|
Author
|
Topic: Is Jesus God?
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
Message 113 of 492 (549179)
03-04-2010 3:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 100 by Peg
03-04-2010 12:00 AM
|
|
Re: Jesus accepted worship
quote:
the context of that passage does not show Thomas to be worshiping jesus.
Thomas affirmed Jesus as "My Lord and my God." How is this NOT worship?
quote:
what it does show is that 'doubting' Thomas was not convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead and had been seen by the other diciples. When Jesus, in his resurrected body, proceeded to show him the wound marks, Thomas was struck with awe and came to accept that it was Jesus. His remark
"My Lord and my God" is not out of harmony with who the Messiah was. Isaiah 9:6 There has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. the word god is simply a title, it is not a name of the Almighty. Perhaps you'd have a case if Thomas called Jesus 'Jehovah' but he didnt. He simply acknowledged that Jesus was a mighty god.
But it doesn't say this will be His title. Rather, it says that this will be His name. And the name "Mighty God" does not stand alone. He is also given the name "Eternal Father," which suggests YHWH.
quote:
Why would Jesus rebuke Thomas considering the Messiah was called a 'Mighty God' by Isaiah. This title is in perfect harmony with scripture and it in no way implies that Jesus is God Almighty.
"Mighty God" and "God Almighty" are awfully close and nearly synonymous. It looks like you are trying to make too much of a distinction between them. Thomas called Jesus "God." Isaiah wrote that the Messiah would be called "God." You posed the question "Is Jesus God?" and these seem to answer your question. You even are willing to admit that Jesus is "god" but not "God," which is starting to sound like double-speak.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 100 by Peg, posted 03-04-2010 12:00 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 120 by Peg, posted 03-05-2010 6:55 AM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 114 of 492 (549180)
03-04-2010 3:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 101 by Peg
03-04-2010 12:06 AM
|
|
Re: Jesus gives life
quote:
Like Jesus, Elijah the prophet performed many miracles including resurrecting a boy to life. Does this mean that Elijah was also God?
Did Elijah claim to be the source of life just before he resuscitated the boy? No.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by Peg, posted 03-04-2010 12:06 AM | | Peg has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 115 of 492 (549181)
03-04-2010 3:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 102 by Peg
03-04-2010 12:07 AM
|
|
Re: Hebrews 1:8
quote:
quote:
A number of OT prophecies of the Messiah suggest that He will be more than a man, and will in fact be God in the flesh.
which verses would those be?
Ps 45 is the one most pertinent to Heb 1:8. You have also mentioned Isaiah 9:6. But as I said, the OT prophecies are suggestive. The NT passages that we've been putting forth speak more clearly to Jesus' deity, so these are the ones we should focus on.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 102 by Peg, posted 03-04-2010 12:07 AM | | Peg has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 116 by hERICtic, posted 03-04-2010 6:27 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 156 of 492 (549624)
03-09-2010 10:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 106 by hERICtic
03-04-2010 5:23 AM
|
|
Re: Jesus accepted worship
quote:
Not at all. You have to back up. (v9-10) "He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and Father in me? The words that I say to you I don not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works." Thomas acknowledges that god can now be seen in Jesus.
Yes--God can be seen in Jesus in a unique way. Who else in Scripture ever claimed that he was in the Father and that the Father was in him?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 106 by hERICtic, posted 03-04-2010 5:23 AM | | hERICtic has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 157 of 492 (549628)
03-09-2010 11:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 107 by Peg
03-04-2010 5:26 AM
|
|
Re: Rom 10: Jesus is LORD (YHWH)
quote:
Paul is recognizing that Jehovah is the source of the Messiah and therefore he is still the source of their salvation. This is why in Acts the same quote is used by Peter to explain that Jehovah sent the Messiah, resurrected him and thru him will fulfill his promise of salvation. ... The apostles were not under the impression that Jesus and Jehovah were one and the same. This passage, which uses the same verse from Joel most certainly shows their belief was that Jesus was the promised Messiah whom Jehovah would send.... certainly not Jehovah himself.
I agree that thus far in Peter's argument, Acts 2:21 (a quote from Joel) probably refers primarily to God the Father. But in this context, as Peter develops his argument further, he concludes:
NET Bible writes: Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.
This is a claim that Jesus is MORE than Messiah; He is BOTH Lord and Christ. In the context of Acts 2:21 and Acts 2:34-25 (a quote of Psalm 110), Lord refers to YHWH. Jesus is both YHWH and Messiah. NET Bible has this study note on the word Lord in Acts 2:36:
NET Bible study note writes:
sn Lord. This looks back to the quotation of Ps 110:1 and the mention of calling on the Lord in 2:21. Peter’s point is that the Lord on whom one calls for salvation is Jesus, because he is the one mediating God’s blessing of the Spirit as a sign of the presence of salvation and the last days. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 107 by Peg, posted 03-04-2010 5:26 AM | | Peg has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 158 of 492 (549629)
03-09-2010 11:09 AM
|
Reply to: Message 116 by hERICtic
03-04-2010 6:27 PM
|
|
Re: Hebrews 1:8
quote:
Isa. 9:6 is not about Jesus. Most Jews will state is a past event, probably refering to Hezekiah, the son of King Ahaz. Read chapter 10, it mirrors the events in chapter 9, showing its a past event.
