- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Nick, David and E,
Quick questions for you three as you all come from different theological persuasions. I was in college today and the question about John 1:1c came up.
The lecturer said that the missing article in this last and God was with the Word, will not change the meaning of the word Theos. He said that what has been used here is the rule called, “Clowell's Rule”. He stated that if you have done any greek for a length of time then you would have to understand this rule within this particular section.
I asked him about it and challenged him that it could mean divine and he said it would still stand even if the article is taken away, because of verse 18 where is says no one has seen God at any time. this has not article and is translated God.
What are your thoughts. And what do you know of Colwell's rule. He made a statement that JW's dont know much greek, David I would like to know what you think of that statement. he aslo stated that if you were to know this rule there was no way you could deny the Trinity… thoughts anyone.
Hi and welcome back A7,
The grammar of the verse in Jn 1.1 does not formulate doctrine by itself but is looked at in correlation with the rest of scripture.These things are sure.
There is a God in heaven.
His Spirit infuses His creation
He has a Son, who reflects Him.
The Son was with Him.
The Son was sent to earth becoming like us.
The Son became a vessel for the fullness of the Spirit of God.
They were in complete unity of purpose
God and His plans and powers were revealed through the Son to men.
The Son was killed but raised by God by the Spirit of Life remaining in him.
The Spirit was sent to enliven the obedient followers of Jesus who make up his body on earth.
Jesus lives in heaven with God and works still through those reborn into that body.
He will return still as a vessel for God to rejoin all sharing the Spirit in him with God forever.Try and fit a trinity theory with these scriptural truths.
Quote (camrezaie @ Aug. 24 2006,04:31) everything you said in your post was 100% lies… good luck…. i feel sorry for people like you… im going to stay away from people like you and the beliefs that they are trying to teach…. you just told this board a stack of lies why good luck trying to get people to side with you…
Good Day!I don't like to offened you Carmezaie but that is what I know. Do you know your little booklet “Should You Believe in the Trinity”
The web http://www.bible.ca posted this some qoutation qouted by Watchtower. Let us read it.1) …the fact has to be faced that New Testament research… has been leading an increasing refutable number New Testament scholars to the conclusion that Jesus…. certainly never believed to himself to be God.” sorry for the inconvenience….i am just a virus!!!
2)The bulletin of John Rylands in England notes that according to Chatolic theologians Karl Rahner, while theos is used in scriptures such as John 1:1 in reference to Christ, “in none of these instances is theos used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as 'ho theos,' that is the Supreme God
And the bulletin adds,
“If the New Testament writters believed it vital that the faithful should confess that Jesus as 'God', is the almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Vol.50,(1967-68)
p247-261Hey! that's not the end but they ommit something very vital in the text of Rahner.
Rahner, however, goes on to say that ” in none of this instances is ''theos'' used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as “ho Theos,” that is, the Supreme God. In the article, Does the New Testament Call Jesus God? Expository Times, lxxiii, No. 4 (January 1962) p. 118.)
Notice that the Watchtower ommits the other 5 texts where Rahner says Theos refers to Christ. The second Watchtower qoute after, “AND THE BULLETIN ADDS”, was not the word of Rahner at all, but by Boobyer the Christianity trasher.
OK, Is this evidence not enough to prove that there is “cut and paste theology” in your denomination? I'm just asking! There is a lot of more evidences in the web. http://www.bible.ca.
If you want to read, kindly proceed to that web.
I dont want to comment about what you have said that “what I have posted is 100% lies, but try to read the said booklet and read the posted document in http://www.bible.ca. If I have misrepresented the text there kindly question me.
Sorry, if i hurt you but let me explain. I dont want to attack your denomination. I have read the posted document in page one that displayed the different translation which i consider perverted because most of them is translated by one-man translator and that is very vulneravle to willful perversion. I am a new registered member of this forum and i don't know that this topic has already more than 300 pages of different opinion and commments so it falls into a wrong person.
Quote (camrezaie @ Aug. 24 2006,04:31) everything you said in your post was 100% lies… good luck…. i feel sorry for people like you… im going to stay away from people like you and the beliefs that they are trying to teach…. you just told this board a stack of lies why good luck trying to get people to side with you…
Good Day!I don't like to offened you Carmezaie but that is what I know. Do you know your little booklet “Should You Believe in the Trinity”
The web http://www.bible.ca posted this some qoutation qouted by Watchtower. Let us read it.1) …the fact has to be faced that New Testament research… has been leading an increasing refutable number New Testament scholars to the conclusion that Jesus…. certainly never believed to himself to be God.” sorry for the inconvenience….Bulletin of John Rylands Library, Vol.50(1967-68)p. 247-261)
2)The bulletin of John Rylands in England notes that according to Chatolic theologians Karl Rahner, while theos is used in scriptures such as John 1:1 in reference to Christ, “in none of these instances is theos used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as 'ho theos,' that is the Supreme God
And the bulletin adds,
“If the New Testament writters believed it vital that the faithful should confess that Jesus as 'God', is the almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Vol.50,(1967-68)
p247-261Hey! that's not the end but they ommit something very vital in the text of Rahner.
