Proof of Trinity

[jasoncran]

Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

Full moon on the 15th.
Greater and lesser lights:
The moon is solid. Reflects sun's light
I hear the sun is gasses and plasma state material. I really do not know
Some use the photon theory for light. Mississippi folks do not know for sure

Just as created nature is hard to pin down, I think trinity is about next in line. God ,IMHO, uses nature to help us understand.

eddif

the sun emits plasma in the form of solar waves, these are by natural and effect the earth in emf pulses. the sun itself isn't a plasma ball. lightning is however that plasma

 

[Free]

I knew when I wrote that paragraph that someone wouldn't be able to resist answering with an ad hominem. And the very one you used.

There is no ad hominem there. My point is that such judgements against Christians and orthodox Christian belief, can be used against those who make those judgements, but that it is even worse for them since they set themselves against orthodox Christian belief when, in the case of the Trinity, it isn't warranted. If one wants to judge orthodox Christian belief to be in error, they had better have very strong reasons for doing so. In the case of the Trinity, I have yet to see even one.

If the Bible can only be understood by scholarly work (interpretation), then it makes no sense for us less then scholarly folks to read it. No need to even own a Bible. Let "the Church" (through its scholarly and educated leaders) interpret the Bible for us, especially in historical context that they also interpret, and just believe their educated interpretations. Is that what you're defending? The original conflict over Sola Scriptura in the 16th century was over this very issue, the authority of scholarly men chosen by "the Church" vs. the authority of the Bible as the written word of God.

I have never argued that "the Bible can only be understood by scholarly work." I will say, though, that there is much more that can be learned from scholarly work.

To clarify. I'm not surprised that Catholics believe in the Trinity. Their perspective demands it. But I am surprised that Protestants are so unified on the Trinity when they are unified on hardly anything else. Not just because I personally disagree with Trinitarianism. But because they are unified to the point that if one doesn't believe it, one not only can't be a part of their exclusive clubs (denominations), one can't even be saved. Is it any wonder that Catholics now refer to Protestants as separated brethren?

The issue is this: either the Bible lays out who Jesus is, how salvation is found through him, and what one must believe as a Christian, or it does not and we can believe whatever we want about such matters. But the latter clearly makes no sense. We simply cannot accept anyone who claims to be a Christian as actually being a Christian without any idea of what it means to be a Christian. Ultimately, God knows who are his, but for us there must be some sort of standard by which we can at least say that one is a believer.

This is implied when the NT makes it clear that believers are to judge regarding false teachings, false prophets, sin in the Church, etc. Such judgements cannot be made if there is no standard, no concept or understanding of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Islam teaches that Jesus was only a prophet. Mormons teach that Jesus is a literal son of God, one of many and a brother of Satan. JWs teach that Jesus is just a good man, really no different then Islam. Historical Christianity of course teaches that Jesus is God in human flesh, the God-man. Can all be right?

I don't think that what goes on in other religions or belief systems is an excuse for Christians to be like them. Unless it's conceded that Christianity is a religion in the same sense they are. Non-Christians see Christianity as just another religion. Colleges teach that it's just another religion without a single qualm or regard for political correctness. I'm trying my best to be more open minded about that. Christians and their interpretations make it difficult.

I'm not saying it's an excuse to be like other religions, it's just the way things are, and really, the way things must be. Take for instance the historical disagreements over the canon (which we won't discuss here, this is just an example). The whole reason that the Church began forming a canon of Scripture was because the first one out, by Marcion, excluded the OT and all the gospels but Luke, which he changed. So the whole point then became one of establishing orthodoxy over against heresy.

I really don't think it would have been reasonable for Christ to establish his Church, and then leave them without any idea of how to differentiate being one of his followers over against being a follower of any other religion.

No, I'm not some "we're the only true Church", or "only true Christian" kind of Christian. I'm not any kind of Christian for reasons already stated. Here. Let me help you up since your limb broke.

I was raised Atheist. I'm no longer an Atheist because, like Christians, they believe in interpretations more than what is evident. Example: Evolutionism. A theory that is a fact.