It may be both. Biblical prophecy often has multiple referents, a near-term referent and another further in the future.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 116 by hERICtic, posted 03-04-2010 6:27 PM | | hERICtic has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 159 by hERICtic, posted 03-09-2010 11:21 AM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 239 of 492 (552635)
03-30-2010 11:22 AM
|
Reply to: Message 229 by Peg
03-29-2010 7:00 AM
|
|
Re: Jesus is LORD God
quote:
So you think because Paul called Jesus 'lord' it means that he is God Almighty? Thats very strange considering Lord is merely a title of reverence...it was given to many people in positions of authority and others beside God are called lord. ... So please explain how the calling of Jesus a lord means that he is Almighty God.
In NT Greek, the word "lord" sometimes refers only to a position of human authority, as you say. But it is often used differently, to refer to the OT "YHWH" (which was read in Hebrew as "Adonai", meaning "Lord"). Which one of these two meanings is intended must be determined from context. See Message 157.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 229 by Peg, posted 03-29-2010 7:00 AM | | Peg has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 240 of 492 (552636)
03-30-2010 11:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 238 by Peg
03-30-2010 3:14 AM
|
|
Re: Jesus WAS God in earliest NT teaching
quote:
unfortunately none of those scriptures tell us that God took on human form... im pretty sure you wont find a scripture that does.
I don't think there is any passage that says this clearly enough to avoid dispute. But my vote would be for Daniel 3:24-25:
NET Bible writes: Then King Nebuchadnezzar was startled and quickly got up. He said to his ministers, "Wasn't it three men that we tied up and threw into the fire?" They replied to the king, "For sure, O king." He answered, "But I see four men, untied and walking around in the midst of the fire! No harm has come to them! And the appearance of the fourth is like that of a god!"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 238 by Peg, posted 03-30-2010 3:14 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 241 by Peg, posted 03-31-2010 1:06 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 245 of 492 (552829)
03-31-2010 10:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 241 by Peg
03-31-2010 1:06 AM
|
|
Re: Jesus WAS God in earliest NT teaching
quote:
the translators will capitalize GOD or LORD if the original passages have the tetragrammaton (YHWY) so the fact that it is not capitalized signifies that the tetragramaton was not in the original text and therefore not a reference to God Almighty.
I didn't claim that Dan 3:24-25 DID include YHWH. But the OT often refers to God without using YHWH. Elohim, Adonai, compounds of El (e.g. El-Shaddai) often refer to the one true God even though they don't use YHWH.
quote:
2ndly, the account goes on to say that it was an angel who was with them
Yes, but this doesn't prove that it was not God. The phrase "The angel of the Lord" sometimes suggests an incarnation of God (or as a pre-incarnate form of Jesus), as EMA has been discussing in Genesis.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 241 by Peg, posted 03-31-2010 1:06 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 247 by Peg, posted 03-31-2010 7:45 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 260 of 492 (553290)
04-02-2010 2:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 247 by Peg
03-31-2010 7:45 PM
|
|
Re: Jesus WAS God in earliest NT teaching
quote:
quote:
Yes, but this doesn't prove that it was not God. The phrase "The angel of the Lord" sometimes suggests an incarnation of God (or as a pre-incarnate form of Jesus), as EMA has been discussing in Genesis.
can you provide some scriptures showing this to be the case?
This is from the entry "angel" in Easton's Bible Dictionary:
Easton's Bible Dictionary writes:
Angel: a word signifying, both in the Hebrew and Greek, a messenger, and hence employed to denote any agent God sends forth to execute his purposes. ... But its distinctive application is to certain heavenly intelligences whom God employs in carrying on his government of the world. The name does not denote their nature but their office as messengers. The appearances to Abraham at Mamre (Gen. 18:2, 22. Comp. 19:1), to Jacob at Peniel (Gen. 32:24, 30), to Joshua at Gilgal (Josh. 5:13, 15), of the Angel of the Lord, were doubtless manifestations of the Divine presence, foreshadowings of the incarnation, revelations before the fulness of the time of the Son of God. ...
