False trinitarian translation methods [Archive]

coadie

01-23-2008, 09:23 AM

Isaiah 9:6 (King James Version)

6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Originally Posted by all4Him http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?p=327387#post327387)
It doesn't matter whether or not you agree or disagree with the rules of Greek grammar, that is not going to removed them and make them go away. The fact is, they are in place to keep people from doing what the Oneness church does in there interpretation of Scriptures. You and I don't make the rules, and we can't change them. nor can we rewrite history.

You said:

one what? lets take an honest look at the Scripture you are referring to.

1Jn 5:7 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Jn+5%3A7) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

How many witnesses are in heaven? The context and grammar is clear.

Who are these three? The Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. There is that word "the" again.

"and these three are one." one is neuter, not masculine which would rule out "one Person" theory. They are one in essence, or as the context indicates, they are one in agreement.

1Jn 5:8 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Jn+5%3A8) And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

These three agree as one.

Some trinitarians claim that a man in 1713 can impose rules on the writings of the New Testasment 1700 years retroactively. No he can't

Granville was a totally self educated man. Nothing wrong with that if you are annointed or you do not disagree with truth. He sure has no authority to enter the mionds of english translators before him nor change what they wrote.

Now for the trap, He made rules that are applied selectively.

He tells us the list of names following THE

are separate people. All we have to do is tell poor granville he must not violate the rule of disregarding context.

Now let's look at another example of rational and honest contradiction.

As the youngest child, Granville received a negligible stipend for his education, the bulk of his father’s designated funds going to the training of the two eldest sons. He became an apprentice for a London linen-draper at the age of fourteen after receiving a minimal education which did not include even “the first rudiments of the learned languages

But the earlier poster says we can't re write history and Granville sharp does exactly that and rewrites the King James wording.

11For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

22Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

9Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

Poor guy says this is 2 but in Isaiah it is separated and only ONE.

summary:

Study carefully and you will these "scholars" use their doctrine to translate scripture and fabricate grammar rules to superimpose their doctrine on others. Isaiah and John were to be placed under rules they never heard of.

I like the 1 John 5:7 example because it is a verse that most agree was even added. Not in the original manuscripts and they have the nerve to use it to prove their point. I am not a heavy duty scholar and found that verse was not in the German bible I was reading. I never had a clue it was a controversial verse. Since I have memorized a lot of english scripture, It sounded wrong to me. After only a little study, seeing 1John 5:7 was added to reinforce doctrine, I lost even more respect for trinitarian scholars. How dare they pound on doctrine using verses they admit to adding in their encyclopedia.

John Atkinson

01-23-2008, 01:59 PM

coadie

01-23-2008, 02:15 PM

Bartholomew

01-23-2008, 03:53 PM

Nathan Sandberg is correct.
There is a lot of confusion as to what Granville Sharps greek rule says.
As I was reading the book "The God of two testaments" by Brent Graves, available at the PPH, he spends a whole chapter on this rule and he says and I qoute:
"in the previous chapter we learned Granville Sharp's rule: when two nouns (of the same case) are connected by "and", the nouns always refer to one person, place, or thing if only the first noun has the Greek definite article before it. Further, we observed that the rule is relevant to our discussion because it is yet another pillar which substantiates just that much more (1) the oneness of the Christian God and (2) the complete deity of Jesus Christ."

In fact throughout his book he hails this rule as it substantiate oneness doctrine. You see trinitarians have tried to use sharp's rule in reverse to try to prove more than one person in the godhead, but failed to do so by misapplying his rule. Remember only ONE definite article preceding the "and" or "kai" says sharps rule. This does not apply to matthew 28:19, therefore sharps rule does not apply there. It does apply for example in titus 2:13

Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
According to sharps rule this would make God and the saviour one and the same person, offcourse we do not need a greek rule for us to find this one out.

So incorrectly trinitarians try to apply sharp's rule to matthew 28:19. But Matthew 28:19 has three definite articles, the Father, The son, The Holy Ghost. They incorrectly conclude that these are three different persons. Sharp's rule was only meant to be applied in the case of One definite article. If we were to apply the trinitarians misinterpretation to Revelation 1:17-18, which says " I am the first, and the last, the living one" we would come up with three different persons, since there are three definite articles. We all know that this verse talks about one being, Jesus Christ, and not three different persons. Jesus also said He is the alpha and the omega. Again two definite articles, but no two persons.
So the usage of the Granville Sharps rule in Matthew 28:19 is invalid and not possible.

So no need to panic, no need to attack someone's person (as in Granville Sharp) to try to disprove someones theory. We try best to attack the argument and use scripture, not the personhood.

Bartholomew

01-23-2008, 04:27 PM

I

Now for the trap, He made rules that are applied selectively.

He tells us the list of names following THE

are separate people. All we have to do is tell poor granville he must not violate the rule of disregarding context.

This is not Granville Sharps rule, it is a definition given to sharps rule later on in history by other scholars. For example the post of all4him:
"Granville Sharp rule." The basic rule is as follows:
"If two nouns of the same case are connected by a "kai" (and) and the article (the) is used with both nouns, they refer to different persons or things. If only the first noun has the article, the second noun refers to the same person or thing referred to in the first." {Curtis Vaughn, and Virtus Gideon, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament" (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1979), p. 83.}"This is not Sharps rule in its pure form. Sharps rule is this:

"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 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: i.e., it denotes a farther description of the first named person."
Granville Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament: Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, From Passages Which are Wrongly Translated in the Common English Version, (Philadelphia: B. B. Hopkins and Co., 1807), p. 3.

In fact this greek grammatical rule has no exceptions throughout the NT and is only another proof to the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and the oneness of God.

Bartholomew

01-23-2008, 04:32 PM

Also David Bernard in his books uses Granville Sharps rule to prove the oneness of God:
From the "Message of Romans":
"When we compare Romans 1:7 with similar phrases
elsewhere in Paul’s epistles, we find a strong indication
that Paul meant to identify God the Father and the Lord
Jesus Christ as the same being. For example, II Thessalonians
1:12, I Timothy 5:21, II Timothy 4:1, and Titus 2:13
all identify God and Jesus Christ as one and the same being.
This is especially clear because Granville Sharp’s rule
applies to the Greek text of these verses: If two nouns of
the same number, gender, and case are connected by kai
and if the first noun has the definite article but the second
does not, then both nouns refer to the same thing."

Sharps rule has stood the times as a valid instrument in interpreting and translating the inspired Greek text.

Bartholomew

01-24-2008, 11:05 AM

I think you are reading this wrong.

If the article is not repeated before the second noun, then it would relate to the same person. However, if the article is repeated, it would not relate to the same person. All4HIM post would be correct.

No this is not correct read the definition of Granville Sharps rule again. the bolded part is what you added to his rule. The rule doesn't talk about the article being repeated. This is another rule, a rule NOT made by Granville Sharp, its a definition made based upon Granville sharp but its not the original intent of that rule. Its called "Sharps rule in reverse".
Based on your definition of the rule, there are many exceptions to the rule (as pointed above for example revelation 1:17), thus making your definition invalid and not applicable.
You would best to again read his rule the way he originally wrote it down, and you will see it is not applicable for matthew 28:19. In his list of examples is matthew 28:19 never mentioned.

I wish it were that easy. The problem we face is the (article) "the."

"If two nouns of the same case are connected by a "kai (and) and the article (the) is used with both nouns, they refer to different persons or things. If only the first noun has the article, the second noun refers to the same person or thing refered to in the first"

David Bernard tries to use the rule with only the first noun with the article.

Bernards rule would change Matthew 28:19, it would look like this.

"in the name the Father and Son and Holy Ghost."

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Here we apply the rule with the article. If the rule stands, this shows that the Father is not the Son, and vice versa.

I would have to disagree with Brother Bernard on this.

You don't disagree with Bernard, but you disagree with Granville sharp, who never wrote or applied his rule the way you do.

Even trinitarians agree on this point (for example: http://www.aomin.org/GRANVILL.html)

So your boat won't float, you will have to alter something else to get rid of the oneness of God, good luck with that Nathan (or should we say all4him)

John Atkinson

01-24-2008, 11:17 AM

Nathan - If you are All4Him AKA Micheal Whitsett you were banned from this forum.

Does HONESTY and ETHICS play a part anywhere into your view of trinitarianism? If I am wrong Nathan, then I apologize, if not Mike, then your doctrine isn't worth two cents because you are dishonest and unethical.

If you are Mike, you were told that you are not welcome in this community and asked never to come back. I am not going to ban Nathan, because I don't know for sure, but the IP address used by Nathan and All4Him, while not exact, are too similar for me to ignore.

Also, the nasty, unchristian emails that All4Him AKA Whittset sent came to me, not Bro Rutledge. I will research this further and If I discover you are he I will ban you and keep banning you however you show up.

If you are not Whitsett then please accept my apologies and disregard everything said toward Whitsett

Bartholomew

01-24-2008, 11:35 AM

If you are Mike, you were told that you are not welcome in this community and asked never to come back. I am not going to ban Nathan, because I don't know for sure, but the IP address used by Nathan and All4Him, while not exact, are too similar for me to ignore.

Are the similarities in the beginning of the IP? This propably means he has a dynamic IP adress, which alters your ip everytime you log in to your provider near the end of the number.

Rulkiewicz

01-24-2008, 11:53 AM

Are the similarities in the beginning of the IP? This propably means he has a dynamic IP adress, which alters your ip everytime you log in to your provider near the end of the number.

Even on broadband cable modems your ip is your for about a week until it renews itself. 9 times of of 10, you'll get the same one, but once and a while when you ip expires, you'll receive a new one, though it will be similar to your old one.

Go to your cmd prompt and type: IPCONFIG /ALL

You'll see when the lease on your ip expires.

John Atkinson

01-24-2008, 12:19 PM

Are the similarities in the beginning of the IP? This propably means he has a dynamic IP adress, which alters your ip everytime you log in to your provider near the end of the number.
For now Nathan gets the benefit of the doubt.

coadie

01-24-2008, 01:23 PM

6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Brother, you are confusing Greek grammar with Hebrew grammar.

I quoted English. :nt:

Welcome to Goodnewscafe. Have we met?

Bartholomew

01-24-2008, 01:32 PM

6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

I quoted English. :nt:

Welcome to Goodnewscafe. Have we met?

Its not offtopic coadie. Granville sharps rule only applies to greek biblical language. Not to old testament Hebrew.

zurnman

01-24-2008, 01:43 PM

Bartholomew

01-24-2008, 01:47 PM

Man, I'm glad I don't have to know all this to be saved or I'd be lost for sure.:sadnod

I didn't knew all of this either, untill a few months ago, just have to read the right books and search diligently.

coadie

01-24-2008, 02:14 PM

I didn't knew all of this either, untill a few months ago, just have to read the right books and search diligently.
Did the writers have access to these "right books" when they wrote? Can you read English that was written 150 years before the King James translation?

5 en aules daut sikj jaeajen dee Erkjantnes fonn Gott oppstalt, en naeme aule Jedanke jefange dee jaeajen Jehuarsaum to Christus sent,
6 en sent reed, aulet Onnjehuarsaum to strofe, wanemma jun Jehuarsaum woat erfelt senne. :icon_woohoo:

Bartholomew

01-24-2008, 04:42 PM

Did the writers have access to these "right books" when they wrote? Can you read English that was written 150 years before the King James translation?

5 en aules daut sikj jaeajen dee Erkjantnes fonn Gott oppstalt, en naeme aule Jedanke jefange dee jaeajen Jehuarsaum to Christus sent,
6 en sent reed, aulet Onnjehuarsaum to strofe, wanemma jun Jehuarsaum woat erfelt senne. :icon_woohoo:

Not exactly sure what your point is, but I meant with right books, book written by authors today.
Is that old English you typed? looks like german.

coadie

01-24-2008, 07:03 PM

Not exactly sure what your point is, but I meant with right books, book written by authors today.
Is that old English you typed? looks like german.
It is neither

Rulkiewicz

01-24-2008, 07:44 PM

John Atkinson

01-24-2008, 08:58 PM

Acts 2:37-38
(37) Nowe when they hearde this, they were pricked in their heartes, and sayde vnto Peter, & vnto the other Apostles: Ye men & brethren, what shall we do?
(38) Then Peter sayde vnto them: Repent, and be baptized euery one of you in the name of Iesus Christe, for the remission of sinnes, and ye shall receaue the gyft of the holy ghost.

Bishop's Bible 1568 English

Acts 2:37-38
(37) Now when they heard it, they were pricked in their heartes, and said vnto Peter and the other Apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we doe?
(38) Then Peter said vnto them, Amend your liues, and bee baptized euery one of you in the Name of Iesus Christ for the remission of sinnes: and ye shall receiue the gift of the holy Ghost.

Geneva Bible 1587

Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said vnto Peter, and to the rest of the Apostles, Men and brethren, What shall we doe?
Act 2:38 Then Peter said vnto them, Repent, and be baptized euery one of you in the Name of Iesus Christ, for the remission of sinnes, and ye shal receiue the gift of the holy Ghost.

King James 1611

John Atkinson

01-24-2008, 09:06 PM

37 Whanne thei herden these thingis, thei weren compunct in herte; and thei seiden to Petre and othere apostlis, Britheren, what schulen we do?
38 And Petre seide to hem, Do ye penaunce, and eche of you be baptisid in the name of Jhesu Crist, in to remissioun of youre synnes; and ye schulen take the yifte of the Hooli Goost.

Wycliffe Bible 1385 English - First attempt at an english translation

John Atkinson

01-24-2008, 09:10 PM

Gewat ða neosian, syþðan niht becom,
hean huses, hu hit Hringdene
æfter beorþege gebun hæfdon.
Fand þa ðær inne æþelinga gedriht
swefan æfter symble; sorge ne cuðon,

120
wonsceaft wera. Wiht unhælo,
grim ond grædig, gearo sona wæs,
reoc ond reþe,ond on ræste genam
þritig þegna, þanon eft gewat
huðe hremig to ham faran,

Beowulf - Saxon English circa 900-1000 AD

John Atkinson

01-24-2008, 09:13 PM

Wonder what english will sound like in 300 years?

cineasttx

01-24-2008, 09:20 PM

Wonder what english will sound like in 300 years?

Arabic?

BroRutledge

01-25-2008, 03:06 AM

Hello brother John. I came in here to ban nathan, but I see that you are on top of it so I will not strike at this time. I am convinced Winsett all4him and Nathan are the same. In my opinion he deserves multiple bans, but I will go back in my corner for now. His words are worthless on our forum because of his disrespect. Some of the other trinitarians can write the same arguments and be welcome to stay here for years, because they are nice respectful people, and we have no problem with trinitarians posting on our site and taking a strong stand in what they believe in. The problem with this person is not the fact that he posts his views but rather the fact that his disrespect for those in charge here makes null and void anything he writes. So along with his ban goes all his post since they are worthless here as far as I am concerned. If the nice trinitarian friends that have been showing respect want to use the same argument that Nathan is using they are welcome to do so, and we will have no problem with that, but right now Nathan should not be posting even if he is convinced that you must Speak in tongues get baptized in the name of Jesus and burn televisions.

If you get busy and if he keeps posting under any name he will not be here long no matter which one of us has to deal with it him her whatever.

God bless
BroRutledge

coadie

01-25-2008, 06:44 PM

Gods Child

03-31-2008, 11:50 AM

Gods Child

03-31-2008, 01:49 PM

TheLayman

03-31-2008, 03:53 PM

Colossians 3:17 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Colossians+3%3A17)...says...And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

If we follow Sharpe's Grammer rule here the Apostle is saying that there is God, and then there is the Father, and they are seperate. So, wht does that make? A Quadrinity?

LOL, i was thinking the same thing

You know, those "LOL" remarks can make you look silly especially when you use them when you don't understand what you're talking about. The first thing you all might want to keep in mind is that the rule involves Greek grammar.

Col. 3:17, let's take a look. Here is the Nestle Greek text:

kai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) pan (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3956) o (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3739) ti (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5100) ean (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1437) poihte (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4160) (5725 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5725)) en (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722) logw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3056) h (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2228) en (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722) ergw, (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2041) panta (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3956) en (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722) onomati (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3686) kuriou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962) Ihsou, (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2424) euxaristountev (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2168)(5723 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5723))tw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) qew (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2316) patri (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3962) di' (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1223) autou. (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=846)

We read tw [the] qew [God] patri [Father]. In this text there isn't a definite article separating God and Father, in fact it would read "the God Father." God and Father are not two persons by the rule but indeed, the same person.

Perhaps the Textus Receptus? Let's look:

kai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) pan (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3956) o (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3739) ti (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5100) an (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=302) poihte (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4160) en (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722) logw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3056) h (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2228) en (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722) ergw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2041) panta (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3956) en (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722) onomati (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3686) kuriou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962) Ihsou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2424) euxaristountev (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2168) tw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) yew (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2316) kai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) patri (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3962) di (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1223) autou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=846)

So in this one we read tw [the] yew [God] kai [and] patri [Father]. So it reads, "the God and Father," which is a definite article/noun/copulative/noun. Granville/Sharp:

Rule I.
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 connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] 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: i.e. it denotes farther description of the first-named person.

In other Words, God and Father still refer to the same person. So pick your "Greek Text," the God and Father refer to the same person.

TheLayman

coadie

03-31-2008, 04:01 PM

You know, those "LOL" remarks can make you look silly especially when you use them when you don't understand what you're talking about. The first thing you all might want to keep in mind is that the rule involves Greek grammar.

Col. 3:17, let's take a look. Here is the Nestle Greek text:

kai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532)pan (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3956)o (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3739)ti (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5100)ean (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1437)poihte (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4160)(5725 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5725))en (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722)logw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3056)h (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2228)en (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722)ergw, (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2041)panta (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3956)en (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722)onomati (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3686)kuriou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962)Ihsou, (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2424)euxaristountev (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2168)(5723 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5723))tw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588)qew (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2316)patri (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3962)di' (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1223)autou. (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=846)

We read tw [the] qew [God] patri [Father]. In this text there isn't a definite article separating God and Father, in fact it would read "the God Father." God and Father are not two persons by the rule but indeed, the same person.

Perhaps the Textus Receptus? Let's look:

kai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532)pan (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3956)o (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3739)ti (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5100)an (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=302)poihte (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4160)en (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722)logw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3056)h (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2228)en (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722)ergw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2041)panta (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3956)en (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722)onomati (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3686)kuriou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962)Ihsou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2424)euxaristountev (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2168)tw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588)yew (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2316)kai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532)patri (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3962)di (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1223)autou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=846)

So in this one we read tw [the] yew [God] kai [and] patri [Father]. So it reads, "the God and Father," which is a definite article/noun/copulative/noun. Granville/Sharp:

Rule I.
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 connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] 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: i.e. it denotes farther description of the first-named person.

In other Words, God and Father still refer to the same person. So pick your "Greek Text," the God and Father refer to the same person.

TheLaymanWho is The God and Son?

Are you honest enough to admit there are not 2 or more Gods?

Are you honest enough to admit if God the Son is not God the Father, you have a problem?

Yes or no?

If you can't answere yes or no, I understand why.

TheLayman

03-31-2008, 04:04 PM

If "Baptise in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28: 19) was an original scripture, then Sharpes rule would definiently be in favor of a Trinity in this passage but i don't believe parts of Matt 28: 19 to be the original sayings of Jesus as Eusebius has stated in his writtings.

Unlike Batholomew on page 1 of this thread, you are at least correct that Granville/Sharp's rule does most certainly indicate 3 persons in Matt. 28:19. Incidentally, Eusebius said nothing against the textual wording of Matt. 28:19, nothing.

Its just strange that Matthew 28: 19 would be the strongest indication of a Trinity but its also rejected by some Trinitarain scholars. I can see that those people aren't trying to make an excuse to believe a Trinity but are actually seeking truth.

Well below is a thread here at the GNC where this was already addressed. You can find it here and my response to it is on page 3, post #38.

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10828&page=3

TheLayman

Gods Child

04-01-2008, 10:57 AM

Unlike Batholomew on page 1 of this thread, you are at least correct that Granville/Sharp's rule does most certainly indicate 3 persons in Matt. 28:19. Incidentally, Eusebius said nothing against the textual wording of Matt. 28:19, nothing.

Well below is a thread here at the GNC where this was already addressed. You can find it here and my response to it is on page 3, post #38.

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10828&page=3

TheLayman

I would love to quote many things that you said in your post # 38 but i don't know how to do that just yet, im not sure how you all split the quotes and then comment. Sorry, im new to this forum :)

Even though Eusebius was born after the other so-called church Fathers and after the Didache was written, he was know as a man who only relied on the original truth of the word of God

"Eusebius, the greatest Greek teacher of the Church and most learned theologian of his time. .. worked untiringly for the acceptance of the pure Word of the New Testament as it came from the Apostles. .. Eusebius. .. relies throughout only upon ancient manuscripts, and always openly confesses the truth when he cannot find sufficient testimony." (E.K. in the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Aug, 1923 from Mosheim, in an editorial footnote.)

Eusebius, to whose zeal we owe most of what is known of the history of the New Testament. (Peake Bible Commentary, page 596)

He was a man searching truth and not trying to forage falseness in the word. This man was known as the "The Father of Church history" and worked in a library that was started probably by Origen. Eusebius was under Pamphilius until he passed away.

Some hundred works, several of them very lengthy, are either directly cited or referred to as having been read by Eusebius. In many instances he would read an entire treatise for the sake of one or two historical notices, and must have searched many others without finding anything to serve his purpose. Under the head the most vital question is the sincerity of Eusebius. Did he tamper with the materials or not? The sarcasm of Gibbon (Decline and Fall, c. xvi) is well known. .. The passages to which Gibbon refers do not bear out his imputation. .. Eusebius contents himself with condemning these sins. .. in general terms, without entering into details. .. but it leaves no imputation on his honesty. (Mosheim, again in an editorial note.)

