- This topic is empty.
- Posts
t8,
The two articles do not remove the very clear “said to HIM”. It is irrefutable that Thomas said what he said to HIM – that HIM being Jesus Christ.
To Jack and Keith, see my thread on Titus 2:13. We've discussed it many times. Even if you INSIST it MUST be calling Jesus “theos”, so what? He is clearly called “theos” in 1:1, 1:18, and 20:28.
Did you forget that the God OF Jesus foretold through Isaiah that Jesus WOULD be called “mighty god”? And why not? It meant “ruler”, and Jesus most definitely IS a mighty ruler, right? But don't confuse “mighty god” with “THE ALMIGHTY GOD”, who just happens to be our God AND Jesus's God.
So think about it. It COULD be saying, “the great God AND our Savior Jesus Christ”, and would therefore NOT be a trinity proof text. Or……………………
It COULD be calling Jesus the great god and Savior of us. Considering that “mighty god” in Isaiah and “great god” in Titus means the same exact thing, it is STILL not any kind of trinity proof text, is it? Let it go, boys.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Feb. 21 2011,10:31) Mike said: Quote I want you to RETAIN that claim that YOU YOURSELF made, and apply that same reasoning to the fact that God is always called a “HE” or a “HIM”, and NEVER a “THEY” or a “THEM”.
God is both called “Us” and “Him” in Genesis 1:26.KJ
Jack,Is it even a remote possibility that God was talking to someone else?
I know, let US think about it some more.
(Jack, did you think the “US” in the above sentence meant you? Or did you think that plural Mike was talking to himself?)Jack, can you answer the two points that Keith blew off?
1. Why only two “US” and one “OUR” in the whole of scripture………….compared with 7000 “HE” and “HIM” and “I”, etc?
2. Is it POSSIBLE from the text that God was talking someone other than Himself? If not, WHY?
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Feb. 22 2011,03:31) God is both called “Us” and “Him” in Genesis 1:26. KJ
OK. So when are you going to start referring to God as THEM and THEY? Of course, we will stick with HIM because we believe that there is one God the Father.It appears that you do not have too much faith in your doctrine because if you did, you would be calling God, THEM, THEY, etc.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 22 2011,11:51) t8, The two articles do not remove the very clear “said to HIM”. It is irrefutable that Thomas said what he said to HIM – that HIM being Jesus Christ.
That may be true and I am certainly not ruling that out myself.However, I think that it should be mentioned that when you refer to him as THE Lord, and then follow that with and THE God, then the second article does raise the possibility that it is referring to another, and it doesn't IMO impair on the fact that he was speaking to Jesus with the first article.
E.g., if I said, “to my wife and friend”, then I would probably be referring to one person, although 2 is actually even possible here too. If I said, to my wife and to my friend, then that too could be one person, but equally it could be speaking of another.
Now the fact that Jesus was being spoken to has little relevance to me because we both agree that Jesus is being referred to as the Lord and if it was you and you also wanted to thank God, then how would you record that in scripture? Probably the same way. When you thank the Lord, it is often accompanied by thanking God as a sign of respect and gratitude (* see examples below) and because he is invisible, it is not like Thomas could talk to the Father face to face anway.
I am not arguing either way on this, but spelling out what I think the possibilities are. In both possibilities however, I don't see the Trinity being taught, so any comments that say that I am arguing one way otherwise I have to accept the Trinity is absolute hogwash.
* 1 Corinthians 15:57
But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.Ephesians 5:20
always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.Mike said:
Quote To Jack and Keith, see my thread on Titus 2:13. We've discussed it many times. Even if you INSIST it MUST be calling Jesus “theos”, so what? He is clearly called “theos” in 1:1, 1:18, and 20:28.
Thank you Mike!You have not disputed that Jesus is called God in Titus 2:13. Now note that Jesus is not merely called “God” in Titus 2:13 but He is called “OUR God.”
You have admitted that Jesus is called God in Jn. 20:28. But note that Thomas said “MY God.”
You have made my day Mikey!
Jack
Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 21 2011,19:36) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Feb. 22 2011,11:32) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 22 2011,11:00) Hi WJ, 2Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ,
to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through
the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:Notice the word AND once again!
Are you trying to separate God from Jesus Christ?
Perhaps this verse will bring clarity to your understanding?Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the HolySpirit
and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all
that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
There is only one definite article wich means that the nouns “God” and “Savior” both refer to Jesus Christ.KJ
Hi Jack,Your logic escapes me?
If their was no articles, would
that mean it was referring to neither?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDIt is called the GSR (Grandville Sharp Rule) and it has never been debunked!
