The Holy Trinity

[Fortigurn]

I don't believe in 'original sin', and I certainly do not believe that Christ was 'a sinful creature'. Nor do I believe that he is now 'susceptible to my failings'.

And this was because Christ was some sort of God-powered superhuman, yes?

I have no idea what kind of bizarre thing you have in mind, but it's far from my beliefs.

[Fortigurn]

Of course, there are other translations that do show it:

Of course there are. I don't deny that. I have simply pointed out that they are wrong to do so. And remember, that's not my judgment, it's the judgment of trinitarian textual critics.

But that is not my point. It is this: Does it really make a difference whether or not the word 'Theos' was there?

Yes it does, which is precisely why it was added later.

The meaning is very clear even without it. Anyone who reads 'WHO was manifested in the flesh' cannot but arrive at one conclusion and that being that God was manifested in the flesh.

On the contrary, not only do some modern (trinitarian), Bible translations render this 'Christ', but it is also the comment of standard evangelical scholarship;

...the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity.

NET footote

Simple.

After all, it is the mystery and godliness of our religion.

It certainly is.

There's certainly nothing mysterious about some ordinary child being born even immaculately (as he was bestowed with some special powers later when he was baptized - am I correct Fortigurn?).

There's actually no 'mystery' here at all. The Greek word here doesn't even mean 'mystery' in the English sense:

Grk “great is the mystery of [our] religion,” or “great is the mystery of godliness.” The word “mystery” denotes a secret previously hidden in God, but now revealed and made widely known (cf. Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 2:7; 4:1; Eph 1:9; 3:3, 4, 9; 6:19; Col 1:26-27; 4:3).

NET footnote

That's precisely why the NET translates it 'revelation'. There's no 'mystery' here at all.

If the author did not want to convey the message of God being manifested in the flesh he could have simply said 'He who was born and was given Godly powers'.

You mean as the apostles already said repeatedly in the quotes from Acts which I provided?

In any case Fortigurn, I suggest we either stick to B.W.'s format or end this farce once and for all.

I'm happy to do that, I was simply pointing out that he's not doing anything new. I'm simply having the same conversation I've already had with about half a dozen others. Only in this case it's less coherent and less well researched, and he doesn't read half of what I write.

[Fortigurn]

If the author did not want to convey the message of God being manifested in the flesh he could have simply said 'He who was born and was given Godly powers'. Why bother with the manifestation business? Is it to confuse us? I don't think so as those words were inspired by the Holy Spirit and as such, their meaning is all too clear to the literate and the illeterate alike (save the skeptics and the self-proclaimed know-it-alls).

You are correct - even the Who - sings out Jesus' name in all the scripture quotes - as Mr. Fortigurn has so politely provided!

Yes, the bible proclaims Jesus was God - second person of the Trintiy as Mr Fortigurn's quotes clearly show and Thank you Mr. Fortigurn for agreeing with us!

Where do those quotes say that?

[Fortigurn]

I wrote to Mr, Fortigurn in response to I Timothy 3:16 concerning Greek Grammar, “I will take this as your answer: the Greek language never verifies Jesus as God. If that is your position, we can continue by exploring this further.”

Then Mr. Fortigurn answered my question like:

This was a particularly bad choice of passages on your part. I really hate to break it to you, but the Greek text does not have 'theos' ('God'), here at all.

Firstly, this 'basic rule of Greek grammar' (referred to as the 'Granville Sharp' rule, or construction), actually contains many exceptions.

Secondly, it is acknowledged that there are in fact only two Christologically significant texts to which it can legitimately be applied.

Thirdly, it is also acknowledged that both of these could be exceptions to the Granville Sharp construction.

You're much better off actually making your case from Scripture.

M. Fortigurn, I am following the rule I set up and follow along with your discussion on Greek Grammar since you brought it up, first — not I.

I'm not objecting to you doing this, I am simply pointing out that it is getting you absolutely nowhere.

Therefore, in regards to your response concerning Greek Grammar, could you so enlighten us with your most excellent knowledge of Greek and explain the use of the Granville Sharpe rule of Construction and how it applies and what determines if it does not apply?

You're best reading this article by Daniel Wallace.

It's a tidy 68 pages long, and should take you through the key issues thoroughly. His conclusion is that Granville Sharp's rule can be applied to only two Christological texts (Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1), and that it is not possible to deny that the use of Sharp's rule can be legimately used to interpret these texts in a manner which asserts Christ's deity. After 68 pages, that's the best he can do.