It is evident that this was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors. Of any other form of text he had never heard and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice. Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age, and entitled, the one 'Against Marcellus of Ancyra,' and the other 'About the Theology of the Church,' he used the common reading. One other writing of his also contains it, namely a letter written after the Council of Nice was over, to his seer of Caesurae. (Conybeare proceeded, in Hibbert Journal, 1902)

It is clear therefore, that of the manuscripts which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesurae in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of baptism or of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It has been conjectured by Dr. David-son, Dr. Martineau, by the Dean of Westminster, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names of the many) that here the received text could not contain the very words of Jesus - this long before anyone except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading. (Textual Criticism of the New Testament Conybeare)

TheLayman

04-01-2008, 12:20 PM

I would love to quote many things that you said in your post # 38 but i don't know how to do that just yet, im not sure how you all split the quotes and then comment. Sorry, im new to this forum :)

Even though Eusebius was born after the other so-called church Fathers and after the Didache was written, he was know as a man who only relied on the original truth of the word of God

"Eusebius, the greatest Greek teacher of the Church and most learned theologian of his time. .. worked untiringly for the acceptance of the pure Word of the New Testament as it came from the Apostles. .. Eusebius. .. relies throughout only upon ancient manuscripts, and always openly confesses the truth when he cannot find sufficient testimony." (E.K. in the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Aug, 1923 from Mosheim, in an editorial footnote.)

Eusebius, to whose zeal we owe most of what is known of the history of the New Testament. (Peake Bible Commentary, page 596)

He was a man searching truth and not trying to forage falseness in the word. This man was known as the "The Father of Church history" and worked in a library that was started probably by Origen. Eusebius was under Pamphilius until he passed away.

Some hundred works, several of them very lengthy, are either directly cited or referred to as having been read by Eusebius. In many instances he would read an entire treatise for the sake of one or two historical notices, and must have searched many others without finding anything to serve his purpose. Under the head the most vital question is the sincerity of Eusebius. Did he tamper with the materials or not? The sarcasm of Gibbon (Decline and Fall, c. xvi) is well known. .. The passages to which Gibbon refers do not bear out his imputation. .. Eusebius contents himself with condemning these sins. .. in general terms, without entering into details. .. but it leaves no imputation on his honesty. (Mosheim, again in an editorial note.)

It is evident that this was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors. Of any other form of text he had never heard and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice. Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age, and entitled, the one 'Against Marcellus of Ancyra,' and the other 'About the Theology of the Church,' he used the common reading. One other writing of his also contains it, namely a letter written after the Council of Nice was over, to his seer of Caesurae. (Conybeare proceeded, in Hibbert Journal, 1902)

It is clear therefore, that of the manuscripts which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesurae in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of baptism or of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It has been conjectured by Dr. David-son, Dr. Martineau, by the Dean of Westminster, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names of the many) that here the received text could not contain the very words of Jesus - this long before anyone except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading. (Textual Criticism of the New Testament Conybeare)

You are a further example of what I said of the original article. Here, let me help. What I gave you was facts, and what I mean by that is quotes, names, places, etc., etc., of the time and text in question.

What you have done is quote someone else's assertions, you have not provided one single fact to support any assertion you have made (or a single fact to support the assertions, not facts, in the quote you provided). Do you even understand this? So what you have here is a great many facts (none of which you have provided) and a great many assertions with no facts (which you have provided). And you apparently want me to ignore facts based on assertions. If you disagree, list what you think is a fact that you have presented rather than an assertion.

In fact, even though your quote brings up Eusebius several times, I told you he never said anything against the text of Matt. 28:19, nothing. So even if one were for some strange reason to reject all the earlier witnesses to Matt. 28:19, and all of the manuscript evidence (and I do mean all) for 28:19, to base a rejection of it on Eusebius who says nothing against the passage is frankly unbelievable, at least to me (though I am seeing you do it).

BTW, I have grown weary of your copying and pasting. I know what I'm talking about, personally. If you don't may I again suggest you devote yourself to study rather than attempting to debate by way of copy and paste.

TheLayman

Praxeus

04-02-2008, 09:25 PM

Hi Folks,

Greetings.

One of the foundational verses of the Oneness perspective.

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore,
and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost:

My personal view is that the English here is what is important, that the King James Bible is giving us the word of God in clear expression. Nonetheless, since the Greek has been misrepresented we shall, for a bit, "go to the Greek".

And on Matthew 28:19 what it comes down to is that the Greek is simply like the English (more on this below) and mandates the definite article for each subject for proper understanding and flow, for the numerical precision of each subject being one subject. While the "Granville Sharp rule" (an area of great discussion and debate here and there) really is not a relevant discussion, and historically was not attempted to be used to make a point in Matthew 28:19. However if it is to be discussed it should not be falsely presented.

If anyone can show that Granville Sharp actually discussed Matthew 28:19, or felt that Matthew 28:19 had some special application to Granville Sharp, please come up with his quote for discussion and analysis.

The first point to consider is simple, Layman's offered a patently false claim in indicating that Sharp's view or rule must reference "persons". Granville Sharp never said that the rule designated that the multiple subjects are persons .. he indicated that they the subjects would be distinct qualities, things or persons. (We won't get into all the ins and outs of exceptions and such, since that is wide enough for many understandings, and we shall see from Thomas Middleton that it simply is unnecessary.) So note, simply three subjects of any type, perfectly harmonious with Oneness or Trinitarian doctrines (even to Arian and other doctrines, the rule would have no significance on Matthew 28:19).

In Matthew 28:19 we have three titles that are used for representations of God's revelation, which all point to the one name of Jesus (we dunno if Layman agrees with this simple truth). And the usage fits perfectly with the Oneness view, especially in view of the fact that the three subjects are called by the name of Jesus Christ (as is seen in the harmony of Matthew 28:19 and the book of Acts and the Epistles and Revelation). The fulfillment of the command in Matthew 28:19 is to baptize into the one name by which we associate the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Bishop Thomas Fanshaw Middleton wrote an interesting book, that is even today a resource of note on the Greek article usage :
The Doctrine of the Greek Article Applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament (1833)

Middleton points out that the article in Matthew 28:19 is absolutely necessary before Holy Spirit (something which you can see in English as well :) ) as he explains:

".. for there being but one Holy Spirit, he could not be spoken of indefinitely. In Matt, also xxviii. 19. where the Holy Spirit is associated with the Father and the Son, the reading is той áyíov Trvfú/иатос." (p. 126)

This is very simple, and can be seen in English as well as Greek, by noting the absurd awkwardness of the only alternative construction. (With or without the definite article before 'Father').

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore,
and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of (the) Father,
and of Son,
and of Holy Ghost:

How many Son ? How many Holy Ghost ? Middlleton points out that the Greek grammar demands the definite article. As does the English. (Even independent of any discussion of qualities, subjects, persons, etc.) Thus, while he discusses the Granville Sharp views 10 distinct times in the book, not once is it in reference to Matthew 28:19. And for modernist Trinitarians today to pretend that it offers doctrinal support for their view of three (coequal, coeternal, consubstantial) distinct persons in Matthew 28:19 is simply a type of blindness or ignorance.

This type of false knowledge is not uncommon today. However by God's wonderful grace, the ploughman as well as the learned seminarian can read God's word ! (Thank you Lord Jesus for your precious scriptures.)

You should always be cautious about both layman and trained experts who tell you of the necessity of "going to the Greek" for some special revelation. Hold on to your spiritual hats and wallets when you hear that refrain.

Now, I would challenge Layman to even quote Granville Sharp on Matthew 28:19. On top of that, I would challenge him to take his unusual theory that Matthew 28:19 mandates "persons" to the b-greek (Biblical Greek) forum and report to us what he finds. While no forum is perfect, you can often learn about unraveling popular shenanigans and gamesmanship and smokescreens by such a study request. And the b-greek forum has a good reputation for looking at the Greek without bias, by folks who at least have a level of competency in the language.

(And when you have time, you might want to study the incredible skills and competency of the 50 translators who worked for years to give us God's pure word into English, the King James Bible. Before the pressures and diversions of computer lexicons and publish or perish, you had men who essentially lived and breathed the Biblical languages.)

Returning to Matthew 28:19, the three subjects - Father, Son, Holy Spirit, are referred to by the one name, Jesus. We see here the essence of the Oneness doctrine about the full majesty of the name of Jesus, and the application of the name, by God's grace, for the remission of sins in water baptism in the name of Jesus. The spiritually connected revelations are at the center of the Oneness understanding.

Now I do agree with Layman 100% on his defense of Matthew 28:19 as fully God's pure scripture. Please feel free to read the earlier thread on that matter, where I posted in some depth. On this I appreciate Layman's stance and thank him for standing up for God's holy word !

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY

mizpeh

04-03-2008, 01:42 AM

I would love to quote many things that you said in your post # 38 but i don't know how to do that just yet, im not sure how you all split the quotes and then comment. Sorry, im new to this forum :)

Even though Eusebius was born after the other so-called church Fathers and after the Didache was written, he was know as a man who only relied on the original truth of the word of God

"Eusebius, the greatest Greek teacher of the Church and most learned theologian of his time. .. worked untiringly for the acceptance of the pure Word of the New Testament as it came from the Apostles. .. Eusebius. .. relies throughout only upon ancient manuscripts, and always openly confesses the truth when he cannot find sufficient testimony." (E.K. in the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Aug, 1923 from Mosheim, in an editorial footnote.)

Eusebius, to whose zeal we owe most of what is known of the history of the New Testament. (Peake Bible Commentary, page 596)

He was a man searching truth and not trying to forage falseness in the word. This man was known as the "The Father of Church history" and worked in a library that was started probably by Origen. Eusebius was under Pamphilius until he passed away.

Some hundred works, several of them very lengthy, are either directly cited or referred to as having been read by Eusebius. In many instances he would read an entire treatise for the sake of one or two historical notices, and must have searched many others without finding anything to serve his purpose. Under the head the most vital question is the sincerity of Eusebius. Did he tamper with the materials or not? The sarcasm of Gibbon (Decline and Fall, c. xvi) is well known. .. The passages to which Gibbon refers do not bear out his imputation. .. Eusebius contents himself with condemning these sins. .. in general terms, without entering into details. .. but it leaves no imputation on his honesty. (Mosheim, again in an editorial note.)

It is evident that this was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors. Of any other form of text he had never heard and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice. Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age, and entitled, the one 'Against Marcellus of Ancyra,' and the other 'About the Theology of the Church,' he used the common reading. One other writing of his also contains it, namely a letter written after the Council of Nice was over, to his seer of Caesurae. (Conybeare proceeded, in Hibbert Journal, 1902)

It is clear therefore, that of the manuscripts which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesurae in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of baptism or of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It has been conjectured by Dr. David-son, Dr. Martineau, by the Dean of Westminster, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names of the many) that here the received text could not contain the very words of Jesus - this long before anyone except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading. (Textual Criticism of the New Testament Conybeare)Hello God'sChild,

I haven't read many of the church fathers but I did read Eusebius' Church History last fall. The translator of the work pointed out the errors Eusebius made in writing the work in footnotes, which were much more than a handful. Eusebius also quoted from sources of tradition and not soley from primary sources. If he wanted to stick closely to the truth, IMO, he should have avoided tradition...stories passed down through the grapevine. Eusebius was suspect during his time for "avoiding" the persecution and accused of getting out of jail (I can't remember what ancient saint was his accuser) in an underhanded way. Anyways from what I've read, Eusebius may not have been a paragon of virtue and like the rest of us, he was biased.

Praxeus

04-03-2008, 06:59 AM

Hi Folks,

Greeings Mizpeh. After sharing a bit on Eusebius, I would like to again review the incredible Matthew 28:19 textual evidence.

Eusebius Pamphilus (Eusebius of Caesarea) had many strengths and many weaknesses. (If I remember, his Life of Constantine was a bit fawning and was the source for questionable accounts. Ironically, I also recall that Eusebius was attacked for not being orthodox Trinitarian.)

However, overall, his major book on Ecclesiastical History is a bit of a masterpiece. Credit where credit is due :). I would recommend it in your library, there is a nice, fairly inexpensive edition out. Eusebius is falsely accused by skeptics of a major fabrication of church history, Roger Pearse of www.tertullian.org (http://www.tertullian.org) has done the best job of disassembling those types of attacks, that you will find on the skeptic/infidel boards, where they often "bump" off vigorous Christian apologetics. Roger writes in a very pleasant manner and counters their false attacks.

Eusebius is also of some assistance in textual studies, although secondary in importance compared to earlier men like Cyprian and Tertullian and many other sources.

As I showed on the other thread, the textual evidence for Matthew 28:19 as in our New Testament can be considered as perhaps the single strongest evidentiary verse anywhere.

Not only does it have full attestation in virtually every single mss in all the Greek and Latin lines, it is also in the Syriac and lesser lines. This is literally thousands of MSS, and the translations into Old Latin and Syriac were done very early (likely 2nd century) as were the development of the Greek variance lines. Jerome translated the Vulgate using the fountainhead of early Greek MSS as well. Thousands of MSS agree on this foundational verse :

Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+28%3A19)
Go ye therefore,
and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost:

And more than negating the mixed and easily understandable usages from Eusebius (much like our mixed phraseology today when we talk of baptizing in the name of the Lord) are the huge number of citations from writers much earlier than Eusebius.

For this thread I will copy one section from the last thread, to which there has not been a response from the those behind the strange and weird attack on God's word in Matthew 28:19.

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=326769&postcount=78
Matt 28:19 changed ??

================================================== =
EARLIER POST (UNANSWERED)

Many early writer citations were placed in a couple of posts here.
http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=285805&postcount=44 (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=285805&postcount=44)
Disassembling an attack on scripture and oneness !

Which leads to:
http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=218942&postcount=77
An index and quotes of :

JUSTIN MARTYR (c. 150 AD)
IGNATIUS
IRENAEUS [a.d. 120-202.],
DIATESSORAN - TATIAN [c.175]
DIDACHE (c. 2nd century)
APOSTOLIC TEACHINGS - (Late 2d to early 3d century)
Ecclesiastical Canons of the Same Holy Apostles - Apostolic Canons

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=218957&postcount=79
TERTULLIAN (c.200 AD)
HIPPOLYTUS [170-236 AD]
CYPRIAN (c. 230 AD)\
ORIGEN (c.230 AD)
GREGORY THAUMATURGUS (c. 250 AD)
TREATISE AGAINST NOVATIAN by an ANONYMOUS BISHOP (c.255)
TREATISE ON REBAPTISM (c. 250)
VICTORINUS (c. 300 AD)

COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE (3rd century)
Lucius of Castra Galbae '
Munnulus of Girba
Euchratius of Thenae
Bishop Vincentius of Thibaris

========================================

The evidence can be called overwhelming, which is why there has been no significant response whatsoever. And this is on top of the virtually 100% manuscript evidence. If a person, knowing the evidence, fights Matthew 28:19, they will be able to fight any verses in the Bible they please to fit their personal pet theories (as in fact the skeptics and liberals do in attacking verses, sections and books). Essentially they have become an unbeliever about the preservation of God's word.

===========

Thank you Lord Jesus for your pure and perfect word.

Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY

mizpeh

04-03-2008, 09:10 AM

Hello Praxeus,

I may have made it sound like Eusebius' Church History was not worth reading. I didn't mean to come across like that. His work is definitely worth the read and even a reread. The viciousness of those who martyred the saints of God was appalling. His documentation of different heresies, his accounts of the prominent churches, and other stories esp how one Roman Bishop was chosen made for interesting reading. The disagreements the churches argued about during his time ie: the dating of Easter are not unlike the bickering that has gone on for hundreds of years to our time. All and all it's a good book to read, but not to be read with the belief that Eusebius is the glowing figure of paragon that God'schild portrays with his quotes from various sources.

BTW, Matt 28:19 is one of my favorite verses to show that the name of the Father is Jesus, the name of the Son is Jesus, and the name of the Holy Spirit is Jesus.

Gods Child

04-03-2008, 11:43 AM

Hello God'sChild,

I haven't read many of the church fathers but I did read Eusebius' Church History last fall. The translator of the work pointed out the errors Eusebius made in writing the work in footnotes, which were much more than a handful. Eusebius also quoted from sources of tradition and not soley from primary sources. If he wanted to stick closely to the truth, IMO, he should have avoided tradition...stories passed down through the grapevine. Eusebius was suspect during his time for "avoiding" the persecution and accused of getting out of jail (I can't remember what ancient saint was his accuser) in an underhanded way. Anyways from what I've read, Eusebius may not have been a paragon of virtue and like the rest of us, he was biased.

Maybe i should study up more on him. Oops

Gods Child

04-03-2008, 11:57 AM

Gods Child

04-03-2008, 12:02 PM

Hi Folks,

Greeings Mizpeh. After sharing a bit on Eusebius, I would like to again review the incredible Matthew 28:19 textual evidence.

Eusebius Pamphilus (Eusebius of Caesarea) had many strengths and many weaknesses. (If I remember, his Life of Constantine was a bit fawning and was the source for questionable accounts. Ironically, I also recall that Eusebius was attacked for not being orthodox Trinitarian.)

However, overall, his major book on Ecclesiastical History is a bit of a masterpiece. Credit where credit is due :). I would recommend it in your library, there is a nice, fairly inexpensive edition out. Eusebius is falsely accused by skeptics of a major fabrication of church history, Roger Pearse of www.tertullian.org (http://www.tertullian.org) has done the best job of disassembling those types of attacks, that you will find on the skeptic/infidel boards, where they often "bump" off vigorous Christian apologetics. Roger writes in a very pleasant manner and counters their false attacks.

Eusebius is also of some assistance in textual studies, although secondary in importance compared to earlier men like Cyprian and Tertullian and many other sources.

As I showed on the other thread, the textual evidence for Matthew 28:19 as in our New Testament can be considered as perhaps the single strongest evidentiary verse anywhere.

Not only does it have full attestation in virtually every single mss in all the Greek and Latin lines, it is also in the Syriac and lesser lines. This is literally thousands of MSS, and the translations into Old Latin and Syriac were done very early (likely 2nd century) as were the development of the Greek variance lines. Jerome translated the Vulgate using the fountainhead of early Greek MSS as well. Thousands of MSS agree on this foundational verse :

Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+28%3A19)
Go ye therefore,
and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost:

And more than negating the mixed and easily understandable usages from Eusebius (much like our mixed phraseology today when we talk of baptizing in the name of the Lord) are the huge number of citations from writers much earlier than Eusebius.

For this thread I will copy one section from the last thread, to which there has not been a response from the those behind the strange and weird attack on God's word in Matthew 28:19.

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=326769&postcount=78
Matt 28:19 changed ??

================================================== =
EARLIER POST (UNANSWERED)

Many early writer citations were placed in a couple of posts here.
http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=285805&postcount=44
Disassembling an attack on scripture and oneness !

Which leads to:
http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=218942&postcount=77
An index and quotes of :

JUSTIN MARTYR (c. 150 AD)
IGNATIUS
IRENAEUS [a.d. 120-202.],
DIATESSORAN - TATIAN [c.175]
DIDACHE (c. 2nd century)
APOSTOLIC TEACHINGS - (Late 2d to early 3d century)
Ecclesiastical Canons of the Same Holy Apostles - Apostolic Canons

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=218957&postcount=79
TERTULLIAN (c.200 AD)
HIPPOLYTUS [170-236 AD]
CYPRIAN (c. 230 AD)\
ORIGEN (c.230 AD)
GREGORY THAUMATURGUS (c. 250 AD)
TREATISE AGAINST NOVATIAN by an ANONYMOUS BISHOP (c.255)
TREATISE ON REBAPTISM (c. 250)
VICTORINUS (c. 300 AD)

COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE (3rd century)
Lucius of Castra Galbae '
Munnulus of Girba
Euchratius of Thenae
Bishop Vincentius of Thibaris

========================================

The evidence can be called overwhelming, which is why there has been no significant response whatsoever. And this is on top of the virtually 100% manuscript evidence. If a person, knowing the evidence, fights Matthew 28:19, they will be able to fight any verses in the Bible they please to fit their personal pet theories (as in fact the skeptics and liberals do in attacking verses, sections and books). Essentially they have become an unbeliever about the preservation of God's word.

===========

Thank you Lord Jesus for your pure and perfect word.

Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY

The tone of all of your writings always smile at me, they are so calm and loving. It really does seem like your smiling when you write. Keep up the wonderful work in God and continue to bring forth the good fruits of the Spirit.

mizpeh

04-03-2008, 12:15 PM

Maybe i should study up more on him. Oops
No problem. Keep studying. Don't give up.

I quit really studying deeply the word of God when I became frustrated as a young Christian (about 4 years old in the Lord) because I couldn't understand the scriptures all at once. I've outgrown that stage by the grace of God and have learned to be more patient with myself.

The Bible takes time and study and more time and study and meditation and more meditation on the word and lots and lots of prayer to get a hold of. It's truly 'here a little and there a little, line upon line and precept upon precept'. Isa 28:10, Heb 5:12-13. Each nugget of truth that God reveals to you is precious. So be patient with yourself and trust that the Lord will give you understanding in all things. 2 Tim 2:7 If you don't understand something, put it to the side, and keep studying, eventually God will put the puzzle pieces in place for you. :)

TheLayman

04-04-2008, 05:47 PM

Hi Folks,
You again. You’re the same guy who misrepresented me in another thread when you said:
Thus I look at your attempt to try to imply that we are supposed to claim Tertullian as Oneness as a bit cute, even, daresay, sly.
When in fact what I had said was:
The bigger point is that Tertullian was not speaking like OP's. Indeed, if OP's spoke as Tertullian the only people who would be arguing much would probably be either philosophers or people who just like to argue (not that I'm going to mention any names)
That unbelievable misrepresentation led me to respond as follows:
So perhaps you could read slowly, even, daresay, for comprehension this time? Perhaps that would help steer you away from the ad homs of “cute,” and “sly.” Ya think? And if you had read the thread (especially if you were going to respond to posts not directed at you), you would have noticed that Inspired Eyes in post #2 said that Jesus preexisted His birth as the Word.
You know what is really strange? (and I mean that literally not sarcastically). You are going to demonstrate the exact same pattern of behavior in this thread. Let’s move on shall we?
Greetings.
One of the foundational verses of the Oneness perspective.s
Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore,
and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost:
My personal view is that the English here is what is important, that the King James Bible is giving us the word of God in clear expression. Nonetheless, since the Greek has been misrepresented we shall, for a bit, "go to the Greek".
As far as the KJV Bible vs. the Greek, I will forgo any argument and simply point out that I did not begin this thread, the Granville Sharp’s rule, or Matthew 28:19. That was already ongoing when I entered this thread.
You also assert the “Greek” has been misrepresented?” Well it’s so good of you to come and stick up for the “Greek.” I did talk about some specific “Greek” in my post which I will get to later and we will see if there is any “misrepresentation.”