Rahner, however, goes on to say that ” in none of this instances is ''theos'' used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as “ho Theos,” that is, the Supreme God. In the article, Does the New Testament Call Jesus God? Expository Times, lxxiii, No. 4 (January 1962) p. 118.)
Notice that the Watchtower ommits the other 5 texts where Rahner says Theos refers to Christ. The second Watchtower qoute after, “AND THE BULLETIN ADDS”, was not the word of Rahner at all, but by Boobyer the Christianity trasher.
OK, Is this evidence not enough to prove that there is “cut and paste theology” in your denomination? I'm just asking! There is a lot of more evidences in the web. http://www.bible.ca.
If you want to read, kindly proceed to that web.
I dont want to comment about what you have said that “what I have posted is 100% lies, but try to read the said booklet and read the posted document in http://www.bible.ca. If I have misrepresented the text there kindly question me.
Sorry, if i hurt you but let me explain. I dont want to attack your denomination. I have read the posted document in page one that displayed the different translation which i consider perverted because most of them is translated by one-man translator and that is very vulneravle to willful perversion. I am a new registered member of this forum and i don't know that this topic has already more than 300 pages of different opinion and commments so it falls into a wrong person.
Hi E,
I could call you Charles Darwin.
You are not Chrales Darwin.
Calling you Charles Darwin would not make you Chrales Darwin.
You would not become the creator of fanciful theories about nature if I did.So why would you think calling Jesus God would make him our Creator God?
That is his Father and his God you are talking about“The Scripture plainly calls Jesus God:”you said.
So do not add fanciful theories about God to the bible.
They have less credibility than Charles Darwin's have.Quote (epistemaniac @ Aug. 24 2006,00:46) Quote lol… Eli… there is no need to quote all those verses for me in various translations…. I have access to them myself….. I have esword fully loaded (2 gigs in that directory), as well as Libronix, Quickverse, Action Bible, WORDsearch, PC Study Bible 4, most all the AGES cd's, Online Bible, Swordsearcher, and gigs of theological resources at my disposal….. so lets have a look at these verses Eli, and see if we can get some agreement on what the text really means, ie, that Jesus is God. After you get that one simple point maybe we can move on and look at the other scriptures that call Jesus God. As it is, you seem to be misunderstanding and misapplying the verses by twisting them to say what your preconcieved notions say they MUST say, because they do not agree with your anti trinitarian biases.
But thanks for posting them anyway… they prove exactly what I said they prove, that Jesus is God. Thanks for taking the time to post them so as to further reinforce my point. Well done.
But wait… now you presume to be a mind reader, you think you can go beyond what the text itself says, and then to presume to tell me what Titus “really meant”… roflol!!!! So much for sticking to the text itself ehhh?
But since you have esword, you might want to check out some of the commentaries on this verse… but no.. wait… I will get them for you….
Barnes says “Of the great God – There can be little doubt, if any, that by “the great God” here, the apostle referred to the Lord Jesus”
Gill “not two divine persons, only one, are here intended; for the word: rendered “appearing”, is never used of God the Father, only of the second person; and the propositive article is not set before the word “Saviour”, as it would, if two distinct persons were designed; and the copulative “and” is exegetical, and may he rendered thus, “and the glorious appearing of the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ”; who, in the next verse, is said to give himself for the redemption of his people: so that here is a very illustrious proof of the true and proper deity of Christ,”
Jamison Faucett and Brown “There is but one Greek article to “God” and “Saviour,” which shows that both are predicated of one and the same Being. “Of Him who is at once the great God and our Saviour.” Also (2) “appearing” (epiphaneia) is never by Paul predicated of God the Father (Joh_1:18; 1Ti_6:16), or even of “His glory” (as ALFORD explains it): it is invariably applied to CHRIST'S coming, to which (at His first advent, compare 2Ti_1:10) the kindred verb “appeared” (epephanee), Tit_2:11, refers (1Ti_6:14; 2Ti_4:1, 2Ti_4:8). Also (3) in the context (Tit_2:14) there is no reference to the Father, but to Christ alone; and here there is no occasion for reference to the Father in the exigencies of the context. Also (4) the expression “great God,” as applied to Christ, is in accordance with the context, which refers to the glory of His appearing; just as “the true God” is predicated of Christ, 1Jo_5:20. The phrase occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, but often in the Old Testament. Deu_7:21; Deu_10:17, predicated of Jehovah, who, as their manifested Lord, led the Israelites through the wilderness, doubtless the Second Person in the Trinity. Believers now look for the manifestation of His glory, inasmuch as they shall share in it. Even the Socinian explanation, making “the great God” to be the Father, “our Saviour,” the Son, places God and Christ on an equal relation to “the glory” of the future appearing: a fact incompatible with the notion that Christ is not divine; indeed it would be blasphemy so to couple any mere created being with God.”