WJ
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 22 2011,00:34) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Feb. 22 2011,03:31) God is both called “Us” and “Him” in Genesis 1:26. KJ
OK. So when are you going to start referring to God as THEM and THEY? Of course, we will stick with HIM because we believe that there is one God the Father.It appears that you do not have too much faith in your doctrine because if you did, you would be calling God, THEM, THEY, etc.
t8And when are you going to start referring to the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit as a them?
When you say God spoke to you, who are you talking about?
The Father? Did the Father speak to you without the Holy Spirit or Jesus?
When you say the Lord did this or that, who are you talking about?
Are you talking about the Father alone healed you or saved you?
When you say the Holy Spirit spoke to you or led you a certain way why didn't you say the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit spoke to you and lead you since the Holy Spirit does or says nothing on his own?
Surely you guys are smarter than this. Surely you have more than this.
So the next time you should say THEY spoke to me and led me and saved me, right?
Do you serve the Trinity, the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit or not?
Why do you only give the Father credit and not them?
Or do you believe the three act independently of each other?
Your straw men and logical fallacies never cease to amaze me t8.
WJ
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 22 2011,16:34) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Feb. 22 2011,03:31) God is both called “Us” and “Him” in Genesis 1:26. KJ
OK. So when are you going to start referring to God as THEM and THEY? Of course, we will stick with HIM because we believe that there is one God the Father.It appears that you do not have too much faith in your doctrine because if you did, you would be calling God, THEM, THEY, etc.
The scripture gives us the respective roles of each Person and I live by that. For instance, we would not pray to the Spirit because it is His role to guide us in prayer. He is in our hearts causing us to cry “Abba Father.”KJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 23 2011,02:10) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 21 2011,19:36) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Feb. 22 2011,11:32) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 22 2011,11:00) Hi WJ, 2Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ,
to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through
the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:Notice the word AND once again!
Are you trying to separate God from Jesus Christ?
Perhaps this verse will bring clarity to your understanding?Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the HolySpirit
and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all
that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
There is only one definite article wich means that the nouns “God” and “Savior” both refer to Jesus Christ.KJ
Hi Jack,Your logic escapes me?
If their was no articles, would
that mean it was referring to neither?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDIt is called the GSR (Grandville Sharp Rule) and it has never been debunked!
WJ
Hi WJ,So if no Greek articles are used:
that means the speaker refers to neither
even though both God and Jesus are mentioned?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Feb. 22 2011,14:32) Hi WJ, So if no Greek articles are used:
that means the speaker refers to neither
even though both God and Jesus are mentioned?
EDIt has nothing to do with “No” greek articles.
This is the NETs commentary on Tit 2:13 which explains the GSR.
The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. “Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. “Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled.” For more information on Sharp’s rule see ExSyn 270-78, esp. 276. See also 2 Pet 1:1 and Jude 4.
Once again the Greek rule has never been debunked therefore the proper rendering of Tit 2:13 is…
waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ“,
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 23 2011,07:58) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 22 2011,14:32) Hi WJ, So if no Greek articles are used:
that means the speaker refers to neither
even though both God and Jesus are mentioned?
EDIt has nothing to do with “No” greek articles.
This is the NETs commentary on Tit 2:13 which explains the GSR.
The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. “Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. “Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled.” For more information on Sharp’s rule see ExSyn 270-78, esp. 276. See also 2 Pet 1:1 and Jude 4.
Once again the Greek rule has never been debunked therefore the proper rendering of Tit 2:13 is…
waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ“,
WJ
Hi WJ,You agree that God is “In” Jesus, yet you continually miss the connection; why is that?
He is obviously talking about God “In” Jesus; not God somewhere else.
Why is it that you seem to be missing this “Bible Truth”?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Feb. 22 2011,16:07) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 23 2011,07:58) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 22 2011,14:32) Hi WJ, So if no Greek articles are used:
that means the speaker refers to neither
even though both God and Jesus are mentioned?
EDIt has nothing to do with “No” greek articles.
This is the NETs commentary on Tit 2:13 which explains the GSR.
The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. “Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. “Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled.” For more information on Sharp’s rule see ExSyn 270-78, esp. 276. See also 2 Pet 1:1 and Jude 4.
Once again the Greek rule has never been debunked therefore the proper rendering of Tit 2:13 is…
waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ“,
WJ
Hi WJ,You agree that God is “In” Jesus, yet you continually miss the connection; why is that?
He is obviously talking about God “In” Jesus; not God somewhere else.
Why is it that you seem to be missing this “Bible Truth”?
EDAnd Jesus is in the Father. So what is your point?
The Father is not God because Jesus is in him?
Is that what you are trying to say about the Father being in Jesus?
Why do you miss this point?