And on Matthew 28:19 what it comes down to is that the Greek is simply like the English (more on this below) and mandates the definite article for each subject for proper understanding and flow, for the numerical precision of each subject being one subject.
Maybe you just don’t express yourself well. There is nothing in English or Greek that demands the words father, son, or holy spirit be preceded by a definite article. In fact, I just proved that with a perfectly grammatical sentence using them with no article at all. And they can take an indefinite article also such as “We aren’t just talking about a father, or a son, or a holy spirit.”

Now, the fact that each does have a definite article means that each is singular, and each refers to a specific one. In Matthew 28:19 it refers to “THE Father” (not just any father), “THE Son” (not just any Son), and THE Holy Spirit (not just any spirit whether one considers it holy or not). So, I think you have things a little reversed. None of these words demand (or mandate as you put it) the definite article, however, the definite article makes clear the meaning.
While the "Granville Sharp rule" (an area of great discussion and debate here and there) really is not a relevant discussion, and historically was not attempted to be used to make a point in Matthew 28:19. However if it is to be discussed it should not be falsely presented.
If anyone can show that Granville Sharp actually discussed Matthew 28:19, or felt that Matthew 28:19 had some special application to Granville Sharp, please come up with his quote for discussion and analysis.
As I previously said, Sharp’s rule and Matt. 28:19 and were the topic long before I got here. I would also point out that while I did speak about a specific passage of Scripture, the Greek in that passage, and Sharp’s rule as it related to the passage, that was not Matt. 28:19. In fact, my entire discourse in this thread regarding Matt. 28:19 and Sharp’s rule is one sentence I wrote in response to a post directed at me. And here is that sentence, my entire dissertation on Sharp’s and Matt. 28:19:

“Unlike Batholomew on page 1 of this thread, you are at least correct that Granville/Sharp's rule does most certainly indicate 3 persons in Matt. 28:19.”

You sure get a lot of accusations out of one sentence there Stevey. Anyway, let’s continue, shall we?With regard to Granville Sharp discussing the passage, it’s irrelevant. I believe the Granville Sharp’s rule is a grammar rule, meaning Sharp never had to discuss it. Let’s just take English why don’t we. And let’s say subject and verb must agree in number, for example:

The list of items is/are on the desk.

The subject is “list,” not “items,” so the correct verb to use would be “is,” not “are.” Now, I don’t need to go through every sentence that has ever been written in a book for this rule to be a rule. It has to do with the construction of the sentence.

Well, the Granville Sharp’s rule deals with specific grammatical constructions also. In fact, it would present the TSKTS construction according to Sharp’s rule. But more on that later.
The first point to consider is simple, Layman's offered a patently false claim in indicating that Sharp's view or rule must reference "persons". Granville Sharp never said that the rule designated that the multiple subjects are persons .. he indicated that they the subjects would be distinct qualities, things or persons. (We won't get into all the ins and outs of exceptions and such, since that is wide enough for many understandings, and we shall see from Thomas Middleton that it simply is unnecessary.)
I think that we must point out your patently false claim that I said Sharp’s rule “must reference persons.” I never quoted Sharp’s rule with regard to Matt. 28:19. But you say “let’s not get into all the in’s and outs of exceptions…” Oh but please, let’s do scratch the surface, shall we? I quoted rule #1 in reference to another passage of Scripture which has a different construction than Matt. 28:19. But the rule was quoted which is:

“Rule I.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 connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] 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: i.e. it denotes farther description of the first-named person, as -”

Please note “of personal description” here in rule #1. You see, there are things that are of a non personal nature. For example, rule # 4 deals specifically with things of an non personal nature:

“Rule IV.Yet it is otherwise when the nouns are not of personal description or application; for then they denote distinct things or qualities: as -”

Those are things like grace, mercy, and peace. But words like: savior, slave, and apostle are words of a “personal description”, in fact, they are descriptions of persons. Words like father and son are also words that in fact describe persons. As to whether or not the Holy Spirit is to be considered an impersonal force or a personal subject I believe is clear in Scripture but I will not debate it here. It is enough to note that as we go forward the Holy Spirit can not be the Father or the Son in this passage. The rule dealing directly with the construction follows after the next quote from your post.

CONTINUED NEXT POST

TheLayman

04-04-2008, 05:56 PM

So note, simply three subjects of any type, perfectly harmonious with Oneness or Trinitarian doctrines (even to Arian and other doctrines, the rule would have no significance on Matthew 28:19). In Matthew 28:19 we have three titles that are used for representations of God's revelation, which all point to the one name of Jesus (we dunno if Layman agrees with this simple truth).

Well, I can’t speak for the Arians, but if you were to assert that the three “subjects” were a bottle, a jar, and a pot I can assure you that it wouldn’t be perfectly harmonious with Trinitarian doctrine (but even at that I can tell you that a bottle would not be a jar, and a jar would not be a pot, and a pot would not be a bottle). In other words, the latter substantives would not be a further description of the former. But the three subjects are in fact personal (as I said, Father and Son are quite explicitly terms referring to persons). Sharp’s rule #6 states:

“Rule VI.
And as the insertion of the copulative kai between nouns of the same case, without articles, (according to the fifth rule,) denotes that the second noun expresses a different person, thing, or quality, from the preceding noun, so, likewise, the same effect attends the copulative when each of the nouns are preceded by articles, as in the following examples - "

The words Father and Son are personal and not a thing or quality. You may call the Holy Spirit an “impersonal thing” if you like, as I said, I would argue that the Holy Spirit has been shown to be personal elsewhere. With that in mind the construction of: “of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” is:

definite article/substantive/copulative/definite article/substantive/copulative/definite article/substantive.

Or simply, the construction is TSKTS according to Sharp’s rule. With the fact that the substantives are explicitly personal and the construction is TSKTS, I previously said: “that Granville/Sharp's rule does most certainly indicate 3 persons in Matt. 28:19.” And I would repeat that do to the “personal” nature of the substantives and the TSKTS construction that the Granville Sharp’s rule would indicate 3 different persons as opposed to none being personal (i.e. thing or quality).
And the usage fits perfectly with the Oneness view, especially in view of the fact that the three subjects are called by the name of Jesus Christ (as is seen in the harmony of Matthew 28:19 and the book of Acts and the Epistles and Revelation). The fulfillment of the command in Matthew 28:19 is to baptize into the one name by which we associate the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
1. The Father and the Holy Spirit are nowhere in Scripture called Jesus Christ, though Scripture explicitly states that Jesus Christ is the name of the Son of the Father.

2. More importantly to the present discussion, no one is called Jesus Christ in Matthew 28:19.

3. As may have guessed from #1 I don’t agree that the name of the Father and Holy Spirit is “Jesus Christ.” Notwithstanding, if it said “The Father, the Son, and the Grandson,” and it was a given that they all had the name Jones it would change nothing relative to the rule being discussed, that being that The Father is not The Son, The Son is not the Grandson, and The Grandson is not The Father. In other words, I can find nothing compatible with modalism in the passage which is what you appear to be arguing.

4. I’m not going to follow the funny trail to an argument on Baptism since that is miles from where this started and since that topic is off limits.
Bishop Thomas Fanshaw Middleton wrote an interesting book, that is even today a resource of note on the Greek article usage :
The Doctrine of the Greek Article Applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament (1833)
Middleton points out that the article in Matthew 28:19 is absolutely necessary before Holy Spirit (something which you can see in English as well ) as he explains:
".. for there being but one Holy Spirit, he could not be spoken of indefinitely. In Matt, also xxviii. 19. where the Holy Spirit is associated with the Father and the Son, the reading is той áyíov Trvfú/иатос." (p. 126)
1. I just love the old “ellipsis...” ploy.

2. Unless I’m looking at a different copy of the book the fragment you quoted out of context is on page #165, not #126.

3. You are asserting that somehow Middleton is saying that Grandville Sharp’s rule does not apply to Matt. 28:19

4. You are asserting that Middleton is saying that grammar demands the word “holy spirit” be accompanied by the definite article.

So you believe your quote of Trinitarian who actually wrote defending the Granville Sharp rule is stating that the Granville Sharp rule does not apply to Matt. 28:19. Let’s take a look at a bit more of what Middleton said with just a little more context, shall we? Below:

IV. But the word тгсей/иа is used in a sense not differing from the former,
except that it is here
employed кат ¿fax*}* to denote the Great and Preeminent
Spirit, the Third Person in the Trinity :
and in this acceptation, it is worthy of remark, that
TTvevna or -¡гневна áyiov is never anarthrous; except,
indeed, in cases, where other terms, confessedly the
most definite, lose the Article, from some cause
alleged in the Preliminary Inquiry. It will be shewn
in the following pages, as the passages occur, that
such is the practice of the Sacred Writers.—The
addition of то áytov serves only to ascertain to what
class of Spirits, whether good or evil, this pre-eminent
Spirit is affirmed to belong.—It may here be briefly
noticed, that in the passages, which, from their ascribing
personal acts to the wevna ¿ytov, are usually
adduced to prove the Personality of the Blessed
Spirit, the words тп/еица and ayiov invariably have
the Article. See particularly Mark i. 10. Luke iii. 22.
John i. 32. Acts i. 16. and xx. 28. Ephes. iv. 30.
Mark xiii. 11. Acts x. 19- and xxviii. 25. 1 Tim. iv. 1.
Heb. iii. 7. &c.—The reason of this is obvious ; for
there being but one Holy Spirit, he could not be
spoken of indefinitely. In Matt, also xxviii. 19.
where the Holy Spirit is associated with the Father
and the Son, the reading is той àylov Trvev/maTos,
V. The fifth sense of тпхлцш is easily deducible
from the fourth; being here not the Person of the
Holy Spirit, but his influence or operation : the addition
of a-yioi/ is explicable as before. And in this
meaning a remarkable difference may be observed •
with respect to the Article. Though the Holy Spirit
himself be but one, his influences and operations may
be many t hence weu/ma and тт^еС/ча ¿
(Page 164-166)

1. Nowhere is the Granville Sharp’s rule mentioned.

2. There is nothing stated that would in any way cause someone to modify there view of the TSKTS construction of Matt. 28:19.

3. The words “holy spirit” do not demand the article. The article is demanded if:
A. There is only one “Holy Spirit.”
B. Middleton states that there is only one Holy Spirit (please note I just used HS without the article), the Third Person of the Trinity.

4. In speaking of the “fifth sense” you can find two examples of “Holy Spirit” without the article in Acts 8:15 & :19, which is what he was speaking of (i.e. in the “fifth sense“).

5. I don’t disagree with Middleton, and he does not disagree with me. Nor does Middleton disagree with Sharp and there is nothing that he said that disagrees with Sharp’s rule as viewed in Matt. 28:19, indeed, Middleton’s analysis confirms it in that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit would all be persons.

6. Just so we are clear, Middleton says that “the” Holy Spirit, being one of a kind and person demands the definite article. I agree. When looking at Matt. 28:19, that assertion is also completely consistent with Sharp’s rule and the TSKTS construction. So Middleton says nothing about Sharp’s not applying to Matt. 28:19 and in fact what he said further confirms what is seen in TSKTS construction in 28:19.

CONTINUED NEXT POST

TheLayman

04-04-2008, 06:00 PM

This is very simple, and can be seen in English as well as Greek, by noting the absurd awkwardness of the only alternative construction. (With or without the definite article before 'Father').
Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore,
and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of (the) Father,
and of Son,
and of Holy Ghost:
Extreme awkwardness in Greek? And are you attempting to assert that the construction found in 28:19 is the only one grammar allows!? I hardly think so. Here’s a couple more:

Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Or

in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

There’s two that are real easy. Now, the actual passage does agree with Trinitarian doctrine as it indicates three persons.
How many Son ? How many Holy Ghost ? Middlleton points out that the Greek grammar demands the definite article. As does the English. (Even independent of any discussion of qualities, subjects, persons, etc.)
There is one Father, and one Son, and one Holy Spirit when speaking of the persons of God (also, please note in this sentence the lack of articles with F, S, and HS). In the world of man there are many fathers and sons and spirits. Middleton was pointing out the persons of the Trinity, who are you trying to kid? And I’m in agreement. And “THE Father” is one unique Father and person. And “THE Son” is one unique Son and person. And “THE Holy Spirit” is one unique Holy Spirit and person. And the grammar used demands this, so you have it backwards.
Thus, while he discusses the Granville Sharp views 10 distinct times in the book, not once is it in reference to Matthew 28:19. And for modernist Trinitarians today to pretend that it offers doctrinal support for their view of three (coequal, coeternal, consubstantial) distinct persons in Matthew 28:19 is simply a type of blindness or ignorance.
1. The grammatical construction of TSKTS is either in 28:19 or it is not. It is, simple as that, and Sharp’s rule was about specific grammatical constructions, not about specific passages.

2. Again YOU misrepresent me. I never said anything about one single sentence anywhere in Scripture teaching three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial persons. And in the one sentence I said regarding 28:19 I said (in case you forgot):

Granville/Sharp's rule does most certainly indicate 3 persons in Matt. 28:19

Nothing about the DOT there. However, the passage is most definitely consistent with the DOT.

CONTINUED NEXT POST

TheLayman

04-04-2008, 06:04 PM

This type of false knowledge is not uncommon today. However by God's wonderful grace, the ploughman as well as the learned seminarian can read God's word ! (Thank you Lord Jesus for your precious scriptures.) You should always be cautious about both layman and trained experts who tell you of the necessity of "going to the Greek" for some special revelation. Hold on to your spiritual hats and wallets when you hear that refrain.
Now you’re tossing around more ad homs (false knowledge) and outright lying, i.e. I never told anyone to go the Greek for special revelation. In fact, here’s what I did (and now we can examine your claim that I misrepresented the “Greek”). An OP wrote a post which said:
Colossians 3:17 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Colossians+3%3A17)...says...And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

If we follow Sharpe's Grammer rule here the Apostle is saying that there is God, and then there is the Father, and they are seperate. So, wht does that make? A Quadrinity?

Another OP responded saying:
LOL, i was thinking the same thing
Now I had seen this thread some time ago and noticed the passages people had posted which they apparently thought were in, shall we say, conflict, with Sharp’s rule. But I did not enter the thread because in my view, it would be pointless. Nobody really cared about what was being discussed. However, when I saw the above I thought I’d be nice before someone took that line of reasoning somewhere else and responded:
You know, those "LOL" remarks can make you look silly especially when you use them when you don't understand what you're talking about. The first thing you all might want to keep in mind is that the rule involves Greek grammar.

Col. 3:17 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Col.+3%3A17), let's take a look. Here is the Nestle Greek text:

kai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) pan (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3956) o (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3739) ti (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5100) ean (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1437) poihte (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4160) (5725 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5725)) en (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722) logw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3056) h (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2228) en (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722) ergw, (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2041) panta (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3956) en (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722) onomati (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3686) kuriou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962) Ihsou, (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2424) euxaristountev (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2168)(5723 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5723))tw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) qew (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2316) patri (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3962) di' (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1223) autou. (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=846)

We read tw [the] qew [God] patri [Father]. In this text there isn't a definite article separating God and Father, in fact it would read "the God Father." God and Father are not two persons by the rule but indeed, the same person.

Perhaps the Textus Receptus? Let's look:

kai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532)pan (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3956)o (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3739)ti (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5100)an (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=302)poihte (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4160)en (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722)logw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3056)h (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2228)en (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722)ergw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2041)panta (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3956)en (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1722)onomati (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3686)kuriou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962)Ihsou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2424)euxaristountev (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2168)tw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588)yew (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2316)kai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532)patri (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3962)di (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1223)autou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=846)
So in this one we read tw [the] yew [God] kai [and] patri [Father]. So it reads, "the God and Father," which is a definite article/noun/copulative/noun. Granville/Sharp:

Rule I.
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 connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] 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: i.e. it denotes farther description of the first-named person.

In other Words, God and Father still refer to the same person. So pick your "Greek Text," the God and Father refer to the same person.

TheLayman
You see, people were applying the rule to the English rather than the Greek, and the Granville Sharp’s rule(s) apply to Greek. Now, if anyone read what I posted and explained, they learned something. So with regard to going to the Greek, in this instance since a Greek Grammar rule was being discussed it certainly seemed prudent to go to the Greek in the explanation (that would seem to be obvious).

CONTINUED NEXT POST

TheLayman

04-04-2008, 06:08 PM

And speaking of that false knowledge thing, I suppose I could have entered the thread sooner on page #1 when an OP quoted Oneness Apologist David Bernard:
Also David Bernard in his books uses Granville Sharps rule to prove the oneness of God:
From the "Message of Romans":
"When we compare Romans 1:7 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Romans+1%3A7) with similar phrases
elsewhere in Paul’s epistles, we find a strong indication
that Paul meant to identify God the Father and the Lord
Jesus Christ as the same being. For example, II Thessalonians
1:12, I Timothy 5:21 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Timothy+5%3A21), II Timothy 4:1 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=2+Timothy+4%3A1), and Titus 2:13 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Titus+2%3A13)
all identify God and Jesus Christ as one and the same being.
This is especially clear because Granville Sharp’s rule
applies to the Greek text of these verses: If two nouns of
the same number, gender, and case are connected by kai
and if the first noun has the definite article but the second
does not, then both nouns refer to the same thing."

Sharps rule has stood the times as a valid instrument in interpreting and translating the inspired Greek text.
Let’s just take a look at the first one on Bernard’s list there, Ro. 1:17

To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called [to be] saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now see, if Bernard had referred to the Greek and read the rule he would have seen this:

eirhnh (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1515)apo (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=575)qeou (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2316)patrov (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3962)hmwn (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2257)kai (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532)kuriou (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962)Ihsou (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2424)Xristou. (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5547)

Which straight across in English is:

Peace from God Father of us and Lord Jesus Christ

And the rule:

Rule V.And as also when there is no article before the first noun, the insertion of the copulative kai before the next noun, or name, of the same case, denotes a different person or thing from the first: as in the following examples -
That would be an SKS construction which means “God our Father” and “Lord Jesus Christ” are separated by “kia” and there are no definite articles, meaning in short, they refer to different persons. And this is a good example of what I mean when I say other than trying to keep someone from error, the thread to me would be pointless. If Bernard was correct, people would love the Granville Sharp’s rule. If Bernard was shown to be wrong, people would attack the rule, or not care. The bigger point, I have not misrepresented anything, including the “Greek.”

Speaking of rules and misrepresenting, which one of Sharp’s rules did you quote in your post? You know, I almost forgot. During the course of attempting to demonstrate your expertise on the matter, you never even directly addressed or quoted any part of Sharp’s with the exception of these four words: “qualities, things or persons.” And even in regard to those words you apparently think you get to pick which one you like the most, and whether or not something is a quality, thing, or person isn’t inherent in the word itself. Amazing.

Incidentally, if anyone wants to look at the Granville Sharp’s rule(s) you can find them here:

http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/resources/sharp.html (http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/resources/sharp.html)

CONTINUED NEXT POST

TheLayman

04-04-2008, 06:10 PM

Now, I would challenge Layman to even quote Granville Sharp on Matthew 28:19. On top of that, I would challenge him to take his unusual theory that Matthew 28:19 mandates "persons" to the b-greek (Biblical Greek) forum and report to us what he finds. While no forum is perfect, you can often learn about unraveling popular shenanigans and gamesmanship and smokescreens by such a study request. And the b-greek forum has a good reputation for looking at the Greek without bias, by folks who at least have a level of competency in the language.
Challenge me to quote Granville Sharp on Matt. 28:19. That’s easy, I’ve already done it once but I’ll do it again in case you missed (the reading thing you have):

Rule VI.And as the insertion of the copulative kai between nouns of the same case, without articles, (according to the fifth rule,) denotes that the second noun expresses a different person, thing, or quality, from the preceding noun, so, likewise, the same effect attends the copulative when each of the nouns are preceded by articles, as in the following examples -

You see, rule VI speaks of a specific grammatical construction, TSKTS (again, that‘s why it would be called a grammar rule). That construction is found in Matthew 28:19. So I challenge you to show that this construction does not present itself in Matthew 28:19 or that Granville Sharp ever said this rule did not apply to this passage. Good luck.

You challenge me to take my “unusual theory” and go to another forum and report back? It would seem the irrelevancy of your writing is exceeded only by the impudence shown in your challenges. As far as my unusual theory (I assume you are calling the one sentence from my previous post a theory) I don‘t think it‘s very unusual. Here is one article on it:

http://www.pfrs.org/oneness/op02.html (http://www.pfrs.org/oneness/op02.html)

I thought you had knowledge of this anyway and were going to save others from, what was it you said, “shenanigans and gamesmanship and smokescreens.” Funny thing, that’s a pretty good description of my view of your post.
(And when you have time, you might want to study the incredible skills and competency of the 50 translators who worked for years to give us God's pure word into English, the King James Bible. Before the pressures and diversions of computer lexicons and publish or perish, you had men who essentially lived and breathed the Biblical languages.)
Returning to Matthew 28:19, the three subjects - Father, Son, Holy Spirit, are referred to by the one name, Jesus. We see here the essence of the Oneness doctrine about the full majesty of the name of Jesus, and the application of the name, by God's grace, for the remission of sins in water baptism in the name of Jesus. The spiritually connected revelations are at the center of the Oneness understanding.
Three subjects? Are you sure? How do you know it’s three and not one? In fact, I thought this was at the heart of “Oneness,” that there aren’t three subjects. But grammatically, how did you determine there are three? And what do you mean by “subjects.” They certainly aren’t the subject of the sentence, or a verb, in fact they are three predicate substantives if the genitive case. Are you saying these words are “impersonal” or “personal?” In fact, all you did was give your dogma. How typical, you didn’t deal with the grammar or words whatsoever yourself, you just make assertions.
Now I do agree with Layman 100% on his defense of Matthew 28:19 as fully God's pure scripture. Please feel free to read the earlier thread on that matter, where I posted in some depth. On this I appreciate Layman's stance and thank him for standing up for God's holy word !
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY

Always a pleasure,
TheLayman

Praxeus

04-04-2008, 08:11 PM

The tone of all of your writings always smile at me, they are so calm and loving. It really does seem like your smiling when you write. Keep up the wonderful work in God and continue to bring forth the good fruits of the Spirit. Hi God's Child,

Thanks for your kind words. I really try to put a little special into the posts on a forum like this. Some folks like yourself notice and appreciate (sincere thanks).

