was, and is, and is coming! Isa. 6:3 And whenever the living creatures shall give glory and honor and thanks to the One sitting on the throne, to the One living to the ages of the ages, The twenty four elders fall down before Him sitting on the throne; and they will worship the One living to the ages of the ages, and will throw their crowns before the throne, saying, Lord, You are worthy to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because You created all things, and through Your will they exist and were created.


Please tell us what God had to do to become 'worthy to receive' anything.

What did He do...and who did He receive it from?

First, please first answer the question I put to you, "who is the one 'who was, and is, and is to come' according to Revelation 1:4-5? Is it Jesus?"


Thank you.

 

[Bowman]

Please explain to me what you think the article(s) there means exactly.

I already did...

In response to my example of Luke 9:26, which like Matthew 28:19 gives the article with each noun, you said:
I do, but I'm not sure you do. Please tell me exactly what the article means to you in these instances. You're getting very hazy and seem to think that by just saying it's different that somehow that constitutes proof. It does not. Tell me why.

Greek constructs that follow the TSKTS pattern (article, substantive, kai, article, substantive) indicate separate entities.

I would suggest that you study-up on the basics of Greek grammar first before you weaken your already damaged postion any further...thanks...

So, to be clear, that's your absolute, foolproof evidence of the Trinity that, as you put it, 'royally owned me'?

You owned yourself on that one, TJ, as you selected it, yourself.

As it is, it is a one-liner that just so happens to succinctly describe the Biblical Trinity.

Bowman, please turn in your Bible to Genesis 48:16, where it says, "and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac." The Greek rendering of this likewise uses "the same singular name (onoma)." According to you logic then, Abraham and Isaac are literally one being!

The Hebrew has the plural, TJ.

Further, you just walked into yet another Trinitarin verse.

Please tell us, in this verse, who 'The Malek' is who redeemed him from evil, if it was not Yahweh?!

You just keep selecting scripture which palces your position deeper and deeper into the red zone, TJ...

 

[Bowman]

I asked you to show me one scriptural instance where 'arche' means "origin/active cause"and you responded with this:

Well that's a very nice lexicon quote and thank you for that, but where's the actual scripture that has this definition, Bowman? You didn't answer me.

Rev 3.14.

No Bible that I've ever read says anything like "God is three". It all depends on you accepting what is a logical absurdity and then looking for the 'hints' that confirm it.


Oh, the irony.

The Trinity is not Three, TJ...

See...you are fighting a straw man argument.

If you think the Trinity is Three, then prove it scripturally.

I'll just say that in my experience, it's usually the ones that feel the need to talk up their education/credentials while putting down others that are the ones that are most uncomfortable with their own abilities.

Where have I ever stated my education level or credentials?

You are just fishing for excuses...

It's amazing that you make all these strained arguments based off of an article or preposition, but then you turn around and serve up a paraphrase like this where you render the same word in two different ways. Where's your accompanying original language version of this verse? Not very convenient here, is it?

What part of the Hebrew is bothering you, TJ?

I mean...its not like you provided it...and it was your posited verse in the first place!

Come on...

 

[TJ12]

Hi again Bowman,

Greek constructs that follow the TSKTS pattern (article, substantive, kai, article, substantive) indicate separate entities.

Bowman, constructs of the type TSKS (without the second article) can indicate separate entities as well because the article is distributive in a list like this. Otherwise you'd make Barnabas and Saul out to be the 'same entity', given that the Greek literally says at Acts 13:2, "the(t) Barnabas(S) and(K) Saul(S)". This is just flawed rationale.

In response to my reference of Genesis 48:16 as a counterexample, you said:

The Hebrew has the plural, TJ.

You are 100% wrong! The Hebrew word, like the Greek, is singular. It's 'shem' not the plural 'shemiyt'.

So tell me, Bowman, are Abraham and Isaac one being given that they are described by a singular "name"?

Further, you just walked into yet another Trinitarin verse.

Please tell us, in this verse, who 'The Malek' is who redeemed him from evil, if it was not Yahweh?!

It was an angel, as most translations agree: "the Angel who has delivered me from all harm—may he bless these boys." (NIV) The angel is God's agent.