I'm an Agnostic. An Agnostic with Theistic leanings since I've been reading the Christian Bible. Christianity is the only religion that claims to follow the Christian Bible. At least that I'm aware of. But I can't be a Christian because Christians won't let me. I could be a Christian if Christians were more about reconciliation and less about judgment over interpretations.

Ideally Christians ought to be seeking reconciliation but we're human and we have the human tendency to want to believe we're right. But that goes for absolutely everyone. As for judgements over interpretations, we are commanded to judge between true and false teachings. The problem, again, is that we want to believe we're right, so there is usually very little constructive dialogue regarding the differences. And sometimes the differences in interpretation are very difficult to overcome when strong cases can be made for all positions. There simply are some great difficulties with biblical interpretation.

I know of no reasonable reason to think the Bible does not give a truthful account. Other than what Christians have made of it by their interpretations. So I believe to the best of my ability what the Bible says insofar as I understand it. About God and about the Son of God as the propitiation for the sins of the world. I accept the free gift with all the faith I can muster, and for the rest I pray "help my unbelief". And Christians make my believing all the more harder.

Unfortunately we do. You have the right approach and it is one we should all have when we approach Scripture. But I really am trying to show you that the Bible really does make Jesus out to be God incarnate, the God-man. If you are so open as you seem to think, why are you so closed to the evidence that has been given? The doctrine of the Trinity really is the strongest position of the nature of God. Please just don't be closed to the idea of Jesus being God on the basis of the problems within Christianity.

I'm under this strange impression that the New Testament teaches salvation through Christ alone by grace alone. Apparently in a different way than Christians do, especially Protestants. Since they add that I have to also believe the by-laws of their club to be saved.

Right. But the question is: Who do you say that he is? I have stated time and time again that Jesus is the most central figure in the Bible, through whom alone we have salvation. Is it not therefore rational to conclude that who he is is absolutely central to salvation, that we simply cannot believe him to be whatever we want and believe that we are saved? How can two people be saved if one believes Jesus is God incarnate and the other that he is a mere creature? There is infinite difference between the two.

I could attend a Christian Church, and even take communion, so long as they didn't know what I believe. But my conscience wouldn't allow me to usurp their by-laws. After all, it is their Church. Not a church of Jesus Christ. And for that reason alone I probably have no business attending anyway. Truth is, it probably doesn't matter because my not gathering together isn't my fault. I get on Christian forums as the next best thing, such as it is.

Yes, such as it is.

The idea of a universal Church is only in the mind of Christians. The New Testament only mentions local churches. Christianity has a lot of universal Churches today. Called denominations. There has to be something very wrong with a Christianity whose denominationalism takes the divisions that Paul was fighting against in 1 Corinthians to such an extreme.

Denominationalism is wrong, but that is what we have and it really is unavoidable unfortunately, for a number of reasons.

But what do I know. I'm just a small town cop. Mostly I give out parking tickets.

Guess I'll have to be careful if I ever park in your town.

 

[Randy]

Jesse, or anyone,

Where does it say the angels were there when God created the heavens and the earth?

Where is the chronology stating that angels were created before man?

The answer to these questions may shed light on the audience [or lack of it] present when God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness" (Gen 1:26).

Well it seems to me the angels were singing with joy while God was laying the foundations of the world (genesis)

Job 38
38 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:

2 “Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?

 

[Randy]

Randy,
JohnD has given the scripture and in doing so, he nailed it. You just need to think it through, there is "One" God and none other is. Jesus, the Son of God always has been, John 1:1-3. Jesus is that God just Jesus said He and the Father are one. They are two persons of the One God and they are the One God just as is the Holy Spirit that indwells us.

JohnD,
Good words my brother and nice to meet you.

May God bless both of you.

One God the Father - yes

The fullness is in the Son and in that Jesus is the image of the living God and that exact representation of Gods being. (All that the Father us)

So the fullness of God (Father's being )is in the Son. Jesus wasn't emptied of the Father and to me has never existed apart from that fullness. Therefore I need not consider the quality of Jesus's Spirit as in "Father into your hands I commit My Spirit" But since Jesus does have His own spirit if He always was and always was God then you have two Gods. Jesus has always been the Son. The Father is His God and our God.