Shalom,
Steven

PS.
Other posters tend to play little games with words and concepts. :)
Those, by God's grace, may have to wait a bit.

btw, Please note carefully how powerful and beautiful a verse is Matthew 28:19, and how wonderfully supported through the church history by manuscripts and early writers.

Praxeus

04-04-2008, 09:26 PM

Hi Folks,

Greetings, Layman.

Before going into a lot of details on your forum posts, I want to point out two of the more strange parts of what you shared. I am concerned that your posts demonstrated a lack of comprehension (and a deliberate incomprehension) of the basic issues I raised above, and that you tried instead reverting back to some debating mode in which you are trying to train .

Time and energy and the grace of God permitting, in a couple of days I will be happy to reply in much greater depth. I actually found your posts a bit on the astonishing side, that you could miss so many issues by so much distance, even belittle the idea of referring your theory to the scholars' forums, and yet try anyway to write in a pseudo-scholarly definitive, assertive manner about that which you have little knowledge and background and less understanding. (I could see that you simply tried hard to not understand what I shared above, which was written with simplicity, albeit far from perfection).

Now, we gladly and fully agree that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are singular in Matthew 28:19 (I emphasized that point, as did Bishop Middleton in using Matthew 28:19 as an example of where the Holy Spirit requires a definite article). You showed a great confusion about the issues involved in writing.

"I just proved that with a perfectly grammatical sentence using them with no article at all. And they can take an indefinite article also such as “We aren’t just talking about a father, or a son, or a holy spirit.” Layman, please .. do you not see that above you have deliberately strained to create an alternate indefinite construction ? (Easy to do, of course.) A theoretical world where there could be many fathers and sons and holy spirits is necessary for your indefinite construction above. Which counterposes perfectly to the definite construction using singular definite articles of Matthew 28:19. The definite article (for the Holy Spirit, and by simple extension for all three subjects) is mandated, per Bishop Middleton and common sense and parlance, by the singularities of the three subjects. Exactly what you de-create above in the stumbling attempt.

What you do with the sentence above, if you stopped to consider, was totally show the correctness of what Bishop Middleton said, which I pointed out was a mandate for the definite article, and was offered irrespective of issues like quality, things, persons, titles and various other views of the subjects and of the grammar.

(Your side-emphasis on Bishop Middleton himself being a Trinitarian is a classic non-sequitur, one that can be utilized for any side of the doctrinal debate. In discussing the actual grammar of Matthew 28:19 Middleton deferred to give only the simple truth of the grammatical need for the definite article based on showing definiteness, singularity, a fact upon which we agree 100%. Except at times when you go into fits of questioning misunderstanding about the Oneness perspective :) . )

Personally I think you do sort of understand all this. And realize that this is why Matthew 28:19 has not, as far as we know, been subject to any historical attempt to make your dogmatic grammatical assertions, until some rather recent Trinitarian apologists offered it up (you found one such recent attempt).

('Christian apologists' are known for at times 'winging it' outside of deep scholarship in argumentation. Trinitarian, Oneness, Calvinist, Arminian, the eschatologies .. there is a tendency to speak a bit out of ones expertise. An example Gregory Boyd, in the midst of seeking to lambast the Oneness perspective he had held, properly and honestly pointed out that the common Trinitarian Hebrew arguments on Elohim and echad (major Trinitiarian arguments in some circles) are both on the questionable side. And yes, there are Oneness folks who seem to trip over this and that, even perhaps David Bernard at times.)

Returning to Granville Sharp, 'God was manifest in the flesh.." the Johannine Comma, the views of the early writers and many other topics .. the study of the history of an argument is often beneficial in reaching a place of understanding of the nuances of the studies and the truths of the matter.

“Granville/Sharp's rule does most certainly indicate 3 persons in Matt. 28:19.” Now I will point out again that this was simply false, that Sharp's rule states no such thing, his rule makes no limitation to "persons" as subjects. Defacto you acknowledge this, while making faint attempts to superimpose your "three coeternal, coequal persons" doctrine upon the grammatical construct.

Yet you try to mask the obvious superficiality in mis-expressing the grammar 'rule' above, your imprecision and error which I pointed out, with a doctrinal tome that accomplishes nothing. Layman, you can do better, if you try.

Now, a point of significance, I specifically asked you whether Granville Sharp ..

(who was seeking to work with and analyze Greek grammar in a way that would support certain doctrines about the Lord Jesus Christ, an area of fascinating study, and Trinitarian conceptions of "three coequal, coeternal .. persons in the Godhead" are actually not the prime issue in many of the verses he discusses)

... ever utilized Matthew 28:19 as part of his rule arsenal. Did he give it as an example, or a non-issue, or what ? And surely, if it fit his picture, one way or another, you would expect some discussion. This is a major Bible verse, and I believe he wrote quite extensively and touched on many verses.

You never really answered the question, except the following oblique deferral (and a bunch of stuff where you tried your expressing own limited expertise in a diversionary manner).

With regard to Granville Sharp discussing the passage, it’s irrelevant. I believe the Granville Sharp’s rule is a grammar rule, meaning Sharp never had to discuss it. Honestly, I think I will stop here, since this shows such an incredible parochiality, shoulder-chippyness, and a disinterest in real study and research.

The fact that you find Granville Sharp on the grammar relating to the Granville Sharp rule "irrelevant" should be a subject of unease, if one thought you were really seeking truth rather than politics.

May I simply ask you to reconsider this over the weekend, do not rush to barrage-respond as seems to be your wont, and actually deeply consider whether or not the person who first writes extensively about a "grammatical rule" (hotly contested in many particulars and known for gross and/or subtle misusages), after whom the 'rule' is actually named (!) should properly be consulted and considered as to his perspective of the particular foundational verse.

Layman, you claim what Granville Sharp actually wrote is "irrelevant" implying that his rule is a transcendent truth that has eclipsed him over the ages. And implying that you have spent years and have gone way beyond his grammatical background in Greek. And you are so learned on these issues that you consider the suggestion of discussing it with actual modern Greek experts an insult ! Layman, do you hope that many will bow to your great Greek grammatical grip ? Or are you out on a limb, and therefore you become arrogantly dismissive of even the basics ?

Layman, do you really care about truth, or are you just another politician ?

And Layman, you should actually read more about grammatical 'rules' in general, you seem to think of them, when you can try to utilize them as a bludgeon, as an equivalent to gravity (which itself can be considered relativistically). Many learned language people may be able to help you get a bit out of your box and into a more truthful and substantive picture. (e.g. Often grammar 'rules' are more a reflection of culture and usage rather than hard truths. You can even learn on that level from the likes of William Safire !) If you like, I might be able to find you some discussions of these grammar issues that are edifying. Some are really fascinating, as when the beautiful grammar and style and majesty of the beginnings of modern English (Tyndale and Geneva and the King James Bible) is discussed, analyzed and appreciated.

Oh, related to this .. did you know that the skeptics barrage the New Testamant with bric-brats of errancy based on their idea that the New Testament does not follow grammatical rules properly ?

Oh, if you look at my posts carefully, you will probably find me breaking many 'grammatical rules' and 'spelling rules', sometimes deliberately and sometimes accidentally. So maybe a great expert like yourself should set up a tribunal to judge, be sure not to speak to any real language experts though .. they might actually appreciate my style :).

Honestly, Layman, there is much in your post that leaves me with a bit of a bemused smile. And I think for now I will ask you to simply ask the Lord Jesus whether you really want to contend that Granville Sharp's perspective on Matthew 28:19 would be "irrelevant" to a study about the 'Granville Sharp rule'.

Layman, are you studying to learn, or are you learning to politic ?

Have a wonderful weekend, my friend. I admit I am tempted a bit to work with virtually every single sentence you wrote, however God has indicated for me to go slow and simple at this time.

That seeking underlying truths (and not just of the issues of Messiahology, which at times becomes secondary to simply speaking straight heart-to-heart to a brother) and paradigmic depth are more helpful to us than superficial presentations of preexisting conditions.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Praxeus

04-04-2008, 10:27 PM

Greetings, Layman.

Oh, I thank you for pointing that "subjects" is not a correct word grammatically for the usage in Matthew 28:19 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. I was thinking of Father, Son and Holy Ghost as the "subjects" of the discussion, the issue before us, in what manner they are viewed as independent subjects, as aspects and manifestations of the one eternal God, or as three distinct consciousnesses throughout eternity (in the current popular Trinitarian view). And the subject of how they share the one glorious Name above all other names, the Lord Jesus Christ. However the positions, offices, aspects, qualities, names, manifestations, titles or persons being referenced in Matthew 28:19 are the refining and combining description of the object of the sentence, the name into which we are to baptized, the Lord Jesus Christ.

He is the center of the discussion, and it is the name of Jesus Christ that is magnified in the Matthew 28:19 reference. May we always remember this simple truth.

====================

Matthew 28:19 has many beautiful and significant aspects. The singular name is dynamic and beautiful, a centerpiece of the verse and therefore the subject of gloss from those with a questionable agenda. One name, singular. And we know that name to be the Lord Jesus Christ. If we are unsure, God has given us many infallible truths throughout the New Testament.

Now how about the three 'subjects' of our discussion, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit ? Clearly they are distinct subjects with one common name. Perhaps there is an ultra-unscriptural-Oneness view that stumbles on this simple truth. I have been told that in some denominational circles there is a tendency to deny the historic Oneness views and move to a new perspective of sorts that denies any distinction whatsoever. Perhaps, maybe, that comes to play in the doctrine popular in Ethiopia in recent years. I really do not know, it isn't exactly my turf, so I am mostly thinking out loud, and it is hard to even try to speak for views that I and my brethren do not hold.

Clearly to the historic Oneness view, the fact that the subjects, manifestations of God, attributes and offices of God, are all known by the one name above all names, the Lord Jesus Christ, is in the centerpiece of the apostolic truths, and is what I learned as a child growing in faith. I always marvelled at the simple and beautiful harmony of the verses in Matthew and Acts fitly framed together and knew by heart and revelation that only a spiritual force of darkness or rebellion could miss the beautiful verse harmonies, and even actively embrace disharmonies (e.g. "I'm following Jesus, not Peter"). This is how I began to see foundational spiritual connections about the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ and the name of Jesus in water baptism 'for the remission of sins'. And the harmony of Matthew 28:29 with Acts 2, Acts 10 and 19, Acts 4:12 and the Philippians verse about the name of Jesus and other verses all knit together to be the centerpiece of our understanding. Without Matthew 28:19 all true doctrine suffers, with the beautiful verse of Matthew the scriptures that God has given us stands as the source of the more-than-beautiful quilt of doctrinal truths.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

TheLayman

04-04-2008, 11:08 PM

Hello Steven:

How ya doing?

Have a wonderful weekend, my friend. I admit I am tempted a bit to work with virtually every single sentence you wrote, however God has indicated for me to go slow and simple at this time.

Oh, I'm just so scared. :pray:

That seeking underlying truths (and not just of the issues of Messiahology, which at times becomes secondary to simply speaking straight heart-to-heart to a brother) and paradigmic depth are more helpful to us than superficial presentations of preexisting conditions.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
:coffee
I say this with all sincerity, you are the absolute master of misrepresentation, obfuscation, and diversion of all time. I mean it, I am so unbelievably impressed. There’s people that probably think I’m being sarcastic, but I’m not. You could put out misinformation faster than anyone could keep up with it, and divert to different subjects effortlessly. And be tossing out ad homs at least every other sentence as well. Truly remarkable. So this is how one defeats that, you focus the conversation.

So here it is Steven very simply. You said I was wrong regarding Matt. 28:19 and Granville Sharp’s rule. So here’s the passage:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

And here’s the rule:

Rule VI. And as the insertion of the copulative kai between nouns of the same case, without articles, (according to the fifth rule,) denotes that the second noun expresses a different person, thing, or quality, from the preceding noun, so, likewise, the same effect attends the copulative when each of the nouns are preceded by articles.

Now, you have to show that the grammatical construction of Rule #6 does not exist in Matt. 28:19 (it either does or it doesn't) and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit do not refer to personal subjects.

That’s it, that’s what this is all about, stop with the smoke screen. So you can save the $25.00 ad homs, the obfuscation, misrepresentation, and diversion. There’s the passage and the rule. Put up or shut up.

TheLayman

Praxeus

04-05-2008, 12:17 AM

Hi Folks,

Greetings, Layman. You were clearly wrong when you first referenced Granville Sharp's rule because you tried to pretend to the forum here that it was a rule about "persons" (really the critical point, hidden at first, exposed later). That has been demonstrated in the thread clearly. You were wrong, and have never simply and directly acknowledged the truth. Yet you 'forge ahead' anyway.

Now I realize you are learning "Debating Tricks 101" and would like to reverse field a bit from:

"He who asserts must prove".

To:

"I will sort of state a syllogism, without proof, and you must disprove it to my satisfaction."

Layman, this is a bit of a hackneyed game, the best at it I have seen are are Matt and Hank and I will conjecture that you are a protégé. Such tries are only however a sign of weakness when done with their superficiality, and you follow the mode here.

Your assertions go like this, as best as I can understand you.

First you ignore the singular name of Matthew 28:19, since that does not fit your purposes. To discuss the name of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment and direction of Matthew 28:19 is simply something you are trained to ignore. You prefer form over substance.

I will try to help out your argument by making it point-upon-point, with my response.

=================================

Matthew 28:19 refers to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Agreed.
With the name, the Lord Jesus Christ, being the one name of Deity.

Granville Sharp's rule is the controlling grammatical element of Matthew 28:19.

Questionable, as shown. You are apparently not aware that grammatical issues can have many contrasting elements. This is partly what led to all the debates about the various exceptions to the 'rule'.

However it is unclear whether this even makes any difference to the basics of the discussion, in a technical sense. The issue is more your false edifice built upon the basics (eternal persons, etc) than anything about the Greek or English grammar.

That is why you would be uncomfortable with the real scholars. They are usually slow to accept fabricated buildings that have a weak foundation, which is how to describe your extrapolative, speculative attempts here.

We see you clearly have no interest in seeking counsel with those who have studied Greek for years, in regard to the Greek grammar that you think controls the whole issue (leading to the Athanasian Creed ?), and your interpretative building placed thereupon. As you put your pet doctrines ahead of seeking truth, those who know the language might expose your glaring weaknesses in the technical realm. Better just to URL a friendly web-site and then close the eyes and ears.

So, since you are making the Greek issue, it is quite telling that you have no interest in Greek scholars, be they Granville Sharp or modern scholars. This shows that your interest is doctrine over substance, politics, debating. I don't say this harshly, it is simply straight talk for you to hear. I agree it is not pretty. Truth is not always pretty.

Personally I believe the verse is fully understandable and beautiful and 100% the preserved word of God, the scriptures, when we read in English.

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Everything we need to know of this verse is right there, for the ploughman to read. The Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are distinct referents, they are not one referent. If you want to point out that this is essentially Granville Sharp's rule, fine, it is interesting but has no effect. The verse says exactly that in English in the preserved word of God.

Any alternative rendering that a person might conjecture:

baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost:
baptizing them in the name of Father, Son, Holy Ghost:

Simply does not have the anointing of God as does the true scripture. There would be awkwardness. The key point would remain the name of Jesus Christ, however with a loss of clarity and majesty.

Continuing to your logic of sorts.

There are three referents (subjects, by our discussion context) in Matthew 28:19

A view with which I concur 100%, there is not only one referent. This is easy to see in English or Greek. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not the same thing, or the same quality, or the same aspect, or manifestation or office. And if they were three persons with distinct eternal consciousnesses (apparently your view, but you seem to be trained to never say) then they would not be the same person. However the verse itself says absolutely nothing about how to look at the ontological nature and substance of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Neither did Granville Sharp's rule.

They are thus "persons", and coequal, coeternal, consubstantial persons, because that is how the Trinitarian doctrine I espouse sees the "persons".

And here is a flying leap, you have absolutely nothing, nothing from Granville Sharp's rule at all.
Every part here is external doctrinal conjecture.

And for me to say that it is unprovable in general, or as a specific from Matthew 28:19,
is my charitable understatement.

If you are bound in doctrinal seminarian confusion and refuse to even answer the most basic questions about your views (by training, I conjecture) I can never claim to be able to 'prove' to you, Layman, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not 'three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial persons' with distinct eternal consciousnesses. Nor can I prove to a Catholic that the Pope is not infallible or to the skeptic that God is truly the Creator of the universe.

I can only share with you Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

In fact, I do not even know what you believe about these "persons". Do you pray to them separately in the style of Catholic paganism ? When you call upon the name of Jesus Christ, are you calling upon all Deity ? You never tell us. I do know that many who consider themselves as 'Trinitarian' really have a view quite close to that of mine. Do you ? I dunno, you never share.

However I can state truthfully, fully and categorically that you got caught misrepresenting the "Granville Sharp rule" and that the 'reverse syllogism' attempt (similar to your Tertullian caginess, or shall we say debating reversal, earlier) does not pull you out of the mire. You would have done better before, and can do much better now, to simply acknowledge that you grossly overstated and misstated your supposed application of Granville Sharp to Matthew 28:19, which was only your doctrinal extrapolation. And you never even checked the basics, Granville Sharp himself, Bishop Middleton, or the current batch of scholarly biblical-Greek folks available on the Net before making your definitive assertions about "the Greek" proving this or that.

Such an acknowledgment would neither prove or disprove Trinitarian doctrine, whatever flavor or aspect or manifestation of that doctrine you actually hold to. The acknowledgment could be made without any prejudice to other discussions. For you to finally agree that you overstated, got in over your head (on asserting that Matthew 28:19 proves three eternal persons in the Godhead per the Granville Sharp rule) would simply be the reasonable service, sincerity before God and man. And it would be refreshing on the net.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

complete

04-05-2008, 09:22 AM

Steven,

I'm just a ploughman reading thru this thread and your responses. Can you clarify a few things for me?

Greetings, Layman. You were clearly wrong when you first referenced Granville Sharp's rule because you tried to pretend to the forum here that it was a rule about "persons" (really the critical point, hidden at first, exposed later). That has been demonstrated in the thread clearly. You were wrong, and have never simply and directly acknowledged the truth. Yet you 'forge ahead' anyway.Is this wrong demonstrated in this thread? Can you copy and paste it for me?

Now I realize you are learning "Debating Tricks 101" and would like to reverse field a bit from:

"He who asserts must prove".

To:

"I will sort of state a syllogism, without proof, and you must disprove it to my satisfaction."

Layman, this is a bit of a hackneyed game, the best at it I have seen are are Matt and Hank and I will conjecture that you are a protégé. Such tries are only however a sign of weakness when done with their superficiality, and you follow the mode here.
Your assertions go like this, as best as I can understand you.

First you ignore the singular name of Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+28%3A19), since that does not fit your purposes. To discuss the name of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment and direction of Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+28%3A19) is simply something you are trained to ignore. You prefer form over substance.

I will try to help out your argument by making it point-upon-point, with my response.Can you point out his assertions? As I read it seems to me he has support for his comments.
Again, I must ask you to copy and paste what you are asserting. Not sure how you came to this conclusion but I'm confident you can relate this somehow to his question. Thanks.

Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+28%3A19) refers to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Agreed.
With the name, the Lord Jesus Christ, being the one name of Deity.Is this your view or TheLayman's?

Questionable, as shown. You are apparently not aware that grammatical issues can have many contrasting elements. This is partly what led to all the debates about the various exceptions to the 'rule'. I'm sorry, what is questionable? Again, I must ask you to be clear in what you are asserting.

However it is unclear whether this even makes any difference to the basics of the discussion, in a technical sense. The issue is more your false edifice built upon the basics (eternal persons, etc) than anything about the Greek or English grammar.
Well...uh...what is the "this" (something he said?) you refer to? And again, Steven, can you show us his false edifice?--copy and paste. Thanks.

That is why you would be uncomfortable with the real scholars. They are usually slow to accept fabricated buildings that have a weak foundation, which is how to describe your extrapolative, speculative attempts here.

We see you clearly have no interest in seeking counsel with those who have studied Greek for years, in regard to the Greek grammar that you think controls the whole issue (leading to the Athanasian Creed ?), and your interpretative building placed thereupon. As you put your pet doctrines ahead of seeking truth, those who know the language might expose your glaring weaknesses in the technical realm. Better just to URL a friendly web-site and then close the eyes and ears.

So, since you are making the Greek issue, it is quite telling that you have no interest in Greek scholars, be they Granville Sharp or modern scholars. This shows that your interest is doctrine over substance, politics, debating. I don't say this harshly, it is simply straight talk for you to hear. I agree it is not pretty. Truth is not always pretty.I must say...whew!...you throw out unsupported assertions after unsupported assertions and, I'm assuming now, you have a point. However, once again I must ask you to copy and paste something to help us understand how your comments speak to his question thus far. Also, do you have first hand knowledge of his interest in Greek grammar? How do you know precisely that he hasn't sought counsel, is not studied in the Greek etc., etc. Are you the scholar that will expose him? And just for your information, Paul, of the Bible, taught that doctrine was crucial to his message, i.e. Acts 20, Ephesians 4, 1 Timothy 6 (sighting a source). He died for it.