[Fortigurn]

God Manifest or He Manifest in the Flesh must mean Jesus was both God and Man...

Why?

...just as Mr. Fortigurn was so kind to point out as it is written - There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

That says the complete opposite of what you are claiming.

If Jesus was just a man, he sinned by breaking the law claiming He was God and existing before He was begotten.

He didn't claim either of these things. I have shown you this, and you refuse to deal with what I wrote.

Why Mr. Fortigurn, thank you for providing the bible quotes! - God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (God).

Exactly! This proves that Jesus is not God.

There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Well I agree, but you don't because you don't believe Jesus was a man.

Truly He was manifest in Flesh! as it is written in 1 Tim 3:16 "God was manifest in the Flesh" KJV

I refer you to the post of mine which proves that this is not the correct rendering of the text.

Honestly, after 1,700 years of trinitarian writings, I would expect better arguments than these.

[Forge]

I have no idea what kind of bizarre thing you have in mind, but it's far from my beliefs.

Either Jesus was/is God or he is/was not. If not, he must have been man. If he was man, he must have been somehow superhuman to be able to be considered the world's mediator.

[Fortigurn]

I have no idea what kind of bizarre thing you have in mind, but it's far from my beliefs.

Either Jesus was/is God or he is/was not. If not, he must have been man. If he was man, he must have been somehow superhuman to be able to be considered the world's mediator.

He was a man appointed and empowered by God. I wouldn't describe him as 'superhuman', firstly because the Bible doesn't, and secondly because I don't view people who are appointed and empowerd by God to be 'superhuman', I view them as having had God's power delegated to them in a particular way. The Old Testament prophets, and the apostles themselves, were also empowered wih the Holy Spirit, though not to the same purpose.

It's also worth noting that the apostles don't say that he was supernaturally empowered to become our mediator, they say he is able to be our mediator because he was just like us.

[puritan lad]

No I am not. I have given you eight different modern Bibles which translate this passage correctly.

You forgot the heretical "Message" Bible. So what? Who cares what 8 modern "translations" say? We know that "theos" appeared in the original text. Scholars as early as he 1500's verify the existence of "theos" in Codex A. We see evidence as early as the second century, where Hippolytus (170 - 236 AD) paraphrased this verse several times in his work "AGAINST THE HERESY OF ONE NOETUS", removing all doubt that "God sojourned with us in the flesh". (See section 17).

Now I challenge you to show me an ancient Greek text that does NOT use "theos". I don't care what modern translations say.

You don't understand what I believe at all. I reject Arianism completely.

Maybe you can explain the differences in your christology. I don't see any.

[Fortigurn]

No I am not. I have given you eight different modern Bibles which translate this passage correctly.

You forgot the heretical "Message" Bible.

It's not a translation.

So what? Who cares what 8 modern "translations" say? We know that "theos" appeared in the original text. Scholars as early as he 1500's verify the existence of "theos" in Codex A.

If you had read my post, you would have seen that I was in fact making my argument from the original text, not from the translations. I pointed out that modern translations have made the shift out of a recognition of the original text.

If you read up on the history of Alexandrinus (Codex A), you'll find that THEOS occurs there as the revision of a later hand. The original text of Alexandrinus (5th century AD), is OS.

We see evidence as early as the second century, where Hippolytus (170 - 236 AD) paraphrased this verse several times in his work "AGAINST THE HERESY OF ONE NOETUS", removing all doubt that "God sojourned with us in the flesh". (See section 17).

Firstly, Patristic evidence is not textual evidence. Please spend some time reading up on textual criticism. Secondly, alleged 'paraphrases' such as these are not quotes, and only go to show how such readings eventually crept from commentaries into margins, and from thence to copies of the actual text.

The reading THEOS is not in fact attested by any Patristic witness, which is significant given that it would have been very important in the Christological discussions of the time.

Now I challenge you to show me an ancient Greek text that does NOT use "theos". I don't care what modern translations say.

If you read what I wrote, you'll see the evidence. But hey, I'll post it again, and give you the lot this time:

24tc The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (íc Ac C2 D2 Y [88 pc] 1739 1881 í vgms) read qeov" (qeos, “God”) for o{" (Jos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the discussion. A few mss have oJ qeov" (so 88 pc), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous qeov".

On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun o{" is strongly supported by í* A* C* F G 33 365 pc Did Epiph . Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, o{ (Jo, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports o{" since it could not easily have been generated if qeov" had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered original: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of o{". Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change qeov" to o{" intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with o{", appears to form a six-strophed hymn.