 

[eddif]

One God the Father - yes

The fullness is in the Son and in that Jesus is the image of the living God and that exact representation of Gods being. (All that the Father us)

So the fullness of God (Father's being )is in the Son. Jesus wasn't emptied of the Father and to me has never existed apart from that fullness. Therefore I need not consider the quality of Jesus's Spirit as in "Father into your hands I commit My Spirit" But since Jesus does have His own spirit if He always was and always was God then you have two Gods. Jesus has always been the Son. The Father is His God and our God.

I would say Jesus is the bodily reality of God. Man is made in the image of God (a little lower). It gets tough to keep shadows, types, images, realities, etc in their proper place / level ?)

I am into symbols so much, but I always have to remind myself a shadow is not the reality it represents. There are realities that stand by themselves.

I am working at understanding what I posted LOL.

eddif

 

[Gregg]

Well it seems to me the angels were singing with joy while God was laying the foundations of the world (genesis)

Job 38
. . .
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?

The first part of Job 38:7 refers to literal stars, while the second half poetically amplifies the first. The phrase "sons of God" does not necessarily refer to angels as it is also used to describe men (Gen 6:2, Mat 5:9, Lk 20:36); so I take the second half of that verse to be a metaphor for stars giving off their light.

Job 38 states that inanimate creation does what God intended it to do; it has remained faithful to the purpose for which it was created - this contrasted to man who has not remained faithful to his Creator.

But since Jesus does have His own spirit if He always was and always was God then you have two Gods.

The Father and the Son have the same Spirit:

Father - "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." (Rom 8:11, see Eph 3:16)

The Son - ". . . But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him." (Rom 8:9)

- - -


"Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" (Gal 4:6)

 

[Gregg]

The Spirit of Jesus Christ was present before the Incarnation:
"seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow." (1 Pet 1:11)

 

[Gregg]

The Trinity of God and the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ should not be debated in a Christian forum. These two tenants are eternal truths, foundations of Christianity.

Rather, the debate should be which Scripture verses actually address the Trinity of God and the Deity of Jesus, and what are the implications of these truths.

It is a shame that a Christian forum gives voice to those who would defame and slander the Name of Jesus Christ. It is a disservice to God to maintain a sanctuary wherein these truths can be challenged.

And so I am asking the administrators of this website to cease allowing it.

 

[JohnD]

Um, I disagree.

I believe both with all my heart and mind and strength...

But to disallow the ability to teach and defend truth (which is what will happen if none are allowed to question it) is not good.

Far too many Christians presume to be true what they believe rather than doing what the scripture commands to prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21) test the spirits (1 John 4:1) by the scriptures (Acts 17:11) and hearty discussions of this kind are where we do these things or force us back into study of the scriptures to be able to answer the challenges.

 

[JohnD]

One God the Father - yes

The fullness is in the Son and in that Jesus is the image of the living God and that exact representation of Gods being. (All that the Father us)

So the fullness of God (Father's being )is in the Son. Jesus wasn't emptied of the Father and to me has never existed apart from that fullness. Therefore I need not consider the quality of Jesus's Spirit as in "Father into your hands I commit My Spirit" But since Jesus does have His own spirit if He always was and always was God then you have two Gods. Jesus has always been the Son. The Father is His God and our God.

Hmmm okay...

No, there are three individuals who are Spirit who are the one God.

Your logic, misapplied to the plural echad elohiym (one God) would make each member of a single family two or more families. Adam Eve Abel = three families or one family?

 

[Gregg]

Um, I disagree.

I believe both with all my heart and mind and strength...

But to disallow the ability to teach and defend truth (which is what will happen if none are allowed to question it) is not good.

Far too many Christians presume to be true what they believe rather than doing what the scripture commands to prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21) test the spirits (1 John 4:1) by the scriptures (Acts 17:11) and hearty discussions of this kind are where we do these things or force us back into study of the scriptures to be able to answer the challenges.