Everything we need to know of this verse is right there, for the ploughman to read. The Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are distinct referents, they are not one referent. If you want to point out that this is essentially Granville Sharp's rule, fine, it is interesting but has no effect. The verse says exactly that in English in the preserved word of God.OK. So then, you agree with the rule? Is that correct? Please enlighten me as to why the rule has no effect since that is the topic of his question.

(continue to page 2)

complete

04-05-2008, 09:29 AM

There are three referents (subjects, by our discussion context) in Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+28%3A19)

A view with which I concur 100%, there is not only one referent. This is easy to see in English or Greek. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not the same thing, or the same quality, or the same aspect, or manifestation or office. And if they were three persons with distinct eternal consciousnesses (apparently your view, but you seem to be trained to never say) then they would not be the same person. However the verse itself says absolutely nothing about how to look at the ontological nature and substance of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Neither did Granville Sharp's rule.
Well it seems fairly clear that you do agree with the rule. My mistake.
May I ask you to define, in your own terms, Father and Son. I realize this will not be a brief answer.

They are thus "persons", and coequal, coeternal, consubstantial persons, because that is how the Trinitarian doctrine I espouse sees the "persons".

And here is a flying leap, you have absolutely nothing, nothing from Granville Sharp's rule at all.
Every part here is external doctrinal conjecture.

And for me to say that it is unprovable in general, or as a specific from Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+28%3A19),
is my charitable understatement.
I will reserve comment here until I read your answer to my question above.

If you are bound in doctrinal seminarian confusion and refuse to even answer the most basic questions about your views (by training, I conjecture) I can never claim to be able to 'prove' to you, Layman, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not 'three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial persons' with distinct eternal consciousnesses. Nor can I prove to a Catholic that the Pope is not infallible or to the skeptic that God is truly the Creator of the universe.
It would only be appropriate here, again, to wait for your response to the Father, Son question. Would you agree?

In fact, I do not even know what you believe about these "persons". Do you pray to them separately in the style of Catholic paganism ? When you call upon the name of Jesus Christ, are you calling upon all Deity ? You never tell us. I do know that many who consider themselves as 'Trinitarian' really have a view quite close to that of mine. Do you ? I dunno, you never share.

Your first sentence above is the very first thing you have typed that you can actually "stand" on and, I presume, can support.

However I can state truthfully, fully and categorically that you got caught misrepresenting the "Granville Sharp rule" and that the 'reverse syllogism' attempt (similar to your Tertullian caginess, or shall we say debating reversal, earlier) does not pull you out of the mire. You would have done better before, and can do much better now, to simply acknowledge that you grossly overstated and misstated your supposed application of Granville Sharp to Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+28%3A19), which was only your doctrinal extrapolation. And you never even checked the basics, Granville Sharp himself, Bishop Middleton, or the current batch of scholarly biblical-Greek folks available on the Net before making your definitive assertions about "the Greek" proving this or that.

Please, Steven, you must not be comprehending. Copy and paste this misrepresentation. It is clear that he posted Middleton in context, something you did not do for whatever reason, typed out the rule more than once and gave the Greek to boot. Did you miss that? As a ploughman I read it and comprehended what he was explaining. It must have been an oversight on your part. Is that right?

Such an acknowledgment would neither prove or disprove Trinitarian doctrine, whatever flavor or aspect or manifestation of that doctrine you actually hold to. The acknowledgment could be made without any prejudice to other discussions. For you to finally agree that you overstated, got in over your head (on asserting that Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+28%3A19) proves three eternal persons in the Godhead per the Granville Sharp rule) would simply be the reasonable service, sincerity before God and man. And it would be refreshing on the net.
What would be refreshing is your posting of all I have asked. You seem to be taking a lot of detours around his question. I can't see you taking the straight route in answering. You continue to mention Greek scholars and Net sites. Can you bring their documentation here to support what you are asserting? But, again, I will wait for your definition previously requested of you.

John Atkinson

04-05-2008, 09:36 AM

i just wish i was smart like you guys

mizpeh

04-05-2008, 10:32 AM

I will try to help out your argument by making it point-upon-point, with my response.

=================================

Matthew 28:19 refers to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Agreed.
With the name, the Lord Jesus Christ, being the one name of Deity.

Granville Sharp's rule is the controlling grammatical element of Matthew 28:19.

Questionable, as shown. You are apparently not aware that grammatical issues can have many contrasting elements. This is partly what led to all the debates about the various exceptions to the 'rule'.

However it is unclear whether this even makes any difference to the basics of the discussion, in a technical sense. The issue is more your false edifice built upon the basics (eternal persons, etc) than anything about the Greek or English grammar.

That is why you would be uncomfortable with the real scholars. They are usually slow to accept fabricated buildings that have a weak foundation, which is how to describe your extrapolative, speculative attempts here.

We see you clearly have no interest in seeking counsel with those who have studied Greek for years, in regard to the Greek grammar that you think controls the whole issue (leading to the Athanasian Creed ?), and your interpretative building placed thereupon. As you put your pet doctrines ahead of seeking truth, those who know the language might expose your glaring weaknesses in the technical realm. Better just to URL a friendly web-site and then close the eyes and ears.

So, since you are making the Greek issue, it is quite telling that you have no interest in Greek scholars, be they Granville Sharp or modern scholars. This shows that your interest is doctrine over substance, politics, debating. I don't say this harshly, it is simply straight talk for you to hear. I agree it is not pretty. Truth is not always pretty.

Personally I believe the verse is fully understandable and beautiful and 100% the preserved word of God, the scriptures, when we read in English.

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Everything we need to know of this verse is right there, for the ploughman to read. The Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are distinct referents, they are not one referent. If you want to point out that this is essentially Granville Sharp's rule, fine, it is interesting but has no effect. The verse says exactly that in English in the preserved word of God.

Any alternative rendering that a person might conjecture:

baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost:
baptizing them in the name of Father, Son, Holy Ghost:

Simply does not have the anointing of God as does the true scripture. There would be awkwardness. The key point would remain the name of Jesus Christ, however with a loss of clarity and majesty.

Continuing to your logic of sorts.

There are three referents (subjects, by our discussion context) in Matthew 28:19

A view with which I concur 100%, there is not only one referent. This is easy to see in English or Greek. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not the same thing, or the same quality, or the same aspect, or manifestation or office. And if they were three persons with distinct eternal consciousnesses (apparently your view, but you seem to be trained to never say) then they would not be the same person. However the verse itself says absolutely nothing about how to look at the ontological nature and substance of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Neither did Granville Sharp's rule.

They are thus "persons", and coequal, coeternal, consubstantial persons, because that is how the Trinitarian doctrine I espouse sees the "persons".

And here is a flying leap, you have absolutely nothing, nothing from Granville Sharp's rule at all.
Every part here is external doctrinal conjecture.

And for me to say that it is unprovable in general, or as a specific from Matthew 28:19,
is my charitable understatement.
Steve,

Very nicely and concisely put. :)

complete

04-05-2008, 01:59 PM

i just wish i was smart like you guys

Hello John,

I would say you are cutting yourself short. I have read enough of your posts to conclude that you have a very good understanding of what is presented throughout this forum.

For example: that statement from Steven, you know, the one's colored brown ...I know that did not get past you. You knew very well that a syllogism was never presented by TheLayman. Or how about those colored in green? You also knew those quotes never came from him. Yet, Steven argued as if they had. But you already knew that in my opinion.

Do you have any advice for Steven?

Thanks, John...in advance.

mizpeh

04-05-2008, 02:32 PM

Hello John,

I would say you are cutting yourself short. I have read enough of your posts to conclude that you have a very good understanding of what is presented throughout this forum.

For example: that statement from Steven, you know, the one's colored brown ...I know that did not get past you. You knew very well that a syllogism was never presented by TheLayman. Or how about those colored in green? You also knew those quotes never came from him. Yet, Steven argued as if they had. But you already knew that in my opinion.

Do you have any advice for Steven?

Thanks, John...in advance.

Is Steve attributing those statements in green to something TheLayman actually said? I don't see quotation marks.

Or are those statements something else, like conclusions, which Steve is deducting from his discussion with TLM?

TheLayman

04-05-2008, 06:40 PM

Is Steve attributing those statements in green to something TheLayman actually said? I don't see quotation marks.

Or are those statements something else, like conclusions, which Steve is deducting from his discussion with TLM?

Why don't you tell us Mizpeh? Are you actually asking Complete a question who's answer you wish to accept, or are you as usual arguing by way of question? Have you read and checked the thread yourself?

It does not suprise me that the last post of Praxeus, which is probably the most contrived and dishonest thing I have ever been on the other end of, agrees with your concept of honesty.

TheLayman

mizpeh

04-05-2008, 09:36 PM

Why don't you tell us Mizpeh? Are you actually asking Complete a question who's answer you wish to accept, or are you as usual arguing by way of question? Have you read and checked the thread yourself?

It does not suprise me that the last post of Praxeus, which is probably the most contrived and dishonest thing I have ever been on the other end of, agrees with your concept of honesty.

TheLayman
I said to Complete: Or are those statements something else, like conclusions, which Steve is deducting from his discussion with TLM?

See Praxeus last post:

Layman, this is a bit of a hackneyed game, the best at it I have seen are are Matt and Hank and I will conjecture that you are a protégé. Such tries are only however a sign of weakness when done with their superficiality, and you follow the mode here.

Your assertions go like this, as best as I can understand you.

First you ignore the singular name of Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+28%3A19), since that does not fit your purposes. To discuss the name of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment and direction of Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+28%3A19) is simply something you are trained to ignore. You prefer form over substance.

I will try to help out your argument by making it point-upon-point, with my response.

Complete, it's clear to me that Praxeus is not quoting TLM but (perhaps) he is paraphrasing TLM's main points. I don't consider this dishonest. TLM has the opportunity to correct any misunderstanding Praxeus may have had regarding his position.

Praxeus

04-06-2008, 06:47 PM

Complete, it's clear to me that Praxeus is not quoting TLM but (perhaps) he is paraphrasing TLM's main points. I don't consider this dishonest. TLM has the opportunity to correct any misunderstanding Praxeus may have had regarding his position. Hi Folks,

Thanks, Mizpeh. I am amazed anyone had difficulty on this.
It is hard to be much clearer than :

Your assertions go like this, as best as I can understand you.

And then highlighting in one color what I believe to be the Layman assertion. For those hard-of-reading, next time I could add above the green (which was sans quotes, of course, as has also been noted) :

(Layman assertion, as I understand.)

and then

(my response)

That could help the hard-of-reading. Now, if you go back to the curt, belligerent post of Layman when he dropped any pretension of listening and discussing:

"focus the conversation. So here it is Steven very simply"

Layman obviously was implying that he was somewhere, somehow, offering the final, definitive, theory about Matthew 28:19 and the Granville Sharp rule. One that would prove his false assertion that they combine to prove his Trinitarian doctrine about three (coequal, coeternal, consubstantial) "persons in the Godhead". Which claim is total nonsense. And I believe even the true Trinitarian Greek scholar would acknowledge that this is a false and unsupportable claim, without prejudice to his Trinitarian perspective, and it was apparently not even made by the true historic Trinitarian Greek language scholars like Thomas Fanshaw Middleton and Granville Sharp.

(Not to say that such scholars are perfect. Personally I have far more confidence in our accurate and pure King James Bible in English than in any theories of the Greek language that try to add a supposed extra revelation or extra insight from the Greek. Again and again such supposed insights prove to fail. However if you are trying to make a claim about the Greek language giving a special insight, Thomas Middleton and Granville Sharp would be primary sources, yet we see the true scholarship sources treated curtly and shabbily by Layman. Middleton and Sharp were at least true scholars .. e.g. Middleton had some excellent insight on the grammatical issues of the Johannine Comma .. and were very knowledgeable in the Greek language way beyond the typical seminarian or modern scholar today.)

Ironically, in this case, I can see no dissonance between the English and the application of the 'rule'. And going to the Greek as done here is the typical diversion that you might expect from a pseudo-layman-scholar. (Yes our Layman was not the one who originally made this blunder, but he quickly jumped up into the "Sharp proves corner" and has stayed penned up in the corner since, taking up the unsupportable position with some ferocity. Rather than simply acknowledging what should have become quickly obvious upon further study: thanks, I overstated, I misunderstood, let's move on.)

Overall, this not understanding the majesty and accuracy of God's inspired and preserved scripture in our beautiful English King James Bible is one of the main tools of the false priesthood of modern scholarship that desires to lord it over the ploughman, the ploughman who is reading God's word in his hands, the man for whom Erasmus labored and William Tyndale sacrificed and the skilled English translators of the Holy Bible worked for years in committees around Oxford and Cambridge, and many others gave their sweat and efforts. These priesthood scholars are similar to the modern scholars who gave us Paul not writing the Pastorals and Peter not writing 2 Peter and this section being emended and these verses being redacted. Oh, come to us Pharisees if you really want to know God's word. And yes,to be straight-arrow, you can see elements of this type of error in action in Oneness circles as well as Trinitarian. Sometimes both groups make the same error, as with the famous agape and phileo claim for love. And for a terrible blunder from some Oneness writers, you can start with those few who are actually fighting Matthew 28:19 as scripture, making a similar Bible corrector error (let me tell you what is really in the Bible) falsely claiming by their advanced MSS studies (mild sarcasm intened) that they should snip the foundational verse of Matthew 28:19 out of the Bible.

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Returning to the claim from Layman .. as is his style, he did not state clearly what he was actually claiming, step-by-step, yet he wanted to be disproven anyway .. bold added:

"you have to show that the grammatical construction of Rule #6 does not exist in Matt. 28:19 (it either does or it doesn't) and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit do not refer to personal subjects."

So I took his abbreviated harumph, and tried to make his case into a true step-by-step argument, since he was claiming that he had "showed" .. something. What he sort of claimed would in fact be analogous to the Trinitarian syllogism you would hear from Matt Slick of CARM, which is what I drew out above. In Layman's writing, the syllogism to be disproven was implied, he offered us a little snippet, while others like Matt make a big point of stating such logic to be "disproven" by those in doctrinal disagreement, step 1, step 2, step 3. And of course, by expanding the Layman implication, it was easy to show the flying leap in the Layman non-logic, along with a few places where he was sensible. The best place of his logic and sense is his total affirmation of the verse as scripture, even if he does not understand that the name, singular, is the Lord Jesus Christ.

And as you properly point out, Mizpeh, I was giving every opportunity for Layman or another to tweak my representation of the logic of sorts that had been offered. They could have added a step, or pointed out something different. I tried to make it as easy as possible.

==================================================

One of the ironies in all this type of discussion is that there really is little for a Oneness person to "prove". Simply put (remember Tertullian's discomfit with the simple) we all should accept the foundational truth of Deut 6:4, affirmed by the Lord Jesus Christ in Mark 12:29, we accept that Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah and that "God was manifest in the flesh .. " (1 Tim 3:16) in the Lord Jesus Christ. Along with more scriptural exposition and with the Gospel message of his atoning sacrifice. We simply don't have or need a lot of fancy doctrinal constructs (the Apostles Creed might be fine as a basic statement of faith).

It is the Trinitarian doctrinairist like Layman who has a lot to show and prove. He is claiming that when Jesus affirmed, in the context of the "first commandment of all":

Mark 12:29
... The first of all the commandments is,
Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

That embedded or hidden in what he said was a subtext augmentation understanding, along the lines of ... "please understand, this one Lord actually exists in three distinct eternal consciousnesses, that are coequal, coeternal and consubstantial... ". Perhaps the Athanasian Creed. However this auxiliary explanation never quite made God's cut for the scripture itself.

So of course the last thing a Trinitarian doctrinist like Layman wants to do is actually try to state and prove his own view of the ontological nature of God (if he actually has such a view, who can ever tell ?). He would much prefer to lay back and take potshots, to twist the issues around, rather than being put in the position of trying to prove and demonstrate the unscriptural.

That is why he cut bait and reversed the principle issue of discussion.

"you have to show .. that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit do not refer to personal subjects"

(continues)

Praxeus

04-06-2008, 07:01 PM

In fact, it is Layman that has to show that now only are they "personal subjects" (whatever that means, persons, consciousnesses, angels, life, or something, even a porpoise or a puppy can be a "personal subject" in a sentence, as can a car or a boat when given those attributes "she's a beauty .. the Alfa Romeo"). Also that also these subjects are each ontological "persons" with distinct eternal consciousnesses. (Unless Layman wants to deny that position and tell us what happens to each ontological consciousness.) Beyond all that, he has to show that the three persons are coequal, coeternal and consubstantial, unless he denies that part of the Trinitarian construction. It would be good to also explain why the scripture itself does not have all this difficult, even convoluted. construction.

All that is a very difficult row to hoe, I grant, and I understand why the belligerent Trinitarian apologist would be trained to avoid such discussions. Training comes in handy, whether it is a JW told to stay with a few verses in the Bible at the house they visit, verses that they know the approved interp by rote. Or what we see here when the Trinitarian doctrinairist in virtually every post defacto says "my beliefs, whatever they may be, are off-limits, I won't describe them, I just want to throw out selected critiques of yours. Ferget about a level playing field." Incidentally, those who attack God's inspired and preserved scripture, be they skeptics or modern 'scientific' textcrits or confused multi-modern-versionists, will take a siimilar tact, so this is not at all unusual.

As a sidenote, I have heard some Trinitarian expositors even claim that there was a conference before Creation where the three persons decided which one of the three persons would incarnate. With many Trinitarian philosophies you have a wide range of misunderstandings, going way beyond even the well-known conflict on "eternally begetting".

(Note, Trinitarianism is a very big, huge tent, from Karl Barth to Hank Hanegraaff to many dozen others. Some views are much, much closer to ours than to the Athanasian Creed, the centerpiece of much Trinitarian 'theology'. One thing that I believe is good to remember in these discussions .. who are we talking to, what does he actually believe, does he really have a belief that can be stated on the ontological, nature of God, issues ? Not a hostile question, simply really trying to ask them to be accountable for their own assertions. To give us both a good point of reference in discussion, to reason together. And a level playing field is helpful, a field of true dreams and realities referencing God, anchored in his word, the scriptures, the Holy Bible.)

Where does Layman stand on all this ? What does he truly assert we are precisely supposed to believe and affirm ? Maybe someday he will actually state. And maybe some day he will show us that he actually considers.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

mizpeh

04-06-2008, 07:42 PM

Praxeus,

I don't think TheLayman is using Matt 28:19 to prove "three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial persons."

I think his assertions from this verse would be along these lines:

1) The "name" is not Jesus Christ.
2) Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are names, (maybe even proper names).
3) "in the name of " is a synonomous phrase for "in the authority of"
4) With Sharp's rule we can conclude that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three individual persons ( in the theological sense of the word)

He would have to bring in many other scriptures to try to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. It can't be done with one verse. Matthew 28:19 would only be a stepping stone for him.

TheLayman wrote:
2. Again YOU misrepresent me. I never said anything about one single sentence anywhere in Scripture teaching three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial persons. And in the one sentence I said regarding 28:19 I said (in case you forgot):

Granville/Sharp's rule does most certainly indicate 3 persons in Matt. 28:19

Nothing about the DOT there. However, the passage is most definitely consistent with the DOT.

I have a problem with saying the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three different individual persons...ie three different consciousnesses. But I do see that there are three distinct titles listed that refer to three distinct manifestations of God which are all named by one name. If "in the name of" is being used to mean "in the authority of" then for there to be three persons (as TLM contends) the verse is grammatically incorrect. It should say " in the names of "the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. :)

Oh, and if you read any of TheLayman's other threads on this site you will see exactly what he believes, like this: "The persons of the Trinity are internal to God, there is only one God. They are co-eternal, co-existent, and consubstantial. They are one in "being."

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10364

mizpeh

04-06-2008, 10:02 PM

And as you properly point out, Mizpeh, I was giving every opportunity for Layman or another to tweak my representation of the logic of sorts that had been offered. They could have added a step, or pointed out something different. I tried to make it as easy as possible.
Steven,

I'm sure TheLayman will point out everything to you in his time.

Praxeus

04-06-2008, 10:03 PM

Hi Folks,

Mizpeh, thanks for trying to unravel some of the puzzles.

I don't think TheLayman is using this Matt 28:19 to prove "three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial persons." I think his assertions from this verse would be along these lines: .... 4) With Sharp's rule we can conclude that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three individual persons ( in the theological sense of the word) The other three points above I did not see Layman write or affirm here. Perhaps elsewhere. #4 is not a valid conclusion, even if the weak #1,2,3 were the starting point, and of course Layman would have no right to make a logical construct claim based on his own assertions that we contradict forcefully. He would have to demonstrate each point. And I simply was hoping that Layman would acknowledge something that was pretty obvious, when I saw the false attempt to prove 3 persons from the Greek of Matthew 28:19, (supposedly versus the English, else why bring the Greek into it at all).

If "in the name of" is being used to mean "in the authority of" then for there to be three persons (as TLM contends) the verse is grammatically incorrect. It should say " in the names of "the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. :) Excellent point.

Maybe Layman thinks they have three authorities but one name ? Maybe he actually would acknowledge that the name is the Lord Jesus Christ, yet still find a reason to avoid the name in the baptism being referenced ? It would be a good discussion, if he was able to get past the silliness of harumphing an incorrect attempt on this thread based on a fabricated Greek argument.

Please understand that my antennae are very sensitive to these false "don't simply read your King James Bible and understand what it says, I know the Greek" arguments from people like Layman. I simply did not have the liberty before God to let that pass without a clear discussion and analysis showing not only the factual difficulty, but the spiritual pitfall as well.

TheLayman's .. believes .. : "The persons of the Trinity are internal to God, there is only one God. They are co-eternal, co-existent, and consubstantial. They are one in "being." So does Layman deal with the problems in each word there (there are many).

And firstly, are the "persons" distinct eternal consciousnesses ?

e.g was there a heavenly threesome conference before Creation ? And all the time ? Does he say you should relate to each "person" separately as in the RCC mode ? Or is that a pagan aberration ?

Or is more like a babble-formula (as it sounds) and then .. lets go on. And is it basically an "Athanasian Creed" affirmation ? I simply have focused on this thread and really am just trying to get to the essence. I haven't found enough of interest from Layman to really read other threads here and there, and he has not been forthcoming on this thread in any way on these issues. So maybe you can share more, if there is more to share :) .