Both the Father and Jesus are called God in scriptures and we know they are One. Not only that but according to Tit 2:13, John 20:28 he is our Lord and Great God. How about you?
WJ
Hi WJ,
I appreciate you trying to figure it out.
If you are genuine in this pursuit,
you will be lead to “all truth”!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 23 2011,08:19) The Father is not God because Jesus is in him? Is that what you are trying to say about the Father being in Jesus?
Why do you miss this point?
Here is a clue:We can be in God and be one with God, Jesus, each other.
So, are we God? Are we Jesus?
You get the idea now I hope.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 23 2011,02:26) When you say God spoke to you, who are you talking about? The Father? Did the Father speak to you without the Holy Spirit or Jesus?
When God speaks to me, it could be through any number of things before it gets to me.e.g., God has spoken to me through people.
I think that you can figure out the rest once you understand that God speaks through vessels and by his Spirit.
Look at the Book of Revelation.
In the first verses you will see that God is speaking through Jesus then in turn through the angel, to John, then through his writing.So John's writing comes to me via God ultimately.
WJ, no matter how hard you go against the grain and kick against the truth that there is one God the Father. We will always be able to provide an answer to help with your unbelief in this matter.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 23 2011,02:26) So the next time you should say THEY spoke to me and led me and saved me, right? Do you serve the Trinity, the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit or not?
We serve the one God who is the Father. This means that we respect all authority under him and we know that Jesus is the highest authority under him and has been given a name greater than all, with the exception of YHWH.No need to bundle God's son, sons, or servants into some kind of God package or substance.
No it is one God the Father as it is written so clearly.
In all things, we give thanks to God through his son who he made Lord.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 23 2011,02:26) Why do you only give the Father credit and not them?
Not true.We honour the true God as the Most High and we honour his son as the son and lamb, and we honour the prophets as servants of the Most High.
Credit is given where credit is due. We don't want to give false credit or honour.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 21 2011,23:53) When you thank the Lord, it is often accompanied by thanking God as a sign of respect and gratitude (* see examples below) and because he is invisible, it is not like Thomas could talk to the Father face to face anway. I am not arguing either way on this, but spelling out what I think the possibilities are. In both possibilities however, I don't see the Trinity being taught, so any comments that say that I am arguing one way otherwise I have to accept the Trinity is absolute hogwash.
Agreed. Either way does not even imply a trinity, let alone “prove” one.mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Feb. 22 2011,02:23) You have not disputed that Jesus is called God in Titus 2:13.
Jack,What I have done is point out to you that even IF your preferred translation of 2:13 is the correct one, it is still only a case of Jesus being called “theos”. I did not say “God”, so don't put words in my mouth.
And we have already both agreed that vice regents of God have been called “god” in the scriptures. And we both know that, no matter whether you think Jesus is God Almighty or not, he most definitely was a vice regent of God, right?
So again, what's the big deal? Is being called “god” automatic proof that you are God Almighty Himself? If so, then your Godhead has a lot more than three members.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 22 2011,14:58) ED It has nothing to do with “No” greek articles.
This is the NETs commentary on Tit 2:13 which explains the GSR.
The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. “Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. “Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled.” For more information on Sharp’s rule see ExSyn 270-78, esp. 276. See also 2 Pet 1:1 and Jude 4.
Once again the Greek rule has never been debunked therefore the proper rendering of Tit 2:13 is…
waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ“,
WJ
Hi Keith,This is from the Watchtower:
RS reads: “Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” (Similar wording is found in NE, TEV, JB.) However, NWT reads: “while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of the Savior of us, Christ Jesus.” (NAB has a similar rendering.)
Which translation agrees with Titus 1:4, which refers to “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior”? Although the Scriptures also refer to God as being a Savior, this text clearly differentiates between him and Christ Jesus, the one through whom God provides salvation.
Some argue that Titus 2:13 indicates that Christ is both God and Savior. Interestingly, RS, NE, TEV, JB render Titus 2:13 in a way that might be construed as allowing for that view, but they do not follow the same rule in their translation of 2 Thessalonians 1:12. Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament, states: “I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s way of writing.”—(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421.Keith, just compare 2:13 with 1:4. In fact, compare it to everything Paul ever wrote. Isn't Paul the one who wrote, “there are many who are called gods, yet for us there is but one God, THE FATHER”?
Keith, considering that you have clearly said this,
Quote Isn't that what Francis, D, and Jack and I have been saying…………. Everyone not just I are saying that just because Jesus is called God does not mean he is God.
……………is Titus 2:13 even worth your time? Even if there was a way you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your preferred translation is the correct one, what does it really mean? That Jesus is called “god”? And what did you say about that in the above underlined part?Gotcha!
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