As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for o{" (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author's style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day).

On the other hand, with qeov" written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: q-=s vs. os. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced qeov" with o{".

How then should we account for qeov"? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the qeov" reading came into existence, either via confusion with o{" or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as í A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, o{. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of o{", conforming the gender to that of the neuter musthvrion (musthrion, “mystery”).

What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the qeov" reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of o{" outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh.

The evidence, therefore, for o{" is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Y) supports qeov"; all ancient versions presuppose o{" or o{; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading qeov".” Thus, the cries of certain groups that qeov" has to be original must be seen as special pleading in this case.

To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as qeov".

Further, had heretics introduced a variant to qeov", a far more natural choice would have been Cristov" (Cristos, “Christ”) or kuvrio" (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341-42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)

I hope that helps.

You don't understand what I believe at all. I reject Arianism completely.

Maybe you can explain the differences in your christology. I don't see any.

Arians believe that Jesus Christ is a Divine being separate from the Father, who existed prior to his birth.

[B. W.]

I wrote to Mr, Fortigurn in response to I Timothy 3:16 concerning Greek Grammar, “I will take this as your answer: the Greek language never verifies Jesus as God. If that is your position, we can continue by exploring this further.”

Then Mr. Fortigurn answered my question like:

This was a particularly bad choice of passages on your part. I really hate to break it to you, but the Greek text does not have 'theos' ('God'), here at all.

Firstly, this 'basic rule of Greek grammar' (referred to as the 'Granville Sharp' rule, or construction), actually contains many exceptions.

Secondly, it is acknowledged that there are in fact only two Christologically significant texts to which it can legitimately be applied.

Thirdly, it is also acknowledged that both of these could be exceptions to the Granville Sharp construction.

You're much better off actually making your case from Scripture.

M. Fortigurn, I am following the rule I set up and follow along with your discussion on Greek Grammar since you brought it up, first — not I.

I'm not objecting to you doing this, I am simply pointing out that it is getting you absolutely nowhere.

Therefore, in regards to your response concerning Greek Grammar, could you so enlighten us with your most excellent knowledge of Greek and explain the use of the Granville Sharpe rule of Construction and how it applies and what determines if it does not apply?

You're best reading this article by Daniel Wallace.

It's a tidy 68 pages long, and should take you through the key issues thoroughly. His conclusion is that Granville Sharp's rule can be applied to only two Christological texts (Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1), and that it is not possible to deny that the use of Sharp's rule can be legimately used to interpret these texts in a manner which asserts Christ's deity. After 68 pages, that's the best he can do.

Thank you for the info; however, it was you who brought up the subject of Greek Grammar - and I asked you to sum up in your own words, this rule and how it applies, not too grant 68 pages of paper to forgo answering the question in your own words.

You brought the subject up and I am discussing this line of thought so please be so kind to answer the question in your own words, or present a brief summery on the writings so others can understand your point.
-
-

[B. W.]

Forge has brought out a very good point and I hope he does not mind my using his thread frame used to further the discussion.

I have no idea what kind of bizarre thing you have in mind, but it's far from my beliefs.

Either Jesus was/is God or he is/was not. If not, he must have been man. If he was man, he must have been somehow superhuman to be able to be considered the world's mediator.

He was a man appointed and empowered by God. I wouldn't describe him as 'superhuman', firstly because the Bible doesn't, and secondly because I don't view people who are appointed and empowered by God to be 'superhuman', I view them as having had God's power delegated to them in a particular way. The Old Testament prophets, and the apostles themselves, were also empowered with the Holy Spirit, though not to the same purpose.

It's also worth noting that the apostles don't say that he was supernaturally empowered to become our mediator, they say he is able to be our mediator because he was just like us.

Regarding this, Mr Fortigurn, are you saying that Jesus was empowered by God to have two sides — Deity by empowerment, and Human by nature. I do not mean this in the Trinitarian concept. Deity empowered by Spirit power at the birth of Jesus thus making Jesus who is by nature a man to achieve goals as stated in the Bible that from this achievement of power/humanity He earned the right to rule and reign as described in Hebrews 2:7 “You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor, and set him over the works of your hands. You have put all things under his feet (NKJV)”

Also in Hebrews 1:1-4 “ In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs. (RSV)”

If this is your position, or even close to it, that God empowered Jesus to rule and reign simply because of granting power to do so, then Jesus was a man with incredible powers to behave like Deity as scripture states?
-
-

[Fortigurn]

Thank you for the info; however, it was you who brought up the subject of Greek Grammar - and I asked you to sum up in your own words, this rule and how it applies, not too grant 68 pages of paper to forgo answering the question in your own words.