As you see, it lists the following references: Gen. 18:2, 22. Comp. 19:1; Gen. 32:24, 30; Josh. 5:13, 15.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 247 by Peg, posted 03-31-2010 7:45 PM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 264 by Peg, posted 04-02-2010 9:22 PM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 280 of 492 (553698)
04-04-2010 6:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 275 by Peg
04-04-2010 9:14 AM
|
|
Granville Sharp
quote:
cavediver writes: And I think it would be good to see the actual Greek at this point. Can you provide that?
Tit 2:13Gr., τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ
(tou me‧ga′lou The‧ou′ kai so‧te′ros he‧mon′ Khri‧stou′ I‧e‧sou′) ... ... the verse has two nouns connected by καi (kai, and), the first noun being preceded by the definite article τοu (tou, of the) and the second noun without the definite article. Its the same at 2Pe 1:1, 2. A definate distinction is made between God and Jesus in that verse too. Therefore, in Tit 2:13, two distinct persons, Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, are mentioned....Jaywills translation does not make that distinction.
Let's look at some modern translations of this verse:
NET: Titus 2:13 as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. NASB: Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and the aappearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, NIV: Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, ESV: Titus 2:13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, HCSB: Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. NKJV: Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, NLT: Titus 2:13 while we look forward to that wonderful event when the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be revealed. NRSV: Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Weymouth: Titus 2:13 in expectation of the fulfilment of our blessed hopethe Appearing in glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ;
Nearly all of the modern translations equate "God" and "Savior". There is a good reason for this: Titus 2:13 satisfies one of the grammatical rules for use of the Greek article which were enumerated by Granville Sharp:Granville Sharp writes: When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ho, 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 ...
As others have clarified, the rule really only applies to nouns in the singular (as in Titus 2:13). The Granville Sharp rule claims that "God" and "Savior" refer to the same person in Titus 2:13. (As with many topics, Wikipedia tries to make this one controversial. But leading Greek scholars (e.g. Dan Wallace) seem to agree that the rule is valid, and nearly all modern translators have applied it to Titus 2:13.)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 275 by Peg, posted 04-04-2010 9:14 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 281 by Peg, posted 04-04-2010 7:20 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 284 of 492 (553720)
04-04-2010 8:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 281 by Peg
04-04-2010 7:20 PM
|
|
Re: Granville Sharp
quote:
2thess1:12b "... in accord with the undeserved kindness of our God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" Acts 13:50 "But the Jews stirred up the reputable women who worshiped [God] and the principal men of the city..." Eph 5:5 "For YOU know this, recognizing it for yourselves, that no fornicator or unclean person or greedy personwhich means being an idolaterhas any inheritance in the kingdom of the Christ and of God" 1Timothy 5:21 " I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus..." 1Timothy 6:13 " In the sight of God, who preserves all things alive, and of Christ Jesus" 2Tim 4:1 "I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is destined to judge"
None of these verses fits the rule. The rule requires the second noun to be indefinite (i.e. NOT a proper noun). Your examples Eph 5:5; 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1 fail on this score. 2 Thess 1:12 and 1 Tim 6:13 fail on this, plus have other words besides "kai" between the nouns. The nouns must also both be in the singular; Acts 13:50 fails on this score. Here are some that DO fit the rule:
NET Bible writes:
Rom. 15:6 so that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1Cor. 15:24 Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when he has brought to an end all rule and all authority and power. (lit: "the God and Father") 2Cor. 1:3 Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 2Cor. 11:31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is blessed forever, knows I am not lying.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 281 by Peg, posted 04-04-2010 7:20 PM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 285 by Peg, posted 04-04-2010 9:21 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 287 of 492 (553762)
04-04-2010 11:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 285 by Peg
04-04-2010 9:21 PM
|
|
Re: Granville Sharp
quote:
the rule is that if two nouns are connected by καi (and) and the first is preceded by the definite article, then it is a reference to two distinct subjects.
Sorry, but your references are not stating the Granville Sharp rule precisely enough, and my excerpt from Wikipedia was not precise enough, either. Here is a better explanation of the Granville Sharp rule:
Daniel Wallace writes: ...Sharp’s expanded definition of it is as follows. "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 . . . ." In the statement of this rule, Sharp only discussed substantives (i.e., nouns, substantival adjectives, substantival participles) of personal description, not those which referred to things, and only in the singular, not the plural. But whether he intended the rule to apply to impersonal nouns and/or plurals can hardly be determined from this definition. As well, he did not clearly exclude proper names from the rule’s application. However, a perusal of his monograph reveals that he felt the rule could be applied absolutely only to personal, singular, non-proper nouns. ... In other words, in the construction article-noun-kaiv-noun, Sharp delineated four requirements which he felt needed to be met if the two nouns were necessarily to be seen as having the same referent:17 both nouns must be (1) personali.e., they must refer to a person, not a thing; (2) common epithetsi.e., not proper names; (3) in the same case;18 and (4) singular in number.19 The significance of these requirements can hardly be overestimated, for those who have misunderstood Sharp’s rule have done so almost without exception because they were unaware of the restrictions that Sharp set forth. ( Sharp Redivivus? - A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule | Bible.org)
Note the requirements NOT PROPER NAMES and SINGULAR IN NUMBER. The only verse you mention which meets these requirements is Eph 5:5.
quote:
Im sure you can see that in many of these verses the translators have not abided by the rule of Granville sharp.