Steven, I'm sure TheLayman will point out everything to you in his time.Perhaps. He seems to get upset that I really try to work with what he shares, take it to a level that is consistent and whole rather than political snippets. Maybe that will change.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

mizpeh

04-06-2008, 10:53 PM

Hi Folks,

Mizpeh, thanks for trying to unravel some of the puzzles.

The other three points above I did not see Layman write or affirm here. Perhaps elsewhere. #4 is not a valid conclusion, even if the weak #1,2,3 were the starting point, and of course Layman would have no right to make a logical construct claim based on his own assertions that we contradict forcefully. He would have to demonstrate each point. And I simply was hoping that Layman would acknowledge something that was pretty obvious, when I saw the false attempt to prove 3 persons from the Greek of Matthew 28:19, (supposedly versus the English, else why bring the Greek into it at all).
The points I listed are typical Trinitarian responses.

Maybe Layman thinks they have three authorities but one name ? Maybe he actually would acknowledge that the name is the Lord Jesus Christ, yet still find a reason to avoid the name in the baptism being referenced ? It would be a good discussion, if he was able to get past the silliness of harumphing an incorrect attempt on this thread based on a fabricated Greek argument.

TheLayman has already acknowledged that he doesn't believe the name of the Father or the name of the Holy Spirit is Jesus in one of his multiple part posts to you below:
TheLayman wrote:

1. The Father and the Holy Spirit are nowhere in Scripture called Jesus Christ, though Scripture explicitly states that Jesus Christ is the name of the Son of the Father.

2. More importantly to the present discussion, no one is called Jesus Christ in Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+28%3A19).

3. As may have guessed from #1 I don’t agree that the name of the Father and Holy Spirit is “Jesus Christ.” Notwithstanding, if it said “The Father, the Son, and the Grandson,” and it was a given that they all had the name Jones it would change nothing relative to the rule being discussed, that being that The Father is not The Son, The Son is not the Grandson, and The Grandson is not The Father. In other words, I can find nothing compatible with modalism in the passage which is what you appear to be arguing.

Please understand that my antennae are very sensitive to these false "don't simply read your King James Bible and understand what it says, I know the Greek" arguments from people like Layman. I simply did not have the liberty before God to let that pass without a clear discussion and analysis showing not only the factual difficulty, but the spiritual pitfall as well.

Since the discussion is on Matt 28:19 and Sharp's rule on Greek grammar, I didn't think bringing the Greek rendering of the verse into the discussion was an issue. I went to esword to check out the Greek to see if the articles were before each title, Father, Son, Holy Spirit as well as the case being the same.

Why do you suppose Sharp did not use Matt 28:19 to demonstrate rule #6? It's an obvious verse to use, IMO.

BTW, the KJV is a personal preference of mine but not a conviction.

So does Layman deal with the problems in each word there (there are many).

Can't recall.

And firstly, are the "persons" distinct eternal consciousnesses ? I would think so but I don't recall him ever using the word, consciousness, for person, and he may have spoken against someone using it on CARM once, (Andrew) but I'm not positive.

TLM has posted a thread on this site with definitions for the term, person. http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10100

Or is more like a babble-formula, as it sounds, and then .. lets go on. And is it basically an "Athanasian Creed" affirmation ? I simply have focused on this thread and really am just trying to get to the essence. I haven't found enough of interest from Layman to really read other threads, and he has not been forthcoming on this thread in any way on these issues, so maybe you can share more, if there is more to share :) . TheLayman is an orthodox Trinitarian who for the most part sticks rigidly to the topic at hand. Since we are discussing Matt 28:19 and Sharpe's rule, that is where his focus will be although he has strayed a little in this thread in discussing Sharpes other rules. If you want to know what he believes, I suggest you check out a few of the threads he has started. They are meant to be educational.

tvlb

04-07-2008, 07:41 AM

Another misplaced apostolic priority...

The oneness doctrine won't save anyone.

Why baptize in Jesus name? Not because there is only one god, but because there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. So logic says if baptism is necessary, it has to be done in Jesus name..

Running around in circles about what greek says here and what greek says there doesn't mean squat.

The devils believe in one God a mess themselves (tvlb version).

One must aks why the need to argue oneness vs trinitarian. Trinitarians will be in heaven as well as oneness people. Oneness people will be crispy critters as well as trinitarians.

btw there are trinitarians who believe in Acts 2:38 to the letter. THat scripture is the basis of our doctrine. Not a oneness trinity view.

Gods Child

04-07-2008, 03:04 PM

i just wish i was smart like you guys

Same here, i don't even understand more than half the stuff they say, especially Praxeus, lol.

Gods Child

04-07-2008, 03:11 PM

mizpeh

04-07-2008, 04:23 PM

Same here, i don't even understand more than half the stuff they say, especially Praxeus, lol.
I think John A. was being sarcastic. :)

tvlb

04-07-2008, 11:10 PM

To get the full meaning of that Jude is speaking about, one must look at the following verses. Notice the emphasis on verse 4. The faith which needs to be conteded or defended as one would defend in a struggle, is the gospel of grace. Jude says there were people who perverted the gospel to the point of saying God's forgiveness allows people the opportunity to sin. People were preaching a false preception of grace and as a result were turning away from Christ.

Conteding for the faith taken in context is to preach grace the way the Bible teaches.

Jude 3-4
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
KJV
Jude 3-4
3 Dearly loved friends, I had been eagerly planning to write to you about the salvation we all share. But now I find that I must write about something else, urging you to defend the truth of the Good News. God gave this unchanging truth once for all time to his holy people.
4 I say this because some godless people have wormed their way in among you, saying that God's forgiveness allows us to live immoral lives. The fate of such people was determined long ago, for they have turned against our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
NLT

If you continue to read, Jude is explicit in detailing that defending the faith is about the role of grace.... Read

This is due to the fact that Jude told us to contend for the faith that was once delievered to the saints. Also we are to prove what is Good. I don't believe that our denominations can save us but only God saves.

Gods Child

04-08-2008, 08:42 AM

John Atkinson

04-08-2008, 09:34 AM

I think John A. was being sarcastic. :)Not so much. I am pretty much incapable of debating doctrine at this level.

Something I don't necessarily see as a bad thing. I am firm in my stand on the truth and have tried to relate my efforts to a different audience. I had never heard of Granville Sharpe until this discussion, and now that I have, I expect I'll forget him by the time this thread drifts into forum oblivion.

If God wanted me to know Greek in order to know him I expect I would have been born speaking it.

More often I see people who get tunnel visioned into the original wording miss the bigger picture.

Yes, I use language tools, but with those tools I am simply trying to get a better understanding of the scope of the word. I am not going to get so bent on the meaning of eis that I forget that it is surrounded by words like metanoeo (repent), baptizo (baptized), anoma (NAME), Ieasous Christos (Jesus Christ) and Hagious Pneuma (Holy Ghost).

Those words are awful important. And you know what? They say AND MEAN, the exact same thing in KJV English, Amplified English, LITV English, RSV English as they do in NT Greek.

One thing is fer sure. ALL the currently available English translations were done by trinitarians, so far as I know. The only way we can defeat that is to make an Apostolic translation, something I think is a REALLY BAD idea. That would get us lumped with Jehovah witnesses real quick.

The bottom line is that God is able to preserve his word even if it is being translated by a Taoist. He is either an all-powerful, all-encompasing God who can do that or he isn't.

And I have no trouble at all teaching ONE GOD JESUS NAME using Matt 28:19 and the much debated 1 John 5:7-8.

mizpeh

04-08-2008, 11:07 AM

Not so much. I am pretty much incapable of debating doctrine at this level.

Something I don't necessarily see as a bad thing. I am firm in my stand on the truth and have tried to relate my efforts to a different audience. I had never heard of Granville Sharpe until this discussion, and now that I have, I expect I'll forget him by the time this thread drifts into forum oblivion.

If God wanted me to know Greek in order to know him I expect I would have been born speaking it.

More often I see people who get tunnel visioned into the original wording miss the bigger picture.

Yes, I use language tools, but with those tools I am simply trying to get a better understanding of the scope of the word. I am not going to get so bent on the meaning of eis that I forget that it is surrounded by words like metanoeo (repent), baptizo (baptized), anoma (NAME), Ieasous Christos (Jesus Christ) and Hagious Pneuma (Holy Ghost).

Those words are awful important. And you know what? They say AND MEAN, the exact same thing in KJV English, Amplified English, LITV English, RSV English as they do in NT Greek.

One thing is fer sure. ALL the currently available English translations were done by trinitarians, so far as I know. The only way we can defeat that is to make an Apostolic translation, something I think is a REALLY BAD idea. That would get us lumped with Jehovah witnesses real quick.

The bottom line is that God is able to preserve his word even if it is being translated by a Taoist. He is either an all-powerful, all-encompasing God who can do that or he isn't.

And I have no trouble at all teaching ONE GOD JESUS NAME using Matt 28:19 and the much debated 1 John 5:7-8. My bad. :)

Where's your ManU avatar? They're close to winning the Premiership title again! (I like Liverpool)

John Atkinson

04-08-2008, 12:04 PM

My bad. :)

Where's your ManU avatar? They're close to winning the Premiership title again! (I like Liverpool)
lol, I need to resurrect it. Our UK sales guy is an Arsenal fan...we go back and forth a bit!

tvlb

04-08-2008, 07:40 PM

Before anyone gets any ideas, Paul established how to handle subjective personal convictions in Romans... Things like subjective dress codes and televisions fall under the guidelines Paul established in Romans.

Amen, you speak truth but i believe that we should just leave everything else as it is but i believe that we should also contend for it. Alot of things that go on now didn't go on back then so Jude only addressed what he saw.

complete

04-09-2008, 05:06 AM

Hi Folks,

Thanks, Mizpeh. I am amazed anyone had difficulty on this.
It is hard to be much clearer than :

Your assertions go like this, as best as I can understand you.

And then highlighting in one color what I believe to be the Layman assertion. For those hard-of-reading, next time I could add above the green (which was sans quotes, of course, as has also been noted) :

(Layman assertion, as I understand.)

and then

(my response)

That could help the hard-of-reading. Now, if you go back to the curt, belligerent post of Layman when he dropped any pretension of listening and discussing:

"focus the conversation. So here it is Steven very simply"

Layman obviously was implying that he was somewhere, somehow, offering the final, definitive, theory about Matthew 28:19 and the Granville Sharp rule. One that would prove his false assertion that they combine to prove his Trinitarian doctrine about three (coequal, coeternal, consubstantial) "persons in the Godhead". Which claim is total nonsense. And I believe even the true Trinitarian Greek scholar would acknowledge that this is a false and unsupportable claim, without prejudice to his Trinitarian perspective, and it was apparently not even made by the true historic Trinitarian Greek language scholars like Thomas Fanshaw Middleton and Granville Sharp.

(Not to say that such scholars are perfect. Personally I have far more confidence in our accurate and pure King James Bible in English than in any theories of the Greek language that try to add a supposed extra revelation or extra insight from the Greek. Again and again such supposed insights prove to fail. However if you are trying to make a claim about the Greek language giving a special insight, Thomas Middleton and Granville Sharp would be primary sources, yet we see the true scholarship sources treated curtly and shabbily by Layman. Middleton and Sharp were at least true scholars .. e.g. Middleton had some excellent insight on the grammatical issues of the Johannine Comma .. and were very knowledgeable in the Greek language way beyond the typical seminarian or modern scholar today.)

Ironically, in this case, I can see no dissonance between the English and the application of the 'rule'. And going to the Greek as done here is the typical diversion that you might expect from a pseudo-layman-scholar. (Yes our Layman was not the one who originally made this blunder, but he quickly jumped up into the "Sharp proves corner" and has stayed penned up in the corner since, taking up the unsupportable position with some ferocity. Rather than simply acknowledging what should have become quickly obvious upon further study: thanks, I overstated, I misunderstood, let's move on.)

Overall, this not understanding the majesty and accuracy of God's inspired and preserved scripture in our beautiful English King James Bible is one of the main tools of the false priesthood of modern scholarship that desires to lord it over the ploughman, the ploughman who is reading God's word in his hands, the man for whom Erasmus labored and William Tyndale sacrificed and the skilled English translators of the Holy Bible worked for years in committees around Oxford and Cambridge, and many others gave their sweat and efforts. These priesthood scholars are similar to the modern scholars who gave us Paul not writing the Pastorals and Peter not writing 2 Peter and this section being emended and these verses being redacted. Oh, come to us Pharisees if you really want to know God's word. And yes,to be straight-arrow, you can see elements of this type of error in action in Oneness circles as well as Trinitarian. Sometimes both groups make the same error, as with the famous agape and phileo claim for love. And for a terrible blunder from some Oneness writers, you can start with those few who are actually fighting Matthew 28:19 as scripture, making a similar Bible corrector error (let me tell you what is really in the Bible) falsely claiming by their advanced MSS studies (mild sarcasm intened) that they should snip the foundational verse of Matthew 28:19 out of the Bible.

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Returning to the claim from Layman .. as is his style, he did not state clearly what he was actually claiming, step-by-step, yet he wanted to be disproven anyway .. bold added:

"you have to show that the grammatical construction of Rule #6 does not exist in Matt. 28:19 (it either does or it doesn't) and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit do not refer to personal subjects."

So I took his abbreviated harumph, and tried to make his case into a true step-by-step argument, since he was claiming that he had "showed" .. something. What he sort of claimed would in fact be analogous to the Trinitarian syllogism you would hear from Matt Slick of CARM, which is what I drew out above. In Layman's writing, the syllogism to be disproven was implied, he offered us a little snippet, while others like Matt make a big point of stating such logic to be "disproven" by those in doctrinal disagreement, step 1, step 2, step 3. And of course, by expanding the Layman implication, it was easy to show the flying leap in the Layman non-logic, along with a few places where he was sensible. The best place of his logic and sense is his total affirmation of the verse as scripture, even if he does not understand that the name, singular, is the Lord Jesus Christ.

And as you properly point out, Mizpeh, I was giving every opportunity for Layman or another to tweak my representation of the logic of sorts that had been offered. They could have added a step, or pointed out something different. I tried to make it as easy as possible.

==================================================

One of the ironies in all this type of discussion is that there really is little for a Oneness person to "prove". Simply put (remember Tertullian's discomfit with the simple) we all should accept the foundational truth of Deut 6:4, affirmed by the Lord Jesus Christ in Mark 12:29, we accept that Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah and that "God was manifest in the flesh .. " (1 Tim 3:16) in the Lord Jesus Christ. Along with more scriptural exposition and with the Gospel message of his atoning sacrifice. We simply don't have or need a lot of fancy doctrinal constructs (the Apostles Creed might be fine as a basic statement of faith).

It is the Trinitarian doctrinairist like Layman who has a lot to show and prove. He is claiming that when Jesus affirmed, in the context of the "first commandment of all":

Mark 12:29
... The first of all the commandments is,
Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

That embedded or hidden in what he said was a subtext augmentation understanding, along the lines of ... "please understand, this one Lord actually exists in three distinct eternal consciousnesses, that are coequal, coeternal and consubstantial... ". Perhaps the Athanasian Creed. However this auxiliary explanation never quite made God's cut for the scripture itself.

So of course the last thing a Trinitarian doctrinist like Layman wants to do is actually try to state and prove his own view of the ontological nature of God (if he actually has such a view, who can ever tell ?). He would much prefer to lay back and take potshots, to twist the issues around, rather than being put in the position of trying to prove and demonstrate the unscriptural.

That is why he cut bait and reversed the principle issue of discussion.

"you have to show .. that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit do not refer to personal subjects"

(continues)

I could not find any response to my questions. Will you be addressing them soon?

complete

04-09-2008, 05:09 AM

mizpeh

04-09-2008, 12:50 PM

Here's something off Jason Dulle's blog last December about the "name" in Matt 28:19. I'm interested in what you all think.

The disciples properly discerned that name to be His name—Jesus—and used His name exclusively in their baptismal formula. They obeyed, rather than repeated Jesus’ words.

I’m not so sure our emphasis on the singular form of “name” is justified. “Name” may grammatically correct. “Of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” is a string of three genitival phrases modifying “name.” It could be argued that the prepositional phrase, “in the name,” is implied for both the Son and the Holy Spirit, so that the intended sense of the verse is, “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and [in the name] of the Son, and [in the name] of the Holy Spirit.” It would be similar to my saying, “Arrest them in the name of the king, and the queen, and the motherland.” Here, the singular use of “name” is justified because “in the name of” is implied for both the queen and the motherland. The sentence should really read, “Arrest them in the name of the king, and [the name of] the queen, and [the name of] the motherland.” If the same is true of Matthew 28:19, then the singular “name” is being applied to each of the three appellations individually, and hence the singular use of name is grammatically justified.

If I am right, then making an ado over the singular use of “name” is misguided, and irrelevant to understanding how Matthew 28:19 squares with the baptismal formula used by the apostles in Acts.

You can read the rest of his post with the link below:

http://theosophical.blogspot.com/2007/12/is-singular-name-of-matthew-2819.html

mizpeh

04-09-2008, 12:55 PM

And here is a response to Jason's post on his blog which contains a mention of Granville Sharp's rules:

(http://www.blogger.com/profile/16396819913910483651)forevertruth (http://www.blogger.com/profile/16396819913910483651) said... Grammatically speaking (according to Granville Sharp’s rule as commonly referenced by Trinitarians), the presence of the definite article "the" before Father, Son and Holy Spirit, along with the fact that all three are connected by "kai" (and), seems to indicate three distinct persons, not one person. Thus, according to this grammatical rule, the singular use of "name" in Matt. 29:19 implies that each has a different name, and not the same name.

However, there is one exception to Granville Sharp's rule:
"Except distinct and different actions are intended to be attributed to one and the same person; in which case, if the sentence is not expressed agreeable to the three first rules, but appears as an exception to this sixth rule...the context must explain or point out plainly the person to whom the two nouns relate."

The exception is basically when the context actually names a single individual to whom the other nouns are attributed. The best example of this exception is Thomas' exclamation to Jesus, "My Lord and My God." (the Lord of me and the God of me). But, it is clearly stated in the context that Thomas is referring to Jesus.

This begs the question, does Matt. 28:19 qualify for the exception, since no one else is named in the context to whom the titles "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" point directly too. I personally believe it does, especially in light of the fact that the “opening declaration of Mt. 28:18 demands a Christological statement to follow it: 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me' leads us to expect as a consequence, 'Go and make disciples unto Me among all the nations, baptizing them in My name, teaching them to observe all I commanded you.'" (Beasley-Murray, p. 83).

Of course, there is a theological basis going on here as well, especially because some prominent Trinitarians are more than willing to recognize the significance of the singular name in Matthew 28:19, although apparently not associating it with baptism in the name of Jesus (they associate it with the Old Testament name of God—Yahweh). What they fail to realize or intellectually accept is that the name of God as revealed in the New Testament is Jesus, which incorporates YHWH but further identifies Him as Savior.
Thus only the name Jesus qualifies for singular name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit because only He encapsulates the sum total of the one Divine being as He exists in His three permanent modes of subsistence (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (according to Colossians 2:9-11, we are buried (baptized) with the one in whom all of the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily).

John
(http://www.blogger.com/profile/16396819913910483651)

TheLayman

04-09-2008, 07:03 PM

And here is a response to Jason's post on his blog which contains a mention of Granville Sharp's rules:

Hello Mizpeh:

My first thought would be: If I answer this someone will take the opportunity to go in another 24 different directions. I only have a moment, if I had more time I had actually planned on trying to respond to a couple of your earlier posts. But briefly and succinctly:

1. The person has found no exception to the Granville Sharp's rule in Matt. 28:19. The reason for the exception is made clear and that exception doesn't exist anywhere in 28:19.

2. As far as I know, it is not just "some prominent Trinitarians" who recognize that "name" is singular in 28:19, as far as I know everyone for all time who could read had recognized that "name" is singular (this is not a Oneness Pentecostal discovery of the 20th century).

3. If someone wants to assert that the singular name referred to is Yahweh, that is also fine, it does not change the Granville Sharp's rule (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit would still be three different persons, not the same one). For that matter, it wouldn't matter if the name was Jesus: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit would still refer to three different persons according to the GS rule.

4. Jason Dulle is correct when he states: It could be argued that the prepositional phrase, “in the name,” is implied for both the Son and the Holy Spirit, so that the intended sense of the verse is, “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and [in the name] of the Holy Spirit.”

In grammar what Jason is referrring to, perhaps without knowing it, is called and ellipsis. Now I don't mean (...) by ellipsis, although that is an ellipsis and actually similar in meaning in a way.

ellipsis: the omission of one or more items from a construction in order to avoid repeating the identical or equivalent items that are in a preceding or following construction, as the omission of [I]been to Paris from the second clause of I've been to Paris, but they haven't.

The result of this (the ellipsis) is that it actually means what it says: in the name of THE FATHER, and of THE SON, and of THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Incidentally, it's possible that many read their "idea" of what Baptism is back into the text, eisegesis. For example, at every Trinitarian church I have been to which only Baptizes those old enough to make a confession, the one being baptized must make a confession of repentance and faith unto Jesus Christ. The one baptizing the confessor is the one who says "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." That's interesting for several reasons. It's Biblical. Look at Paul (calling upon the name of the Lord) and look at the fact that the apostles are the subject of the verb "baptizing" in 28:19, which is an active participle (they are to be the doers). In Acts 2:38, "repent" is aor/act/mid 2nd per/pl while "baptized" is aor/passive/mid 3rd per/sing. That's as far as I will pursue the "baptism" and "name" discussion other than to say there doesn't seem to be any conflict to me (not to mention that my view would also be in line with the Jewish Mikveh).

So I've commented way more than I had intended. I don't have further time to discuss it and if I get a little time I will attempt to get back to a couple of your other posts for some explanation.

TheLayman

Praxeus

04-10-2008, 01:38 AM

Hi Folks,

Mizpeh, interesting thread and discussions. There really are at least two distinct questions. What does Matthew 28 suggest, allow and impel by itself ? And how does Matthew 28:19 exegete including the harmony with Acts and other verses ?