In answer to my repeated question about naming one scriptural instance where "arche" ever means "origin/active source", you said:

Rev 3.14.

And this proves my point. You interpret the word in this one instance differently than you do everywhere else in the Bible. This is special pleading!


Because I said that the Bible never says anything like 'God is three', you said:

The Trinity is not Three, TJ...

See...you are fighting a straw man argument.

It's not a strawman. The orthodox Trinity doctrine says that God is three persons. Scripture never says anything like this. It's all your cryptic 'hints' that you claim 'imply' it.

Where have I ever stated my education level or credentials?

You're a generally condescending person and this element has been present throughout your posts. If you can't recognize it in yourself, well, that's your issue.


In response to my criticism of your biased paraphrase of 1 Chronicles 29:20, you came up with this:

What part of the Hebrew is bothering you, TJ?

I mean...its not like you provided it...and it was your posited verse in the first place!

Bowman, the exact same verb is used with reference to God and the king in that verse, both in Hebrew and in the Greek. You were forced to hide this in your selected English translation by rendering it differently for each. You either really have no idea what you're talking about here or you're being deceptive about this. Either way, it's about as impressive as your answer to Genesis 48:16 above.

 

[feedm3]

Hi TJ,

I said that I do have an answer to your question, but that I do not consider it a real answer.
The list I have would contradict much of what Jesus did in his earthly ministry.

You asked: if Jesus was God then why didn’t he give the young man a chance to respond to his question? My answer is because Jesus already knew the answer to the man’s question, because he already knew the condition of the man’s heart. We know that sometimes Jesus would ask a question without waiting for an answer (like in Matt. 8:26-27); we also know that sometimes Jesus would ask a question that he already knew the answer to (like in John 21:15-17); and we also know that Jesus was able to perceive things about people without being told (like in John 4) – so it is possible that Jesus already knew the answer, just like he already knew the one thing the young man was holding back from God. You also asked why Jesus didn’t tell the young man that he was God, and my answer to that is – read John 14:21-23. Jesus instructed many who knew him not to tell anyone who he really was (like in Mark 1:34, 3:11-12, 5:42-43, 8:29-30). Believing that Jesus is God doesn’t automatically buy you eternal life; eternal life is defined as ‘knowing God’…but yet the young man counted his wealth on equal ground as eternal life, that is a condition of the heart; Jesus reveals the fact that the man’s heart is in the wrong place by showing him how much he values his wealth.


The fact that the young man dropped the ‘good’ the second time shows that he really didn’t believe Jesus to be God. It was all a lack of faith on the man’s part…the young man shows this by walking away grieved at having been told to give up his earthly possessions.

I would like to ask you to forgive me for calling your explanation of John 10, a dance. It was unfair of me to withhold a better explanation as to WHY I think that this is what you were doing. I’m sorry for doing that and will refrain from doing it in the future.

I find your response to Jesus calling himself ‘good’, insufficient. Here is why I think that: If Barnabas had said ‘don’t call anyone good because only God is good’, and then proceeded to call HIMSELF good – then the example would be comparable. As it stands, someone else called Barnabas good on the basis of God’s work in his life. That is different from the situation with Jesus, because Jesus is the one who said ‘don’t call anyone good because only God is good’, and then he says ‘I am the good shepherd’. There is a contradiction there. In order for Jesus to call himself good (since only God is good) he would have to have the authority to do that, but how can he call himself good if only God is good? And, how can he rebuke someone for calling him good when he calls himself good? Barnabas wasn’t called good based on his own merit, but on the Holy Spirit working in him as evidenced through his ministry. And, Barnabas didn’t say ‘I am a good man’…how could he ever say that about himself if only God is good? If he were to say such a thing he would be taking some of the glory that belongs to God. Jesus, on the other hand, says of himself…I am the Good Shepherd. That has huge implications. I think that Jesus claiming no one is good except God, and then later calling himself good deserves more consideration then what you are giving it. This conclusion is especially true if you continue to read on in John 10; that is why I find your answer insufficient.