Yes, Christians presume many things; and we are always learning and being instructed regarding God's word and His way.

But to allow Jesus's Name and Person to be slandered in the process is beyond comprehension. It is not necessary or useful.

Other forums have disallowed members to debate the [validity of the] Trinity of God and Deity of Jesus, while maintaining deep discussion and meaning challenge.

 

[JohnD]

I see your point. But I must stand by mine.

In the end, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Yeshua Jesus is YHVH LORD to the glory of God the Father. And that will be the last word of those who now blaspheme his holy name.

 

[Gregg]

I see your point. But I must stand by mine.

In the end, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Yeshua Jesus is YHVH LORD to the glory of God the Father. And that will be the last word of those who now blaspheme his holy name.

Amen John. I like the graphic about the Bible being its own best commentary.

 

[th1b.taylor]

One God the Father - yes

The fullness is in the Son and in that Jesus is the image of the living God and that exact representation of Gods being. (All that the Father us)

So the fullness of God (Father's being )is in the Son. Jesus wasn't emptied of the Father and to me has never existed apart from that fullness. Therefore I need not consider the quality of Jesus's Spirit as in "Father into your hands I commit My Spirit" But since Jesus does have His own spirit if He always was and always was God then you have two Gods. Jesus has always been the Son. The Father is His God and our God.

Randy,
what you are doing here is in spite of all the scripture. Once more I say it; No scripture can be understood without the light of all other scripture shinning on it. Your favorite scriptures for this discussion must also agree with every other scripture and as used by you right now, they don't.

 

[th1b.taylor]

The Trinity of God and the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ should not be debated in a Christian forum. These two tenants are eternal truths, foundations of Christianity.

Rather, the debate should be which Scripture verses actually address the Trinity of God and the Deity of Jesus, and what are the implications of these truths.

It is a shame that a Christian forum gives voice to those who would defame and slander the Name of Jesus Christ. It is a disservice to God to maintain a sanctuary wherein these truths can be challenged.

And so I am asking the administrators of this website to cease allowing it.

Amen. But it is important to remember that it needs limiting and we must be ready to debunk it and to teach the truth also. Difficult.

 

[JohnD]

Amen John. I like the graphic about the Bible being its own best commentary.

{{smile}}

 

[Jesse Stone]

Free

I would like to hear what non-Trinitarians on this site say about Titus 2:13 & 1 Peter 1:1. My coply intuition has nothing to say about that one. I only have an observation. These are isolated cases. There are more verses that make a distinction between God and Jesus Christ. It would have been helpful for Paul and Peter to have said this more than once so there would be no question as to what is being said.

Here is the primary problem I have with Trinitarianism. I think it's a legitimate problem. God is presented in the Old Testament as one person. And many times in the New Testament as well, wherein Jesus differentiates himself, not just from the father, but from God (e.g., John 17:3). God presents himself as one person in the Old Testament, and he is understood to be one person by Old Testament writers. By believing Old Testament writers. One doesn't have to read the whole Old Testament to see that's self-evident. Just read Isaiah.

I don't think we can just point to a few verses where God says "us" (4, one not usually mentioned, it so obviously refers to God with others) and then close the case as if the problem has been solved. God refers to himself too many times as "I" and "me" (a lot more than 4) to just let them go as if they don't exist. If anything is to be let go, it should be the verses where God says "us". Nor do I think that simply rehashing all the proof texts used by Trinitarians is the answer. This doesn't solve the problem either.



But first: Are you a Catholic? Orthodox Christian belief is Catholic, not Protestant. Biblical Christian belief is Protestant. Historic orthodoxy shouldn't be an issue to a Protestant who believes in Bible alone. Though I have run across Protestants who refer to themselves as being a part of the Historic Biblical Christian Faith. A contradiction in terms apart from Catholicism. I assumed this is a Protestant forum, that you're a Protestant moderator on a Protestant forum. I've been kicked off more Catholic forums than I care to number. They say the same thing you do. Trinitarianism is unquestionably true. Because the historic evidence is insurmountable. And Biblical interpretation by scholars backs it up. And they're like this Greg fellow, extremists who thinks that to question the Trinity is to slander Jesus Christ. They have no room for people like me with honest concerns. Accept without question or go away. I no longer wish to talk to Catholics (or Protestants who are like them, like this Greg fellow, if he's a Protestant) on forums about anything. Richard Dawkins isn't militant compared to Catholics on Catholic forums. If this is a Catholic forum, I'll leave on my own. I've already been fooled once by a Catholic forum that deceitfully presented itself as inclusive of all denominations. I won't let that happen again. Tell me the truth. What's really going on here?