Wallace is a professional Greek scholar who can articulate the rule in far better detail than myself. It is more important for you to read him than to read me. Anything I write will be dismissed as the view of a 'cultist' in any case.

Having said which, I have already summed up in my own words how this rule applies. You just haven't read my post.

This is the articulation of the rule by Sharp himself:

When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article oJ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person...

Granville Sharp, 'Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article'

I have already summed up how it applies (and does not apply).

You brought the subject up and I am discussing this line of thought so please be so kind to answer the question in your own words, or present a brief summery on the writings so others can understand your point.

I already did this. Please read my post.

[Fortigurn]

Regarding this, Mr Fortigurn, are you saying that Jesus was empowered by God to have two sides — Deity by empowerment, and Human by nature.

No I am not saying that Jesus was empowered by God to have 'two sides — Deity by empowerment, and Human by nature'. He had one side, like all humans, because he was a human being (not a crossbreed).

I do not mean this in the Trinitarian concept. Deity empowered by Spirit power at the birth of Jesus thus making Jesus who is by nature a man to achieve goals as stated in the Bible that from this achievement of power/humanity He earned the right to rule and reign as described in Hebrews 2:7 “You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor, and set him over the works of your hands. You have put all things under his feet (NKJV)”

What do you mean by 'Deity empowered by Spirit power'? Why would 'Deity' need to be 'empowered'? I certainly agree with the passage in Hebrews here which says that Christ was exalted by the Father to a position which previously he did not hold. This is one of the passages which proves he was not God.

Also in Hebrews 1:1-4 “ In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs. (RSV)”

If this is your position, or even close to it, that God empowered Jesus to rule and reign simply because of granting power to do so, then Jesus was a man with incredible powers to behave like Deity as scripture states?

I have already explained this more than once. Christ was a man empowered by God to do all that he did, and performed acts with the authority of God which God delegated to him.

[Byblos]

Regarding this, Mr Fortigurn, are you saying that Jesus was empowered by God to have two sides — Deity by empowerment, and Human by nature.

No I am not saying that Jesus was empowered by God to have 'two sides — Deity by empowerment, and Human by nature'. He had one side, like all humans, because he was a human being (not a crossbreed).

I do not mean this in the Trinitarian concept. Deity empowered by Spirit power at the birth of Jesus thus making Jesus who is by nature a man to achieve goals as stated in the Bible that from this achievement of power/humanity He earned the right to rule and reign as described in Hebrews 2:7 “You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor, and set him over the works of your hands. You have put all things under his feet (NKJV)”

What do you mean by 'Deity empowered by Spirit power'? Why would 'Deity' need to be 'empowered'? I certainly agree with the passage in Hebrews here which says that Christ was exalted by the Father to a position which previously he did not hold. This is one of the passages which proves he was not God.

This most certainly does not prove Christ was just a man. What it does prove is that God sent his eternal Word to empower a human being, as evidenced by John 1, but we all know how you feel about that one.

Also in Hebrews 1:1-4 “ In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs. (RSV)”

If this is your position, or even close to it, that God empowered Jesus to rule and reign simply because of granting power to do so, then Jesus was a man with incredible powers to behave like Deity as scripture states?

I have already explained this more than once. Christ was a man empowered by God to do all that he did, and performed acts with the authority of God which God delegated to him.

It is simply amazing how you can quote the part that seems to bolster your case and at the same time totally skip over the part that does not. Well, I took the liberty of highlighting it for you above. But I'm sure you'll find some textual or linguistic reason why it does not say what it clearly and unequivocally says. That is exactly why I keep repeating that your arguments are old and tiring. It seems there is no longer a need to respond to your posts. Simply highlighting your errors is enough to refute your position.

[B. W.]

Wallace is a professional Greek scholar who can articulate the rule in far better detail than myself. It is more important for you to read him than to read me. Anything I write will be dismissed as the view of a 'cultist' in any case. Having said which, I have already summed up in my own words how this rule applies. You just haven't read my post.