I feel that your explanation of Phil. 2 is lacking as well, because it does not take into account the first half of the verse (v.6). I would like to hear why it is that you believe Jesus can be pre-existent in the form of God, yet not be equal to God. I am going to go back and look at your previous posts on Prov. 8, and I will get back to you on that.

‘till later…
hopesprings

Wow hopesprings, i never considered these things concerning Christ calling himself "good", very powerful proof of his deity. Thank you. Great sermon material too

 

[Bowman]

Hello Bowman,


Right, and if you receive a card signed by more than one person, you assume they're all the same being, correct? This is what you're asking me to believe here.

Do these people who sign your card bestow divine grace upon you?

What this divine greeting in Revelation tells us is that the Father, Son and Spirit are not each other - but they are each God.

Again...the Trinity in action.

First, please first answer the question I put to you, "who is the one 'who was, and is, and is to come' according to Revelation 1:4-5? Is it Jesus?"


Thank you.

God the Father.

 

[Bowman]

Hi again Bowman,


Bowman, constructs of the type TSKS (without the second article) can indicate separate entities as well because the article is distributive in a list like this. Otherwise you'd make Barnabas and Saul out to be the 'same entity', given that the Greek literally says at Acts 13:2, "the(t) Barnabas(S) and(K) Saul(S)". This is just flawed rationale.

No, brother.

Your example was not TSKS.

However, since you brought it up, let's give you a brief clinic on where you went wrong in your googled attempt to thwart it, and show you how it undeniably proves, on a grammatical level, that Jesus is God.

Observe the most recent research into the validity of Granville Sharp’s rule...

“Our restatement of Sharp’s rule is believed to be true to the nature of the language, and able to address all classes of exceptions that were raised.

The “Sharper” rule is as follows:

In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected via και (thus, article-substantive-και-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.”

Ref:
Granville Sharp’s Canon and its Kin; Semantics and Significance
2009 Daniel B. Wallace
p. 281

Some examples...


Titus 2.13

προσδεχομενοι την μακαριαν ελπιδα και επιφανειαν της δοξης του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων χριστου ιησου

prosdechomenoitēnmakarianelpidakaiepiphaneiantēsdoxēstoumegaloutheoukaisōtēros ēmōnchristouiēsou

Looking for the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,




2 Peter 1.1

σιμων πετρος δουλος και αποστολος ιησου χριστου τοις ισοτιμον ημιν λαχουσιν πιστιν εν δικαιοσυνη του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου

simōn petros doulos kai apostolos iēsou christou tois isotimon hēmin lachousin pisten en dikaiosunē tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros iēsou christou

Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those equally precious with us, having obtained faith in the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:





Regarding the TSKS construction, Wallace has this to say…

“…..there is no good reason to reject Titus 2:13 as an explicit affirmation of the deity of Christ.”

Ref:
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament
Daniel B. Wallace
p. 276

“…there is no good reason for rejecting 2 Pet 1:1 as an explicit affirmation of the deity of Christ.”

Ref:
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament
Daniel B. Wallace
pp. 276 - 277

Regarding the above two passages, Wallace has this to say…

“…these two passages are as secure as any in the canon when it comes to identifying Christ as θεός.”

Ref:
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament
Daniel B. Wallace
p. 290

So...as you can resaerch and verify for yourself, the TSKS rule does not apply to proper names, as you would like to think in your example.

 

[Bowman]

In response to my reference of Genesis 48:16 as a counterexample, you said:


You are 100% wrong! The Hebrew word, like the Greek, is singular. It's 'shem' not the plural 'shemiyt'.
So tell me, Bowman, are Abraham and Isaac one being given that they are described by a singular "name"?

Why don't you show us, TJ...?

It was an angel, as most translations agree: "the Angel who has delivered me from all harm—may he bless these boys." (NIV) The angel is God's agent.

No.

The Malek is Malek Yahweh...i.e. Yahweh in physical form, as used all throughout the OT.

Study up, brother...

In answer to my repeated question about naming one scriptural instance where "arche" ever means "origin/active source", you said:

And this proves my point. You interpret the word in this one instance differently than you do everywhere else in the Bible. This is special pleading!

Show where it is used elsewhere, then...