 

[Free]

Free

I would like to hear what non-Trinitarians on this site say about Titus 2:13 & 1 Peter 1:1. My coply intuition has nothing to say about that one. I only have an observation. These are isolated cases. There are more verses that make a distinction between God and Jesus Christ. It would have been helpful for Paul and Peter to have said this more than once so there would be no question as to what is being said.

I would like to hear what they have to say too, but getting a straight answer is proving difficult. Even one verse is enough, unless one wants to dismiss it, as many do, which then begins to undermine the authority of that text. As I have pointed out, Paul implies as much in Phil 2, Col 1, and 1 Cor 8, not to mention Rom 9:5 and the rest of Titus. I'm quite certain there are further passages but I don't have my resources in front of me at the moment.

Here is the primary problem I have with Trinitarianism. I think it's a legitimate problem. God is presented in the Old Testament as one person. And many times in the New Testament as well, wherein Jesus differentiates himself, not just from the father, but from God (e.g., John 17:3). God presents himself as one person in the Old Testament, and he is understood to be one person by Old Testament writers. By believing Old Testament writers. One doesn't have to read the whole Old Testament to see that's self-evident.

And here is precisely why we study what the scholars have to say because it actually is not at all self-evident. There are at least two words translated as "one" in the OT, yachid and echad. The difference is that yachid means "only one," an absolute unity, whereas echad is much more general and can refer to a compound unity ("one nation under God," for example). The significance of this is that yachid is never used of God in the OT. In other words, while the use of echad doesn't necessarily mean that God is triune, it doesn't contradict that idea either and allows for that possibility.

Deut 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." (ESV)

So when we see the Shema, for example, we understand that not as a statement of his nature, but rather as a statement of monotheism, that there is only one true God worthy of worship. It simply cannot mean that God is only one person, since echad is used, not yachid.

For further reading (not saying this is scholarly): http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-yachid-vs-echad.htm

Just read Isaiah.

I have. I use it all the time in discussions with Mormons as it completely does in their doctrine that there are many gods, that the Father was once as we were, and we can become gods ourselves. There are many clear statements of monotheism which for some reason they choose to overlook.

I don't think we can just point to a few verses where God says "us" (4, one not usually mentioned, it so obviously refers to God with others) and then close the case as if the problem has been solved. God refers to himself too many times as "I" and "me" (a lot more than 4) to just let them go as if they don't exist. If anything is to be let go, it should be the verses where God says "us". Nor do I think that simply rehashing all the proof texts used by Trinitarians is the answer. This doesn't solve the problem either.

But that is precisely what the anti-trinitarians do which I have been saying that must not be done. We simply cannot just "let go" of verses which we find disagreement with. That is just not how proper biblical interpretation is done; not how we get an understanding of a matter. We must take into account all that the Bible says and make sense of it all without simply letting go those things we disagree with or otherwise using passages which say one thing to trump those which say something else. There is absolutely no basis for doing so and is precisely one of those things that leads to error and heresy.

But this is what has continually been done in this thread (not by you)--those verses which speak about Jesus' humanity, which no trinitarian denies, are used to overrule those which speak clearly about his deity. But the trinitarians don't do that with those verses which speak of the deity of Jesus, so on what grounds are the anti-trinitarians claiming that trinitarians are misinterpreting the Bible? I have said many times, and will continue to do so, that the doctrine of the Trinity best takes into account all that Scripture states. This can be clearly seen throughout this thread by the anti-trinitarians refusal to accept at face value those passages which speak of Jesus' deity, while the trinitarians accept at face value those as well as passages about his humanity.