Bear with me a bit, I will be going over some territory that may be familiar, however hoping to share additional insight for myself and others by reviewing the beautiful word of God. In some cases I will be adding bold or italics.

As pointed out above, it is helpful to see the Christological context.

Matthew 28:16-20
Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Now if the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost had three names, (or three distinct authorities or purposes) then 'names' should should could be plural. In these regard we can note two verses that show the centrality of the name of Jesus Christ, and essentially belie the idea of contrasting or competing names.

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in my name,
he shall teach you all things, '
and bring all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 5:43
I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not:
if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

We had in the example given, the king, the queen and the motherland. Or perhaps you might require good conduct in the name of law, integrity and mercy. Or other possible combinations. We see that there is one name and/or authority and/or purpose and/or appeal involved, yet strictly speaking, there is not (in our parlance, Biblical parlance is a deeper issue) a necessity for the actual literal name.

So it is true that by itself one should not and could not finish the exegesis with Matthew 28 and insist upon the one actual, literal name, even with the Christological context of the verses surrounding. If we had no other verses interpretation could be open-ended. Matthew 28:19 by itself would not have to be the literal 'name' rather than an authority, harmony of purpose, direction.

Notice that this is not a unique situation. You do have other verses than can similarly be given multiple interpretations.

Matthew 7:22
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord,
have we not prophesied in thy name?
and in thy name have cast out devils?
and in thy name done many wonderful works?

One can see such such a verse as above in a number of ways. And the verse has forward echoes to Acts 8 and Simon Magus, who was even baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus".

In Acts 4, notice that power and name are directly linked.

Acts 4:7
And when they had set them in the midst, they asked,
By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?

While these verses by themselves suggest the actual usage of the name of Jesus Christ, they (by themselves) allow also for the concepts of authority, anointing, direction, purpose, power .. conceivably sans the actual literal name. Although omission of the actual name would have dissonance with Biblical thought, which always places emphasis upon the name of the LORD, Jehovah, in the Tanach and the fullness of the revelatory name Jehovah-saves (Matthew 1:21) the Lord Jesus Christ , in the New Testament. (This is emphasized especially in Acts and the epistles, yet throughout the NT.)

Notice that Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, answered the question of Acts 4:7 :
"By what power, or by what name"

Acts 4:10
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel,
that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,
whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead,
even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Thus the name of Jesus Christ is the issue. And in fact the literal name of Jesus had been specifically spoken in the circumstances of which the Bible gives us detail. (Italics/bold added below).

Acts 3:6
Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none;
but such as I have give I thee:
In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

Thus we see that in this very complete example, any attempt to make a distinction of significance between name and authority fails. The power, the authority, was manifest through and with the actual name of Jesus Christ.

From that perspective let us review Matthew 28 (above) and correlative, fulfillment verses of specificity.

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them,
Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Please notice the similarly with Acts 4. Can one imagine the name of Jesus Christ then dropping out of centrality of the actual baptism ? I trow not.

Acts 10:48
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.
Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou?
arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins,
calling on the name of the Lord.

Also specific is the next. Notice that in John's baptism faith in Jesus Christ was impelled. However the blood of Jesus had not yet been shed for remission of sins. Thus in the new covenant baptism, we have the "name of the Lord Jesus" as the contrasting (primary, superior, necessary) element.

Acts 19:3-5
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized?
And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul,
John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people,
that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Yes, Matthew 28:19, in singular, or private, interpretation, may not demand the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, in harmony with the verses above, and other verses we should remember, the singular name is given by God as the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, this is one reason why I would say that Matthew 28:19 is the cornerstone verse for the Oneness view.

Here are three of the general verses of the majesty and power of the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. These fit in perfectly with the above.

Philippians 2:9-10
Therefore God also hath highly exalted him,
and given him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

Colossians 3:17
And whatsoever ye do in word or deed,
do all in the name of the Lord Jesus,
giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

Acts 4 is so beautiful that it is helpful to give fuller context.
This is where Peter specifically spoke the words.

"In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk."

Acts 4:10
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that
by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,
whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead,
even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders,
which is become the head of the corner.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for
there is none other name under heaven given among men,
whereby we must be saved.

Thus, Matthew 28 includes the cornerstone verse that shows us that Jesus Christ is the name, the authority, the power, the majesty of all Deity.

Matthew 28:18-19
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Without Matthew 28:19 there could be a tremendous gap of our understanding of God .. manifest in the flesh in the Lord Jesus Christ, the great mystery of Godliness ! Most especially, we might stumble over dualistic or triistic concepts of the name of God. Matthew 28:19 is the one verse that strongly and powerfully and contextually unifies the name, the authority, the power, the majesty of God in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. A stumblingblock for many, in diverse camps. And the section and verses does so by impelling us to study the scriptures more excellently, a wonderful necessity.

So I do think that Jason's blog made a valid point. We should not atomize the verse, and demand too much grammatically. Matthew 28:19, like all of the word of God, only comes to full light and understanding in the context of the harmony of all scripture.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Praxeus

04-10-2008, 01:58 AM

(continued PS.)

PS.
Mizpeh, when I saw that Layman simply repeated the same blunder as earlier in assuming his own mis-directives into the 'Granville Sharp rule' (ie...persons) I decided to simply skip over his post (although his discussion of ellipsis was reasonable by itself). And so I tried to work with the thoughtful ideas in your posts above and its context of other discussions. Although I actually tried to approach this fresh and I have not yet gone to the other thread indicated. I appreciate the point made by Jason that we should not over-read into the singular name of Matthew 18:19 .. by itself, without full scriptural context.

And for Complete I have not gone back to your reference to some earlier questions, that you have mentioned on this thread a couple of times recently. Please try to PM me or email me with the link or post# or major concern and interest. I gladly acknowledge that my posting here is really designed to be indepth on limited, specific questions and issues, generally geared toward the defense of the perfection and purity of the word of God. And some internal Oneness issues such as the post on the Hyper-Oneness question/aberration. And little interest in repetitious Messiahology debates that are covered well in other venues and have a tendency to grandstanding. Wheels do not need reinvention. So overall I cannot affirm ahead of time any great efforts to your question, although I would at least like to know what issue you are asking to be addressed. Perhaps I will find them thoughtful and fascinating.

Returning to the thread : I do hope the above has been moderately helpful in reply to the question raised (which is an excellent question to consider). And where I missed salient points, I do desire that the brothers and sisters here will correct and augment and share much more. I did enjoy very much thinking about the material discussed and seeking more scriptural context and the fullness of scriptural harmony.

complete

04-11-2008, 11:20 AM

(continued PS.)

And for Complete I have not gone back to your reference to some earlier questions, that you have mentioned on this thread a couple of times recently. Please try to PM me or email me with the link or post# or major concern and interest. I gladly acknowledge that my posting here is really designed to be indepth on limited, specific questions and issues, generally geared toward the defense of the perfection and purity of the word of God. And some internal Oneness issues such as the post on the Hyper-Oneness question/aberration. And little interest in repetitious Messiahology debates that are covered well in other venues and have a tendency to grandstanding. Wheels do not need reinvention. So overall I cannot affirm ahead of time any great efforts to your question, although I would at least like to know what issue you are asking to be addressed. Perhaps I will find them thoughtful and fascinating.

Returning to the thread : I do hope the above has been moderately helpful in reply to the question raised (which is an excellent question to consider). And where I missed salient points, I do desire that the brothers and sisters here will correct and augment and share much more. I did enjoy very much thinking about the material discussed and seeking more scriptural context and the fullness of scriptural harmony.

No need to direct you to my replies. Your posting here has revealed much to the critical thinker. Further need of your in depth explanations is not necessary.

Thanks for your time.

Praxeus

04-12-2008, 07:30 PM

Hi Complete,

Your welcome. I'll take this as a compliment, whether so designed or not.

And I will conclude that if you do comment to others yet again about my not answering some questions, you will indicate what are the actual questions.

And I will be the first to acknowledge, in earnestness and sense, that many of the Christological debates are simply unsatisfactory. With proof-texting thrown around as tar paper. That they are designed a bit more for positioning and politics and self-satisfaction than seeking out the beautiful truths of the word of God. Rather, we should be desiring to hold consistent positions, with the one eternal, consistent, perfect God.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

No need to direct you to my replies. Your posting here has revealed much to the critical thinker. Further need of your in depth explanations is not necessary. Thanks for your time.

TheLayman

04-13-2008, 12:10 PM

Complete, it's clear to me that Praxeus is not quoting TLM but (perhaps) he is paraphrasing TLM's main points. I don't consider this dishonest. TLM has the opportunity to correct any misunderstanding Praxeus may have had regarding his position.
What is clear to me is the Praxeus made up his own sentences, put them in another color, and set them off as it to make it appear that this is what I said (since he was unable to respond to what I actually said) and then argued against it. He did not paraphrase, he lied, something which Complete caught and it was brought out in his questions (which Stevey also refused to answer). I had to really laugh at Stevey’s latest response to Complete where he pretends he needs the post numbers and says he will address the questions in PM. LOL! Stevey is obviously quite adept at pseudology. Mizpeh, the guy throws out a lie, different topic and ad hom every other sentence, and he does it continuously, but he does it with a thesaurus trying to appear knowledgeable.
Steven,

I'm sure TheLayman will point out everything to you in his time.
I did so in my first six responses to him. He just continued on doing more of the same. Stevey simply makes posts which are an appeal to ridicule, argument by assertion, misrepresentation, outright lying, contrived posts where he argues with made up statements (more lying), and so on. Stevey for all of his pomp and bluster has done nothing to show that anything I said regarding Granville Sharps rule and Mt. 28:19 is incorrect. In all of his lengthy responses can you find him actually backing up his own assertions anywhere with facts? He’s hiding behind page after page of dishonest prattle meant to divert from the fact that he is completely lost. Some examples:

How about how many times Stevey falsely claimed I said Granville Sharp’s proves three co-eternal, consubstantial, co-equal persons knowing I never said any such thing? (I bring this up later).

How about dishonest assertions such as Granville Sharp‘s rule indicating three persons in Matt. 28:19 being my unique theory? Mizpeh, please do a quick google search of Granville Sharp’s rule and Matt. 28:19. Then do another and search for something to the effect of “Granville Sharp’s rule does not apply to Matt. 28:19.” I have not put forth a “unique theory,” just an explanation of a grammar rule. And if you do the search you will find Stevey is the one sitting on an island by himself, not me.

How about his assertion that I said what Granville Sharp said is irrelevant when in fact what I said was what Granville Sharp “didn’t say” is irrelevant. I am discussing what he did say. Just another red herring.

Or this supposed syllogism I have offered. He’s been asked about it more than once. In fact, not only did he ignore a direct response to Complete’s question regarding this, he simply continued to assert this nonsense about a syllogism that doesn’t exist. There’s a reason he can not answer Complete’s questions which is the fact Complete’s questions expose the truly pathetic dishonesty of Stevey. Stevey can’t answer them because they expose him.
TheLayman is an orthodox Trinitarian who for the most part sticks rigidly to the topic at hand. Since we are discussing Matt 28:19 and Sharpe's rule, that is where his focus will be although he has strayed a little in this thread in discussing Sharpes other rules.

I didn’t stray from any topic Mizpeh (the topic wasn‘t Matt. 28:19, it was Granville Sharp‘s as I recall). Granville Sharp’s rule was brought up and many people think it is only one rule instead of 6 interrelated rules. So, the problem with the initial misunderstanding that I responded to is that they were looking at the wrong rule, and they were trying to apply it to the English instead of the Greek. When I demonstrated a different construction, I quoted the relevant rule with the passage.

I also pointed out that Granville Sharp spoke of nouns which are of personal description or application and nouns which are not of personal description or application. For example, grace, mercy, and peace would not be personal. However, words like slave, teacher, doctor, and so forth are nouns that refer to persons who are slaves, teachers, and doctors. If you say “the slave,” or “the teacher,” or “the doctor,” you are talking about a specific person that is a doctor. That was pertinent to Mt. 28:19.

Mizpeh, the following questions are a follow-up to Complete’s comment regarding “critical thinking.” They are simply meant to point out how someone can go on post after post trying to sound intelligent and well informed while at the same time doing nothing but lying and exposing his own ignorance. Don’t feel obligated to answer (though you are certainly welcome to since you don’t find anything dishonest about the postings of Praxeus).

1. I made the following statement regarding Matthew 28:19 and Granville Sharp’s rule which Stevey asserted was incorrect,:
Unlike Batholomew on page 1 of this thread, you are at least correct that Granville/Sharp's rule does most certainly indicate 3 persons in Matt. 28:19.
True or False?

2. Stevey never even quoted any of Granville Sharp rules to back up his claim.

True or False?

3. Stevey made the following claim: The first point to consider is simple, Layman's offered a patently false claim in indicating that Sharp's view or rule must reference "persons". Multiple choice below:

A.) TheLayman asserted that Granville Sharp’s rule must always indicate different persons.

B.) TheLayman asserted that the Granville Sharp’s rule would indicate different persons specifically in Matt. 28:19 .
C.) Other

4.. Stevey made the following claim that I misrepresented the Greek:
Nonetheless, since the Greek has been misrepresented we shall, for a bit, "go to the Greek".

Stevey never did “go to the Greek?”

True or False?

(If you answered “False” please state what “Greek” Stevey went to exactly).

5. Stevey never showed any misrepresentation of the Greek on the part of TheLayman.

True or False?

(If you answered False, please state what “Greek” Stevey showed was misrepresented)

6. Stevey made the following statement: “You should always be cautious about both layman and trained experts who tell you of the necessity of "going to the Greek" for some special revelation. Hold on to your spiritual hats and wallets when you hear that refrain.”

TheLayman never claimed one needed to go to the Greek for special revelation.

True of False?

7. Reference #6, the Granville Sharp’s rule, which was being discussed, involves Greek grammar.

True or False?

8. Reference #7, if one is going to understand how the Granville Sharp’s rule applies to any particular passage, it will be necessary to look at the passage in Greek.

True or False?

9. TheLayman provided the Greek and explanations for several different passages and the Granville Sharp’s rule applicable to each.

True or False?

10. The fact of the matter is Stevey never personally offered any explanation regarding the Greek but stated that I should go to the B Greek board (WOW, I still have to say ROTFLOL to that one!).

True or False?

11. Stevey offered a small quote from Bishop Middleton in an attempt to assert that Bishop Middleton (multiple choice):

A. Had offered evidence that Granville Sharp’s rule did not apply to Mt. 28:19

B. Had offered evidence that Granville Sharp’s rule did apply to Mt. 28:19

12. TheLayman offered a bit more in the quote of Middleton (and the correct page number). Bishop Middleton stated that (multiple choice):

A. The words “holy spirit” always require a definite article just because.

B. The “Holy Spirit” has the definite article preceding it in Matt. 28:19 because the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity (thus being personal and only one), especially in that he says: to denote the Great and Preeminent Spirit, the Third Person in the Trinity…The reason of this is obvious ; for there being but one Holy Spirit, he could not be spoken of indefinitely. In Matt, also xxviii. 19. where the Holy Spirit is associated with the Father and the Son, the reading is той àylov Trvev/maTos,

13. Referencing #12, Bishop Middleton states that the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of in the Trinity.

True of False?

14. Referencing #13, in that, according to Middleton, the Holy Spirit is the Third Person, then their would be only one person of the Holy Spirit thus requiring the article in Mt. 28:19. This makes Middleton’s statement (multiple choice):

A. Consistent with the Granville Sharp’s rule as applied to Mt. 28:19 and the Granville Sharp’s rule consistent with Middleton’s statement.

B. Inconsistent with the Granville Sharp’s rule as applied to Mt 28:19 and the Granville Sharp’s rule inconsistent with Middleton’s statement.

15. Stevey said in post #34: And for modernist Trinitarians today to pretend that it [Granivlle Sharp’s rule] offers doctrinal support for their view of three (coequal, coeternal, consubstantial) distinct persons in Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+28%3A19) is simply a type of blindness or ignorance.

Stevey misrepresents TheLayman as TheLayman never said that the Granville Sharps rule indicated three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial, distinct persons in Matt. 28:19.

True or False?

CONTINUED NEXT POST

TheLayman

04-13-2008, 12:27 PM

16. With reference to #15, TheLayman pointed out this misrepresentation in post #44 stating:

“The grammatical construction of TSKTS is either in 28:19 or it is not. It is simple as that, and Sharp’s rule was about specific grammatical constructions, not about specific passages.”

"Again YOU misrepresent me. I never said anything about one single sentence anywhere in Scripture teaching three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial persons.”

True of False?

17. In reference to #16, Stevey not only continued to make the same false assertion repeatedly, but also began what can only be described as blatant lying. One (of many) examples in post #52 for example. Stevey said: “For you to finally agree that you overstated, got in over your head (on asserting that Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+28%3A19) proves three eternal persons in the Godhead per the Granville Sharp rule) would simply be the reasonable service, sincerity before God and man. And it would be refreshing on the net.”
As Stevey continues, the misrepresentations become blatant lies about TheLayman as the TheLayman never said, “that Matthew 28:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+28%3A19) proves three eternal persons in the Godhead per the Granville Sharp rule.”

True of False?

18. You have found the information and explanations provided by Praxeus useful in understanding the Granville Sharp’s rule:

True or False?

If true, in what way?

19. You have found the information and explanations provided by TheLayman useful in understanding the Granville Sharp’s rule:

True of False?

If true, in what way?

NOTE: For questions #20 thru #22 assume you have a test tomorrow in which you will be given 40 passages of Scripture. In each one you will have to identify which rule of Granville Sharp applies and explain it’s application.

20. You can only use the posts in this thread to this point of either TheLayman or Praxeus to assist you. You would choose the posts of:

A. TheLayman

B. Praxeus

21. You can read only the resources provided in this thread to this point by either TheLayman or Praxeus. You would choose to read the resource provided by:

A. TheLayman

B. Praxeus

22. You could have either TheLayman or Praxeus personally assist you with the questions on the test. You would choose:

A. TheLayman

B. Praxeus

Mizpeh, it doesn't matter what side of an issue you are on, honesty is honesty. Obviously these questions expose Stevey. At the same time I can assure you that I have never tried to simply misrepresent and confuse the topic, or give bad information to anyone regardless of your belief. As I've explained to you before, I have credibility with people who disagree with me only so long as I am honest and accurate. And do you really believe Stevey was having a hard time finding the very specific questions asked by Complete? So I would hope that you really don't find Stevey's behavior "honest," as that obviously speaks to your view of honesty, and the only honesty others can expect of you is your view and understanding of it.

Blessings,
TheLayman

Praxeus

04-13-2008, 02:57 PM

Hi Folks,

First, Layman, you can call me Steven, or Praxeus, or "the poster". "Stevey" is improper, Even more so from a false accuser like yourself.

What is clear to me is the Praxeus made up his own sentences, put them in another color, and set them off as it to make it appear that this is what I said (since he was unable to respond to what I actually said) and then argued against it. He did not paraphrase, he lied ... the guy throws out a lie .. every other sentence .. outright lying .. (more lying) .. dishonestly. Since these lying accusations are repeated and completely false, and only indicate a deep problem in Layman's approach, I have to ask the moderator to step in here, and await action.

I was very clear in my post why I found the Layman short reverse challenge to be logically unacceptable, and I was trying to make his claim into a logical argument, and that the green was my understanding of his claim. And clearly he could offer any place where I had misunderstood his actual claim. There was no lie, and no attempt at misrepresentation. (And I even made it clear that I was unsure if Layman was asserting the "coequal, coeternal and consubstantial" part of the three persons claim). The most there could have been was a little heading above each color change for the hard-of-reading. I'm in a sense glad that I omitted that, because now we see the true nature of 'Layman', a false accuser.

Only when this is addressed would it make sense to address the rest of Layman's post.

False accusations of lying are simply intolerable on a forum of this nature, and hopefully the moderator will note and take action.

After that is addressed by the forum moderator, I will be happy to attend to any attempted substance in the Layman post. Since he posts in a cagey-reverse-way, that will take a bit of time, but lets deal first with the integrity issue.

Clearly there was no lying when I attempted to express a meaningful construct from Layman's weak, reverse-field, curt 'prove me wrong' attempt. And I did so in a clear manner, as Mizpeh and others could easily see.

Layman has every right to disclaim any part of my understanding of what he was attempting to show (he avoids this in his reply) but the fact that he can only be a false accuser and broken-field-runner is telling.

The other think that is rather telling is that Layman still laughs at the suggestion of conferring with folks who actually have studied Biblical Greek for years professionally (the b-Greek forum) on his theory that Matthew 28:19 must demonstrate three persons based on Granville Sharp. His nervous laughter (buttressed by his disinterest in what Sharp himself said, along with using Middleton only for doctrinal diversion rather than grammatical analysis of his claim) is more telling that any actual attempt or lack thereof. It would be simple to fly his idea and get it considered by dozens of folks who specialize in the Greek, mostly without doctrinal angles and axes. However it is more telling to watch the nervous laughter of the self-proclaimed layman Greek expert.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

PS.
Granted, a lot of Layman's post simply rehashes positions that I already addressed, so I have to deal with his hard-of-reading. However that can come later. I would like to see if the moderator will read the thread and act properly vis a vis the repeated false accusations of lying. And I know that Good News Cafe generally has very high moderator-ship standards.

mizpeh

04-13-2008, 03:39 PM

Here's an awesome article that perhaps will inspire some folks to deal with each other in a kinder and gentler way. It's long but I urge you to read the whole letter. You will be blessed by it and the godly wisdom with which it was written.