Because I said that the Bible never says anything like 'God is three', you said:

It's not a strawman. The orthodox Trinity doctrine says that God is three persons. Scripture never says anything like this. It's all your cryptic 'hints' that you claim 'imply' it.

If you disagree with the Trinity, then bring forth a verse which you think somehow thwarts it and detail to us why you think that it does.

Simple...

You're a generally condescending person and this element has been present throughout your posts. If you can't recognize it in yourself, well, that's your issue.

What do your personal feelings towards me have to do with my position?

That's right....nothing.

In response to my criticism of your biased paraphrase of 1 Chronicles 29:20, you came up with this:
Bowman, the exact same verb is used with reference to God and the king in that verse, both in Hebrew and in the Greek. You were forced to hide this in your selected English translation by rendering it differently for each. You either really have no idea what you're talking about here or you're being deceptive about this. Either way, it's about as impressive as your answer to Genesis 48:16 above.

If you want to posit scripture for your position, then at least be adult enough to defend that same scripture, TJ.

Come on...

 

[Bea22]

Its not a supernatural spirit. It's a 'in the spirit of charity' spirit

The means. The will. The attitude. The way. The spirit.

The Word is Spirit and Life. God's will is His Word. It requires His Spirit to quicken it and bring it to Life. There is no way that a christian can look in the mirror of the Word and see Christ without having taking the Word into themselves by One Spirit and reproducing the fruit of the Spirit.

It is not a person's own spirit that changes them, it is a supernatural experience of a supernatural God coming into a human being. How can you argue against scripture unless you don't understand what Spirit actually means. Capital S. Or check the Greek meaning of Spirit.

 

[Bea22]

Why would the original language take away from the English?

If anything, the translated English would take away fron the Greek.

However, you don't srudy Greek...so this assertion is without merit...

Hmm since you replied...
You study Greek? Since you wrote 'Look to the Greek for the meaning of Romans 8' why don't you break it down to prove your point, using the Greek? Prove your point that 'the Spirit of Christ gets the heart ready for the Holy Spirit and then leaves' - I paraphrase what you wrote before.

It is what scripture states.

I would need to see that scripture.

Bring forth scripture for your postion.

I already have Read back through my posts to you. Don't fluff around the issue by asking me to repeat myself if you cannot prove your point in Greek.

The Trinity is not Three.

You just confirmed that you are fighting a straw man argument.

Oh, Trinity isn't three? Then why is it called Trinity? Do you know what that means? And what exactly is your argument then? Lol so many Trinitarians don't even know their own beliefs that they blindly state, but when it gets down to the truth, they backtrack and say God isn't three persons that are not each other. Do you know what your own beliefs are?

 

[TJ12]

Hi Bowman,

What this divine greeting in Revelation tells us is that the Father, Son and Spirit are not each other - but they are each God.

If one suspends common sense and already believes in the Trinity, sure. This is just more of your cryptic Trinity 'hints' that you're trying to clue us in to. Under normal circumstances, the mere mentioning of individuals together does not cause you to believe that they are multiple persons sharing one being.Why does that very text only call one of the persons mentioned the 'Almighty'? Why not all of them?

I asked you who was the one 'who was, and is, and is to come', to which you responded:

God the Father.

Excellent. This shows that your previous assertion, that Jesus is called the 'Almighty' in Revelation 4 is incorrect:

"Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying:
'Holy, holy, holy
is the Lord God Almighty,
who was, and is, and is to come.'" (Revelation 4:8)


After I explained how Acts 13:2 is a TSKS construct, you gave this gem of a reply:

No, brother.

Your example was not TSKS.

Bowman, you're revealing yet again your own ignorance of these matters. Firstly, I explained to you last time exactly how it is a TSKS, "the (this is the article) Barnabas (this is the substantive) and (this is the 'kai') Saul (this is the other substantive)." Your response to this is merely, "No, brother"?!

Secondly, this shows you're not doing your reading, because I looked up this example in the very book you go on to quote, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, by Daniel Wallace, pages 277-8. Once again, you are 100% wrong.

However, since you brought it up, let's give you a brief clinic on where you went wrong in your googled attempt to thwart it, and show you how it undeniably proves, on a grammatical level, that Jesus is God.