But first: Are you a Catholic? Orthodox Christian belief is Catholic, not Protestant. Biblical Christian belief is Protestant. Historic orthodoxy shouldn't be an issue to a Protestant who believes in Bible alone. Though I have run across Protestants who refer to themselves as being a part of the Historic Biblical Christian Faith. A contradiction in terms apart from Catholicism. I assumed this is a Protestant forum, that you're a Protestant moderator on a Protestant forum.

Yes, I am a Protestant, for lack of a better term. By "orthodox Christian belief," I simply mean those biblical beliefs which have been held true throughout Christian history.

I've been kicked off more Catholic forums than I care to number. They say the same thing you do. Trinitarianism is unquestionably true. Because the historic evidence is insurmountable. And Biblical interpretation by scholars backs it up. And they're like this Greg fellow, extremists who thinks that to question the Trinity is to slander Jesus Christ. They have no room for people like me with honest concerns. Accept without question or go away.

I believe God is triune not because of any historical evidence but simply because of what the Bible states. Personally I think there is room to question the Trinity or deity of Jesus without slandering him, but the problem comes when one is so adamant that he is not God, since this would be to state that he is not who the Bible reveals him to be. Of course, we should all be humble enough to be open to change and accept that we might wrong. In this case, as much as I am open to being wrong, I have yet to see one good argument as to why I shouldn't believe the Trinity to be true.

I no longer wish to talk to Catholics (or Protestants who are like them, like this Greg fellow, if he's a Protestant) on forums about anything. Richard Dawkins isn't militant compared to Catholics on Catholic forums. If this is a Catholic forum, I'll leave on my own. I've already been fooled once by a Catholic forum that deceitfully presented itself as inclusive of all denominations. I won't let that happen again. Tell me the truth. What's really going on here?

There are forums I won't even bother with, such as fundamentalist Baptist. What's going on here? In what way? Do you mean do we try to be inclusive? Yes. Does it always work out? No. We've had some pretty militant persons in the past who have been very disruptive. Still get some from time to time. It really all depends on how disruptive persons are. Christians of different persuasions often just don't get along and some are better at fruitful, civil dialogue than others. And we've had more than just Christians here as well--atheists and Muslims, for example.

Don't worry, you'll get plenty of warning before we kick you out. ;)

 

[Eugene]

The Trinity of God and the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ should not be debated in a Christian forum. These two tenants are eternal truths, foundations of Christianity.

Rather, the debate should be which Scripture verses actually address the Trinity of God and the Deity of Jesus, and what are the implications of these truths.

It is a shame that a Christian forum gives voice to those who would defame and slander the Name of Jesus Christ. It is a disservice to God to maintain a sanctuary wherein these truths can be challenged.

And so I am asking the administrators of this website to cease allowing it.

Dear Brother Gregg, we have many Christians at all levels of growth in their knowledge of our Lord, and from many different doctrines of thought on any given scripture. Unless someone comes preaching absolute heresy as a troll attempting to create division we attempt to address their dissimilar thinking.

Our statement of Faith - We believe that there is only one God, who is eternal and immutable, and manifests Himself in three distinct Persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. – I have known Jesus only doctrine Christians; should we help them?

And then - ChristianForums.net desires to serve non-Christians, seeking answers to questions about Christianity, by sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ so they too may acquire the hope, joy, and peace that come from fellowship with the saving grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

I certainly invite other moderators here to add their thoughts as I haven't had the opportunity to read all the replies that may be offensive. Thanks for your concern Gregg.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Jesse Stone wrote (#337) in blue:

"I would like to hear what non-Trinitarians on this site say about Titus 2:13 & 1 Peter 1:1."

Here is a part of my study of Sharp’s Rule:

Sharp’s Rule: Primer

In an attempt to prove the trinity doctrine, Granville Sharp made up a rule in 1798. It is often called “Sharp’s Rule” by trinitarians. It says, in effect, that when two or more words (nouns) in the original Greek New Testament (NT) text are joined by the word “and,” they all refer to the same person if the word “the” (the article) comes before the first noun and not before the other noun(s).