Of course not. Except for Eph 5:5, the verses do not meet the requirements.
quote:
In many of the above scriptures we even see the use of "OF" so tell me why they are not applying the Granville sharp rule here.
Because except for Eph 5:5, none of the verses you listed fit the requirements of the rule. Your JW references are among "those who have misunderstood Sharp’s rule." If you want to understand it, I'd recommend the detailed article by Wallace referenced above. If you want to try to disprove with the Granville Sharp rule, the passages that you use must satisfy its requirements! So let's look at Eph 5:5, which meets the Granville Sharp requirements, and see how modern translations render it:
NET: Eph. 5:5 For you can be confident of this one thing: that no person who is immoral, impure, or greedy (such a person is an idolater) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. NASB: Eph. 5:5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. NIV: Eph. 5:5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person such a man is an idolater has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. ESV: Eph. 5:5 For you may be sure of this, that ueveryone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (vthat is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. HCSB: Eph. 5:5 For know and recognize this: no sexually immoral or impure or greedy person, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of the Messiah and of God. NKJV: Eph. 5:5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. NLT: Eph. 5:5 You can be sure that no immoral, impure, or greedy person will inherit the Kingdom of Christ and of God. For a greedy person is really an idolater who worships the things of this world. Weymouth: Eph. 5:5 For be well assured that no fornicator or immoral person and no money-grubberor in other words idol-worshipperhas any share awaiting him in the Kingdom of Christ and of God.
The GS rule says that "Christ" and "God" refer to the same person here. NET, NASB, ESV, and NKJV all respect the GS rule in their translations. But the others do not for some reason. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : Realized that Eph 5:5 DOES meet the requirements
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 285 by Peg, posted 04-04-2010 9:21 PM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 288 by Peg, posted 04-05-2010 2:17 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 293 of 492 (553842)
04-05-2010 10:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 288 by Peg
04-05-2010 2:17 AM
|
|
Re: Granville Sharp
quote:
quote:
The GS rule says that "Christ" and "God" refer to the same person here. NET, NASB, ESV, and NKJV all respect the GS rule in their translations. But the others do not for some reason.
i would say the others do not respect the GS rule because they do not believe it is accurate.
Perhaps. Wallace says that "Sharp’s rule has been almost totally neglected, discounted, or misapplied in recent discussions on these passages." I would recommend reading Wallace's discussion of the rule, if you haven't already. He makes a strong, reasoned defense that the Grqnville Sharp (GS) rule IS accurate. He also notes that the early church Fathers viewed "God" and "Christ" as referring to the same person in Eph 5:5. This supports the GS rule for this passage. But Wallace also points out another possibility for Eph 5:5; some scholars consider the word "Christ" as used in the Epistles to be a proper name. If this is so in Eph 5:5, then this passage does not meet the requirements for the GS rule. So it is somewhat questionable whether or not the GS rule should apply to Eph 5:5. If you really want to dispute the validity of the GS rule, you should start with passages which undisputedly meet the requirements for the rule, and show that the rule does not work for these passages.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 288 by Peg, posted 04-05-2010 2:17 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 297 by Peg, posted 04-05-2010 7:55 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 298 of 492 (553935)
04-05-2010 8:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 297 by Peg
04-05-2010 7:55 PM
|
|
Re: Granville Sharp
quote:
quote:
So it is somewhat questionable whether or not the GS rule should apply to Eph 5:5. If you really want to dispute the validity of the GS rule, you should start with passages which undisputedly meet the requirements for the rule, and show that the rule does not work for these passages.
i already did that
No, you did not. Where did you present ANY passages which "undisputedly meet the requirements for the rule"?
quote:
All the verses that have the same construction (meaning there is a single article preceding two nouns that are joined by the conjunction) i posted in msg 281.
That's nice, but irrelevant. This does not meet the requirements of the rule as laid down by Granville Sharp. For these requirements, see Message 287.
quote:
Acts 13:50 is a good example of how it doesnt work because there is no way to mistake the women and the men of the city as being the same person.
Acts 13:50 is a good example of a verse which does not meet the requirements of the rule as laid down by Granville Sharp. If you really want to dispute the validity of the GS rule, you should start with passages which undisputedly meet the requirements for the rule. So far you have not suggested ANY!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 297 by Peg, posted 04-05-2010 7:55 PM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 301 by Peg, posted 04-06-2010 2:39 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2