Yes I read your post - but for those who do not wish to read the enitre Wallace paper should heed his Conclusion on the matter stated in this source by Wallace, even you Mr. Fortigurn at the end of this page frame:

Conclusion: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D.
Source:
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1496

Although Granville Sharp lacked the erudition of a lettered savant, he had an authentically visceral sense about the structure of language. This intuition, fueled by an unquenchable piety, enabled him to be the first to articulate a genuine feature of the language which spans the constellation graecae from the sublime elegance of the Attic philosophers to the mundane and hasty scribblings of nameless masses in the vulgar papyri.


Calvin Winstanley's counter-examples, borne no doubt of great industry, served their purpose well. Thomas Fanshaw Middleton might never have devoted so much space to Sharp's canon had Winstanley's illustrations not been so challenging.217 And to Middleton we owe a debt of gratitude for raising the stakes, for giving a measure of linguistic sophistication to the articulation of Sharp's principle. These three—Sharp, Winstanley, Middleton—more than the whole company of combatants that would follow have put real meat on the table, for they all produced examples. While others contented themselves with linguistic sophistry or theological prejudice (as in the case of Winer on one side and a legion of well-meaning scholars on the other), this trio of Englishmen virtually alone anchored the discussion to the actual data.


In particular, Winstanley produced four classes of exceptions to Sharp's rule: generic singulars, translation Greek (one illustration), several substantives in the construction (one illustration), and patristic usage. Our research has turned up more examples for the first and third categories, as well an instance of a fifth (ordinal numerals). Yet even Winstanley admitted the general validity of Sharp's rule in the language. The emerging conviction of this paper—albeit based on partial data—is that the five classes of “exceptions” can be readily explained on sound linguistic principles. These exceptions in fact help to reveal the semantic depth of Sharp's rule, even to the extent that it is much more than a general principle.


Three final comments will conclude this essay. First, although the restatement of Sharp's rule addresses all the exceptions, the sampling of Greek writing examined for this paper was but a small drop in the bucket. Rough estimates suggest that less than four percent of the more than 57 million words of extant Greek writings218 were investigated. Only extreme naﶥt頯r bald arrogance would permit us to shut our eyes to the possibility of other counter-examples in the remaining ninety-six percent. At the same time, it must be admitted that numerous examples have been produced which tell the same monotonous story: Sharp's rule is valid.


Second, the other side of the coin is that the more classes of exceptions there are, the less Occam's razor can be invoked. The rule, even as Sharp stated it, was complex enough to be ignored or forgotten very quickly by opponents and proponents alike. If our restatement of the rule is a compounding of that complexity, rather than a clarification of the need for it, one has to wonder how a non-native Greek speaker could have perceived such subtle nuances. At the same time, the fact that all of the exceptions fit into a small number of carefully defined categories seems to be eloquent testimony that Occam's razor retains its cutting edge. There is indeed a tension between linguistic formulation and empirical evidence, between science and history. With historico-literary documents, absolute proof is an ignis fatuus. But the burden of proof is a different matter; demonstrating this is quite achievable. This brings us to our third point.

In part, this paper was an attempt to investigate Winstanley's evidence (as well as other, more synchronic evidence) and deal with it on a more sure-footed, linguistic basis. 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 Winstanley raised. The “Sharper” rule is as follows:

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

This rule, as stated, covers all the so-called exceptions. Further, even the exceptions do not impact the christologically significant passages in the NT, for the semantic situation of Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 is outside the scope of Winstanley's counter-illustrations.

History is filled with biting ironies. The debate over Sharp's rule over the past two centuries has revealed one of them. As industrious as the efforts of the Englishman Winstanley were to dislodge Sharp's rule, his volume—which was filled with counter-examples—had little impact. It took one cavalier footnote, whose substance was only theological innuendo, from a continental man to dislodge Sharp's rule. Georg Benedict Winer, the great NT grammarian of the nineteenth century, in this instance spoke outside of his realm, for he gave an unsubstantiated opinion based on a theological preunderstanding. Yet this single footnote largely brought about the eclipse of understanding of Sharp's rule. Friend and foe alike have unwittingly abused the canon, with the result that scores of NT passages have been misunderstood.

Winer's opinion notwithstanding, solid linguistic reasons and plenty of phenomenological data were found to support the requirements that Sharp laid down. When substantives meet the requirements of Sharp's canon, apposition is the result, and inviolably so in the NT. The canon even works outside the twenty-seven books and, hence, ought to be resurrected as a sound principle which has overwhelming validity in all of Greek literature. Consequently, in Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 we are compelled to recognize that, on a grammatical level, a heavy burden of proof rests with the one who wishes to deny that “God and Savior” refers to one person, Jesus Christ.
-
-
-