For example, if we saw “the king and _master of the slave” in the Greek text of the Bible, it would always mean, according to Sharp, that only one person was being called both “king” and “master.” (“King” and “master” are joined by “and” - - only “king” has the article.)

Sharp invented this rule after he noticed this particular construction (sometimes called a “Sharp’s construction”) was used with “God” and “Christ” in 5 places in the NT. If he could convince others that his “rule” was true, then they would think there was finally (after 1400 years of a “trinity” tradition) absolute grammatical Bible proof (see WALLACE study) that God and Jesus are the same “person”!

The 5 “proofs” of Jesus’ Godhood according to Sharp are (in the literal wording of the original manuscripts):

(a) Titus 2:13: “of the great God and savior of us Christ Jesus”

τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ

(b) 2 Pet. 1:1: “righteousness of the God of us and savior Jesus Christ”

δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

(c) 2 Thess. 1:12:“the grace of the God of us and Lord Jesus Christ”

τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

(d) 1 Tim. 5:21: “in sight of the God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels”

ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων

(e) Eph. 5:5: “...in the kingdom of the Christ and God”

ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ

Since the first noun (“God” in the first four scriptures) has the article (“the”) with it and the following noun (“savior” in the first two scriptures) does not have the article (“the”), then (according to Sharp) God and Christ (the savior, etc.) are the same person!

There are a number of reasons why Sharp’s Rule, as applied to these 5 “proofs,” is invalid (See the SHARP study). One important strike against it is the fact that even many respected trinitarian NT grammar experts and translators have rejected it as a valid rule - e.g., see G. B. Winer; J. H. Moulton; C. F. D. Moule; Dr. James Moffatt (see Titus 2:13; and 1 Tim. 5:21); Dr. William Barclay (2 Thess. 1:12); and Roman Catholic scholar Karl Rahner (2 Peter 1:1).

In vol. 5, p. 257, the respected The Expositor's Greek Testament says: "In the present case [Jude 1:4], however, the second noun (kupiov [“lord”]) belongs to the class of words which may stand without the article .... A similar doubtful case is found in Tit. ii. 13.... Other examples of the same kind are Eph. v. 5 ... 2 Thess. i: 12 ... 1 Tim. v. 21 (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 1) ... 2 Peter i. 1."

For example, examine the following trinitarian Bible’s renderings of these “Sharp’s Constructions”:

2 Thess. 1:12 - KJV; KJIIV; NASB; NAB (1970); MLB; LB; GNB; RSV; NRSV; NIV.

Eph. 5:5 - KJV; KJIIV; RSV; NRSV; LB; MLB; NIV; NEB; REB; GNB; TEV; NAB (‘70,‘91).

2 Tim. 4:1 - most trinitarian Bibles.

1 Tim. 6:13 - all trinitarian Bibles.

These many respected Bibles, translated by expert trinitarian New Testament scholars, clearly disregard Sharp’s “Rule” at these (and other) places and show two persons being spoken of!

Notice Eph. 5:5, for example. Most trinitarian Bibles translate this example of Sharp’s Construction: “in the kingdom of Christ and of God” - KJV; KJ21; NRSV; RSV; NIV; NEB; REB; NAB; Douay; MLB; LB; GNB; TEV; The Amplified Bible; Third Millenium Bible; New Living Translation; New Century Version; God’s Word; Holman Christian Standard Bible; Wesley’s New Testament; Phillips; and the Webster Bible. This is not the way it would be translated if the two descriptions were of the same person! (At the very least it would be rendered more literally as “the kingdom of the Christ and God.”) Instead it clearly shows two persons!

Also, 1 Tim. 6:13 is translated in trinitarian Bibles as: “before (in the sight or presence of) God ... and before Christ Jesus...”. Although Sharp’s Rule insists that this should be translated to show that it is speaking of the same person, it obviously is not! Most trinitarian grammar experts simply do not believe Sharp’s Rule is a valid absolute rule!

Continued in next post.