And now you've stepped into your own trap. I've been waiting for you to bring up Sharp's rule for this very purpose. Think about it Bowman, at 1 Timothy 5:21 you just argued that it was the lack of the article before the proper name "Jesus" that set "God" and "Jesus" apart from the "angels" (which is a plural noun requiring a plural article). Yet Wallace says of this, "Always in the NT, whenever proper names are in the equation, distinct individuals are in view." (GGBB, p.277) Thus, you yourself violated Sharp's 'rule' by not acknowledging that the article there is distributive and applies to the 'distinct individual' God and to the 'distinct individual' Jesus. You just proved your own argument wrong with your mishandling of rules you don't fully understand! You were against Sharp's rule before you were for it.

Observe the most recent research into the validity of Granville Sharp’s rule...

Yes, I'm aware of this supposed 'rule' of Greek grammar. Dr. BeDuhn says of this in his book Truth in Translation: "In 1798, the amateur theologian Granville Sharp published a book in which he argued that when there are two nouns of the same form ('case') joined by 'and' (kai), only the first of which has the article, the nouns are identified as the same thing. Close examination of this much-used 'rule' shows it to be a fiction concocted by a man who had a theological agenda in creating it, namely, to prove that the verses we are examining...call Jesus 'God.'" In other words, Sharp, like you, was looking for more cryptic Trinity 'hints' in the text.

The TSKS construct is common in Greek literature, and while the two substantives have some relationship, the construct itself doesn't make them identical. There's no proof that making up all sorts of exceptions to the type of substantive somehow transforms the TSKS construct into proof of an identity. Regardless, the term 'God' is particular enough in Paul's writings, especially in the context of these verses, to argue that it's a proper noun, and as such is excepted from Sharp's 'rule'.

In response to Genesis 48:16 and your misuse of "name" at Matthew 28:19, you said:

Why don't you show us, TJ...?

Genesis 48:16 says in Hebrew:
ושם אבתיאברהם ויצחק

I've underlined the singular word 'shem' ("name"); it literally reads: "and name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac." Here it is in Greek:

και το ονομα των πατερων μου αβρααμ και ισαακ
"and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac"

Are you willing to admit that you were wrong or should I expect more obfuscation?


In response to my saying that an angel was referenced earlier on in the verse, you said this:

The Malek is Malek Yahweh...i.e. Yahweh in physical form, as used all throughout the OT.

This is simply your assertion. Nothing in the text requires it.


You could only provide one example from the Bible that you think that 'arche' means "origin/active source", Revelation 3:14, which is different from how it's used everywhere else in the Bible and is more proof that you are misusing the term. This was your response:

Show where it is used elsewhere, then...

I've already done this several times. This is what I've said:

"Were you aware that in every place John uses this word, it's with the meaning 'beginning', as in first in terms of time? Look them up for yourself: John 1:1, 2; 6:64; 8:25, 44; 15:27; 16:4; 1 John 1:1; 2:7, 13, 14, 24; 3:8, 11; 2 John 1:5, 6; Revelation 21:6; 22:13.

"Were you aware that when this word is used in terms of rank, it's always accompanied by other terms relating to power or authority, terms which are absent from Revelation 3:14? Look them up for yourself: Luke 12:11; 20:20; Romans 8:38; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Colossians 1:16; 2:10, 15; Titus 3:1."

Look them up and please get back to me. Why do you define 'arche' at Revelation 3:14 differently than all of these other instances of it?



In regards to 1 Chronicles 29:20, this was your latest non-answer:

If you want to posit scripture for your position, then at least be adult enough to defend that same scripture, TJ.

Come on...

Here it is Bowman:
וישתחוו ליהוה ולמלך
"and they are worshipping to Jehovah and to the King"

προσεκυνησαν τω κυριω και τω βασιλει
"they are worshipping the Lord and the King"

You offered up a paraphrase of this (something you should be aware of if you really understand these matters), but in both Hebrew and Greek the very same act of worship is performed at the very same time towards both God and King David. Will you address this fact in a straightforward manner?


Thank you.