John Newton’s Works; Letter XIX - On Controversy
A minister, about to write an article criticizing a fellow minister for his lack of orthodoxy, wrote to John Newton of his intention. Newton replied as follows:

Dear Sir,
As you are likely to be engaged in controversy, and your love of truth is joined with a natural warmth of temper, my friendship makes me solicitous on your behalf. You are of the strongest side; for truth is great, and must prevail; so that a person of abilities inferior to yours, might take the field with a confidence of victory. I am not therefore anxious for the event of the battle; but I would have you more than a conqueror, and to triumph, not only over your adversary, but over yourself. If you cannot be vanquished, you may be wounded. To preserve you from such wounds as might give you cause of weeping over your conquests, I would present you with some considerations, which, if duly attended to, will do you the service of a great coat of mail; such armor, that you need not complain, as David did of Saul’s, that it will be more cumbersome than useful; for you will easily perceive it is taken from that great magazine provided for the Christian soldier, the word of God. I take it for granted that you will not expect any apology for my freedom, and therefore I shall not offer one. For method’ sake, I may reduce my advice to three heads, respecting your opponent, the public and yourself.

As to your opponent, I wish that before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord’s teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write. If you account him a believer, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab concerning Absalom, are very applicable: “Deal gently with him for my sake.” The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly. The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others, from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself. In a little while you will meet in heaven; he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now. Anticipate that period in your thoughts; and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul, with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever. But if you look upon him as an unconverted person, in a state of enmity against God and his grace (a supposition which, without good evidence, you should be very unwilling to admit), he is a more proper object of your compassion than of your anger. Alas! “He knows not what he does.” But you know who has made you to differ. If God, in his sovereign pleasure, had so appointed, you might have been as he is now; and he, instead of you, might have been set for the defense of the gospel. You were both equally blind by nature. If you attend to this, you will not reproach or hate him, because the Lord has been pleased to open your eyes, and not his. Of all people who engage in controversy, we, who are called Calvinists, are most expressly bound by our own principles to the exercise of gentleness and moderation. If, indeed, they who differ from us have a power of changing themselves, if they can open their own eyes, and soften their own hearts, then we might with less inconsistency be offended at their obstinacy: but if we believe the very contrary to this, our part is, not to strive, but in meekness to instruct those who oppose. “If peradventure God will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth.” If you write with a desire of being an instrument of correcting mistakes, you will of course be cautious of laying stumbling blocks in the way of the blind or of using any expressions that may exasperate their passions, confirm them in their principles, and thereby make their conviction, humanly speaking, more impracticable.

By printing, you will appeal to the public; where your readers may be ranged under three divisions: First, such as differ from you in principle. Concerning these I may refer you to what I have already said. Though you have your eye upon one person chiefly, there are many like-minded with him; and the same reasoning will hold, whether as to one or to a million.

There will be likewise many who pay too little regard to religion, to have any settled system of their own, and yet are pre-engaged in favor of those sentiments which are at least repugnant to the good opinion men naturally have of themselves. These are very incompetent judges of doctrine; but they can form a tolerable judgment of a writer’s spirit. They know that meekness, humility and love are the characteristics of a Christian temper; and though they affect to treat the doctrines of grace as mere notions and speculations, which, supposing they adopted them, would have no salutary influence upon their conduct; yet from us, who profess these principles, they always expect such dispositions as correspond with the precepts of the gospel. They are quick-sighted to discern when we deviate from such a spirit, and avail themselves of it to justify their contempt of our arguments. The Scriptural maxim, that “the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God,” is verified by daily observation. If our zeal is embittered by expressions of anger, invective, or scorn, we may think we are doing service of the cause of truth, when in reality we shall only bring it into discredit. The weapons of our warfare, and which alone are powerful to break down the strongholds of error, are not carnal, but spiritual; arguments fairly drawn from Scripture and experience, and enforced by such a mild address, as may persuade our readers, that, whether we can convince them or not, we wish well to their souls, and contend only for the truth’s sake; if we can satisfy them that we act upon these motives, our point is half gained; they will be more disposed to consider calmly what we offer; and if they should still dissent from our opinions, they will be constrained to approve our intentions.

You will have a third class of readers, who being of your own sentiments, will readily approve of what you advance, and may be further established and confirmed in their views of the Scripture doctrines, by a clear and masterly elucidation of your subject. You may be instrumental to their edification if the law of kindness as well as of truth regulates your pen, otherwise you may do them harm. There is a principle of self, which disposes us to despise those who differ from us; and we are often under its influence, when we think we are only showing a becoming zeal in the cause of God. I readily believe that the leading points of Arminianism spring from and are nourished by the pride of the human heart; but I should be glad if the reverse were always true; and that to embrace what are called the Calvinistic doctrines was an infallible token of a humble mind. I think I have known some Arminians, that is, persons who for want of a clearer light, have been afraid of receiving the doctrines of free grace, who yet have given evidence that their hearts were in a degree humbled before the Lord. And I am afraid there are Calvinists, who, while they account it a proof of their humility, that they are willing in words to debase the creature and to give all the glory of salvation to the Lord, yet know not what manner of spirit they are of. Whatever it be that makes us trust in ourselves that we are comparatively wise or good, so as to treat those with contempt who do not subscribe to our doctrines, or follow our party, is a proof and fruit of a self-righteous spirit. Self-righteousness can feed upon doctrines as well as upon works; and a man may have the heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with orthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature, and the riches of free grace. Yea, I would add, the best of men are not wholly free from this leaven; and therefore are too apt to be pleased with such representations as hold up our adversaries to ridicule, and by consequence flatter our own superior judgments. Controversies, for the most part, are so managed as to indulge rather than to repress his wrong disposition; and therefore, generally speaking, they are productive of little good. They provoke those whom they should convince, and puff up those whom they should edify. I hope your performance will savour of a spirit of true humility, and be a means of promoting it in others.

mizpeh

04-13-2008, 03:41 PM

The rest of the letter:

This leads me, in the last place, to consider your own concern in your present undertaking. It seems a laudable service to defend the faith once delivered to the saints; we are commanded to contend earnestly for it, and to convince gainsayers. If ever such defenses were seasonable and expedient they appear to be so in our own day, when errors abound on all sides and every truth of the gospel is either directly denied or grossly misrepresented. And yet we find but very few writers of controversy who have not been manifestly hurt by it. Either they grow in a sense of their own importance, or imbibe an angry, contentious spirit, or they insensibly withdraw their attention from those things which are the food and immediate support of the life of faith, and spend their time and strength upon matters which are at most but of a secondary value. This shows, that if the service is honorable, it is dangerous. What will it profit a man if he gains his cause and silences his adversary, if at the same time he loses that humble, tender frame of spirit in which the Lord delights, and to which the promise of his presence is made? Your aim, I doubt not, is good; but you have need to watch and pray for you will find Satan at your right hand to resist you; he will try to debase your views; and though you set out in defense of the cause of God, if you are not continually looking to the Lord to keep you, it may become your own cause, and awaken in you those tempers which are inconsistent with true peace of mind, and will surely obstruct communion with God.

Be upon your guard against admitting anything personal into the debate. If you think you have been ill treated, you will have an opportunity of showing that you are a disciple of Jesus, who “when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not.” This is our pattern, thus we are to speak and write for God, “not rendering railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing; knowing that hereunto we are called.” The wisdom that is from above is not only pure, but peaceable and gentle; and the want of these qualifications, like the dead fly in the pot of ointment, will spoil the savor and efficacy of our labors. If we act in a wrong spirit, we shall bring little glory to God, do little good to our fellow creatures, and procure neither honor nor comfort to ourselves. If you can be content with showing your wit, and gaining the laugh on your side, you have an easy task; but I hope you have a far nobler aim, and that, sensible of the solemn importance of gospel truths, and the compassion due to the souls of men, you would rather be a means of removing prejudices in a single instance, than obtain the empty applause of thousands. Go forth, therefore, in the name and strength of the Lord of hosts, speaking the truth in love; and may he give you a witness in many hearts that you are taught of God, and favored with the unction of his Holy Spirit.

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/04/09/the-irenic-style-of-john-newton-in-dealing-with-controversy/

Praxeus

04-13-2008, 04:01 PM

Hi Folks,

Integrity first.

Putting aside typical politics, the big issue where Layman wants to accuse me of lying goes back in the thread quite a bit. Let's review.

Layman had said.

Layman post:
Granville/Sharp's rule does most certainly indicate 3 persons in Matt. 28:19. (post 31)

With no qualifier at all, no explanation.

I understood this as Layman asserting that Sharp's rule is a rule on "persons" and wrote that:

Prax post
Layman's offered a patently false claim in indicating that Sharp's view or rule must reference "persons". Granville Sharp never said that the rule designated that the multiple subjects are persons .. he indicated that they the subjects would be distinct qualities, things or persons. (post 34)

So in post #42 Layman did acknowledge this. And attempted to cover his tracks, while acknowledging that the Granville Sharp rule he is discussing does not actually address "persons" as any necessary part of the rule.

(And later Layman claimed that my post above was one of the "lies" when he went off the deep posting end.)

Layman post
"personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities" (post 42)

Which clearly is a wide swath that can cover Oneness or Trinitarian views and does not demand 'persons'. (Layman's previously patently false indication.)

Oneness folks often talk about the "office" and the authority, quality, properties of the manifestations of God, which fits the above perfectly. Thus the whole discussion becomes neutral in any Oneness/Trinitarian dialogue.

And in a sensible discussion, the whole discussion would have ended here, without prejudice (which generally would be the proper result of a Granville Sharp, Matthew 28:19 discussion of Christology). Likely this is why Granville Sharp and others are not seen historically using Matthew 28:19 as an affirmation of "three eternal persons".

Layman tried to keep his Sharp-Matthew28:19-persons argument open with:

Layman post
"do (sic) to the “personal” nature of the substantives and the TSKTS construction that the Granville Sharp’s rule would indicate 3 different persons as opposed to none being personal (i.e. thing or quality)." (post 43)

However this is obviously Trinitarian circularity. (And has absolutely nothing to do with Sharp's rule except in the world of wishful thinking and Layman's own confusion of either 0 persons or 3 persons being derived from any personal qualities.)

Modern orthodox Trinitarian apologetic doctrine and logic goes like this:

"There are attributes of personality, therefore there are separate 'persons' throughout eternity (with distinct eternal consciousnesses)"

As forum members here are well aware.

The last four words, as expressed by Hank Hanegraaff, being a subject of some dispute even in Trinitarian circles. Imho, they are also the crux of the matter of any true and real dispute between Trinitarian and Oneness doctrines. And anyone who will not give their view on this distinct eternal consciousnesses question is suspect.

Are there three eternal consciousnesses or not ?

So things got even more confused from Layman when he simply repeated that which we had both defacto agreed was already corrected (putting aside his weak circularity attempt).

Layman post
Granville/Sharp's rule does most certainly indicate 3 persons in Matt. 28:19 (post 44)

And added.

Layman post
Nothing about the DOT there. However, the passage is most definitely consistent with the DOT. (post 44)

The last part being a diversionary attempt, since of course his false claim about Sharp describing "3 persons" was certainly Layman's attempt to bring forth Trinity doctrine from air. Otherwise, why the fuss and muss ?

btw, I would not accuse Layman of lying in his false claims, as I believe he is simply trapped in his own circularities and sincerely believes his own assertions even when obviously in error. I prefer to leave the word lying generally to deliberate and conscious falsehood.

So I pointed out that defacto Layman had actually accepted the substance of my correction in his post 42, and asked him to take the logical step.

Prax post
“For you to finally agree that you overstated, got in over your head (on asserting that Matthew 28:19 proves three eternal persons in the Godhead per the Granville Sharp rule) would simply be the reasonable service, sincerity before God and man. And it would be refreshing on the net.” (#52)

Rather than accept that this is what he had done, and simply acknowledge the corrected overstatements above, Layman instead accuses me of : "blatant lying"

because Layman had never said the exact words.

Prax post above
"Matthew 28:19 proves three eternal persons in the Godhead per the Granville Sharp rule"

So we wonder ?
What does Layman actually disagree with above ?

What is the supposed "blatant lie" in this representation of his position ? What has Layman been arguing with the long, tedious posts, what is the purpose ?

If Layman does not believe Matthew 28:19 indicates (and by simple extension proves or at least helps prove) three persons in the Godhead, then all the above posting from Layman was sound and fury, signifying nothing. Either Layman is taking that (clearly false) position about Sharp's rule or he is not.

If Layman wants to critique the word "proves" and say that he only argues and indicates and affirms that Matthew 28:19 demonstrates three eternal persons in the Godhead, I think we could agree on that very minor quibble without acrimony. It would be a distinction of little difference; however I would receive such a protest and change as an acceptable correction and tweaking of what I initially wrote.

Thus the tweaked statement would be that Layman's position is that:

Prax potential adjusted post of the Layman position.
"Matthew 28:19 demonstrates three eternal persons in the Godhead per the Granville Sharp rule"

And if Layman's complaint is with the word "eternal" then Layman should state his position about one or two or three of his persons not being eternal. I would be very surprised, yet happy to modify and correct any potential misrepresentation and we could go on with that minor modification to the above. And if anyone has seen Layman give arguments against the eternality of the three persons, they can so indicate. My understanding is that I am simply expressing common Trinitarian parlance and that saying that a Trinitarian apologist like Layman who argues that something demonstrates three persons in the Godhead is ipso facto claiming three eternal persons.

It would be helpful if Layman learned to have these discussions like a mensch rather than a politician. Layman took a very awkward, unsupportable stance on this thread, that Matthew 28:19 and Granville Sharp combine together to indicate/prove "three persons" in the Godhead.

Layman got caught, and rather than acknowledge the obvious, what we get are politics, diversionary argumentation, tedious posts that miss all the main issues and, worse of all, invective and false accusation. The politics and diversionary argumentation I am happy to deal with in response, the false accusation however is a blight upon the forum as a whole.

====

btw, in post #82
http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=337662&postcount=82

I gave my summary of the significant issues to date, in addressing the far more colorful and helpful question raised by Mizpeh from Jason Dulle of the import of the singular name in Matthew 28:19. I believe that that series of posts are far more consequent than any other posts on this thread from myself or Layman, it is a relevant and fascinating question, and we were able to examine scripture in earnestness and faith and truth.

Now, returning to the accuser, in that post I simply dismissed the repeated Layman argumentation.

Prax post:
"Layman simply repeated the same blunder" - (post 83)

(Although I note want to also sidenote Layman's awkward condescending tone towards Jason Dulle who is I am confident is solid in matters such as the definition and usage of ellipsis.)

Now looking back I see Layman's sentence was more incomprehensible than anything else.

Layman post
The person has found no exception to the Granville Sharp's rule in Matt. 28:19. The reason for the exception is made clear and that exception doesn't exist anywhere in 28:19. (post 81)

It looks like Layman was yet again repeating the same blunder, what we had already agreed was not part of Sharp's rule (ie. persons). However, since the sentence is basically incomprehensible, it is hard to say what Layman was asserting.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

mizpeh

04-13-2008, 04:21 PM

My take on Matthew 28:19 has not changed with the reading of this discussion. The "name" applies to all three, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost which do not need to be considered distinct theological persons with distinct consciousnesses to work within the confines of Sharpe's rule. Considering Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as three different manifestations of the one God will also work in this context because these three manifestations of the one God ALL are defined as different or distinct one from the other by the apostles. (And to make it clear to Trinitarians, one God is one person with a singular consciousness.) The actions of the Apostles clearly indicate what they thought Jesus meant when He said the words found in Matt 28:19 to them. The "name" is Jesus and the authority comes from Jesus.

Praxeus, your post # 82 rocked! :)

Here are definitions of the titles used in Matthew 28:19 provided by DaveC, which I agree with, that may help some understand that we are not simply talking about TITLES but also about who those TITLES represent:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The-Plural-One-God http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=1864325#post1864325)
Hey Oneness would this be true if we follow your theology...

You remove the Father from Jesus...He's Not God

The Father enters back into Jesus...He's God

Diety status based on whether the Father dwells in Jesus or Not.

Is this what you proclaim?

Greetings-

Let's start with the biblical distinctions of God. Here's how I would define them:

FATHER: God transcendent- above and beyond Creation and the physical universe.

SON: God Incarnate- the Theanthropos (God-man). God in His existence as a human being.

HOLY SPIRIT: God immanent- active and present in the physical universe.

These biblical distinctions are not personal distinctions prior to the Incarnation, but are distinctions based on, and in relation to, the Incarnation.

How's that? All of my Oneness theology proceeds from these definitions.

http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showpost.php?p=1864373&postcount=3

Praxeus

04-13-2008, 05:48 PM

The "name" applies to all three, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost which do not need to be considered distinct theological persons with distinct consciousnesses to work within the confines of Sharpe's rule. Considering Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as three different manifestations of the one God will also work in this context because these three different manifestations of the one God ALL are defined differently by the apostles. (And to make it clear to Trinitarians, one God is one person with a singular consciousness.) The actions of the Apostles clearly indicate what they thought Jesus meant when He said this to them. The "name" is Jesus and the authority comes from Jesus. Amen ! God's word can be so simple and beautiful.

Praxeus, your post # 82 rocked! :) Thanks, Mizpeh. I truly think that that post was really the purpose of the thread, to help me, and for research, learning and edification and maybe even to assist others. To see simple beautiful connections in the word of God that I had overlooked over the year's past. So much else on this thread was more like scaffolding, to help me to desire to search the scriptures on the harmonies of the name of Jesus and the authority of God.

Shalom,
Steven

mizpeh

04-13-2008, 08:53 PM

Layman post
The person has found no exception to the Granville Sharp's rule in Matt. 28:19. The reason for the exception is made clear and that exception doesn't exist anywhere in 28:19. (post 81)

It looks like Layman was yet again repeating the same blunder, what we had already agreed was not part of Sharp's rule (ie. persons). However, since the sentence is basically incomprehensible, it is hard to say what Layman was asserting.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Prax, I think TheLayman was responding to this post: http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=337615&postcount=80

In this post Forevertruth (John) is asserting that Matt 28:19 qualifies as an exception to Sharpe's rule with the "Me" found in verse 18. Where he stated However, there is one exception to Granville Sharp's rule: "Except distinct and different actions are intended to be attributed to one and the same person; in which case, if the sentence is not expressed agreeable to the three first rules, but appears as an exception to this sixth rule...the context must explain or point out plainly the person to whom the two nouns relate."

Therefore the "name" and the nouns, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are all referring back to the Me, ie: Jesus. That is what the apostles understood Jesus to mean and that is why they baptized in Jesus name.

18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the [MY] name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. ESV

Praxeus

04-14-2008, 12:07 AM

Hi Folks,

Thanks, Mizpeh.

Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.

Interesting. Again the issues are simple to see in English of our wonderful pure and perfect Bible. You have a connective element, which itself is built around the grammatical fulcrum of therefore. A good point to make, that the linkage of the three referents are therefore around the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Easy to see and understand in the pure Bible we and every ploughman can read, while only made more complicated in the seminarian's playgrounds.

On an exegetical level, those who disagree with baptism in Jesus name would likely say that the therefore only connects the power that is given to baptizing, bypassing the name. And this would take us back to the Bible harmony elements of post #82, showing the Bible connection (emphasizing the Book of Acts and the Epistles) between the power & authority and the actual, literal name.

And it is not necessarily either/or, therefore can connect both the power and the literal name of the Lord Jesus Christ with the name of water baptism for remission of sin .. the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost .. the Lord Jesus Christ.

Shalom,
Steven

OriginalPraxeas

04-19-2008, 09:07 PM

Praxeus

04-21-2008, 01:50 AM

Exactly. I don't know who is saying Sharps rule refutes Oneness and supports the Trinity but it does not. It is not used to show persons of a Trinity but rather the Deity of jesus and we can both go with that. Sharps rule can't apply to Mat 28:19 Hi Original Praxeas, I think we may have had both false views on this thread - Oneness over Trinity and Trinity over Oneness based on a Greek grammar rule that, as you point out, is actually an analysis used in referring to the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ and has nothing at all about the identification of "persons".

Now I personally believe the Deity of Jesus is amply shown through the English of the inspired and preserved, pure and perfect Bible, in verses like 1 Timothy 3:16. "God was manifest in the flesh ... " along with the majesty and supremacy of the name of the Lord Jesus Christ indicated throughout the New Testament. Matthew 28:19 being a fulcrum scripture for this revelation.

And that any claims that "the Greek" should give a different grammatical sense than the historical English Bible, the Authorized Version - the King James Bible, are very, very dubious. This is true whether the Bible correctors are Oneness, Trinitarian, Arian or Spaghetti Ebionite Cornfuseniks. And those claims can get you into the whole murky question of grammatical rules, multi-exceptions, causes for the inauguration, implementation and coronation of 'rules' with many exceptions - attempted to be applied for doctrinal axes.

(For this it is good to understand the fluidity of language and the sense and nonsense of any overbearing analysis that is based on even the 'rules' of English, when mechanism can be used to trump context and sense. The game becomes almost a joke when the issue is moved to a language that we do not even speak, and in which even today's computer-lexicon-scholars have much less daily immersion and understanding than the Bible scholars of the Reformation days, and the superb scholars who labored in the days of the Geneva and King James Bible.)

To refute the JW deceptions, one should simply use our pure Bible, and also point out how they have tampered with the Bible (e.g. by imposing Jehovah inconsistently for their own purposes in their NT along with some other well-known tamperings). We have beautiful verses like 1 Timothy 3:16 and Matthew 28:19 and Isaiah 9:6 and Acts 4:12 and John 1 and Philippians 2:10 and more all throughout the Bible, in the language that we speak and understand, through which God has given us his pure word, declaring the perfection, majesty and Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And the simple beautiful and amazing fact that God has given us his pure word in our language, readable by every ploughman, and yes, even the seminarian.

This Deity of Messiah issue and the grammar of the New Testament is quite a fascinating area, yet it is very separate from the errors (I believe some from both sides on this thread) in trying to make Matthew 28:19 a study of "persons" in the Godhead or not, or some even trying to remove or change the verse absurdly. As you indicate, the supposed grammatical question of "persons" is totally outside the purview of the grammatical construction question raised in this thread.

Which is why, starting in post 82, I attempted to move on to more excellent studies. The other issue had been weighed and found wanting, yet the beautiful question of the proper and pure contextual understanding of Matthew 28:19 had been neglected. Every Oneness believer can see, if they desire God's word in fulness, how this verse is a fulcrum of our understanding of the Bible harmony of the majesty and Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Shalom,
Steven Avery