Poole “And the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; and in order thereunto, looking for the coming of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, to the last judgment. The same person is here meant by the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.
1. It is he whom God hath appointed to be the judge of the quick and dead.
2. ’ epifaneia, by us translated appearing, is attributed only to the Second Person in the Blessed Trinity, 2Th_2:8 1Ti_6:14 2Ti_4:1,8. From this text the Divine nature of Christ is irrefragably concluded; he is not only called God, but megav yeov, the great God, which cannot be understood of a made God.”
Robertson's Word Pictures “Of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (tou megalou theou kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou). This is the necessary meaning of the one article with theou and sōtēros just as in 2Pe_1:1, 2Pe_1:11. See Robertson, Grammar, p. 786. Westcott and Hort read Christou Iēsou.”
Clarke “This clause, literally translated, is as follows: And the appearing of the glory of the great God, even our Savior Jesus Christ.”
Geneva “Christ is here most plainly called that mighty God, and his appearance and coming is called by the figure of speech metonymy, our hope.”
Calvin “The orthodox teachers of the Church, for the purpose of shutting out this slander, eagerly contended that both are affirmed of Christ. But the Arians may be refuted in a few words and by solid argument; for Paul, having spoken of the revelation of the glory of “the great God,”immediately added “Christ,” in order to inform us, that that revelation of glory will be in his person; as if he had said that, when Christ shall appear, the greatness of the divine glory shall then be revealed to us.”
And elsewhere, that is, other then esword's resources “Christians eagerly wait for “the blessed hope,” “the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” He is designated both as “Savior” and “our great God” (elsewhere in the New Testament Jesus is specifically designated as God in John 1:1; 20:28; Rom. 9.5; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1).
Elwell, W. A. (1996, c1989). Evangelical Commentary on the Bible .“In Judaism, the ultimate revelation or “appearing” of God would signal the end of the present age and the beginning of the new one (cf. 2:12). Diaspora Judaism commonly called God “the great God” and saw him as a “savior” (in Greek religion, the latter term often meant deliverer or benefactor). According to the most likely reading of the grammar here, Paul applies this divine title to Jesus.
Keener, C. S. (1997, c1993). The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament (Tit 2:13). Downers Grove: InterVarsity.“God and Savior. A clear reference to the deity of Jesus. Cf. 2 Pet. 1:1.” MacArthur, J. (1997, c1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (Tit 2:13). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.
“The great God and our Saviour (or even our Saviour) Jesus Christ; for they are not two subjects, but one only, as appears by the single article, tou megalou Theou kai Soµteµros, not kai tou Soµteµros, and so is kai rendered 1 Co. 15:24, When he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; toµ Theoµ kai Patri. Christ then is the great God, not figuratively, as magistrates and others are sometimes called gods, or as appearing and acting in the name of God, but properly and absolutely, the true God (1 Jn. 5:20), the mighty God (Isa. 9:6), who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, Phil. 2:6.
Henry, M. (1996, c1991). Matthew Henry's commentary : On the whole Bible (the complete and unabridged edition.) (Tit 2:11). Peabody: Hendrickson.It is significant here that Paul speaks of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, for the linking of God and Jesus Christ in the same expression suggests that Paul is convinced of the deity
of Jesus, a thought which is in harmony with the most probable understanding of Rom. 9:5.”
Carson, D., & Guthrie, D. (1997, c1994). New Bible Commentary : 21st century edition (4th ed.) (Tit 2:11). Downers Grove: InterVarsity.The evidence for my position is absolutely overwhelming… only self imposed ignorance can fail to see this…..
So… did you learn anything Eli…? Should you fail to see that there is another very legitimate way of looking at the verses I mention, starting with Titus 2:13, then there will be no point in us discussing this further. What say you? can you get beyond your presuppositions abgout what the Bible MUSt say instead of what it actually DOES say? We'll see ehhh? Over to you…
blessings
Hi Epistemaniac, Thanks for your long post. Did I learn anything, you ask?Yes, I learnt that you take things out of context, by disconnecting the way God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are addressed in Titus 1:4, where, if we read such the way you do when it comes to Titus 2:13, then Christ must be His own Father. Hence, you end up denying the fatherhood of the Father and the sonship of the Son?
Secondly, you surprised me indeed when part of your argument appeals to a long tried and tested line of reasoning that has been rejected, even by honest trinitarians. It embraces what has been referred to as the Granville Sharp's rule”. However, Nigel Turner (who writes as a Trintarian) in “Grammatical Insights into the New Testament” states that “during that particular period of Greek writing one cannot be sure that that particular rule is decisive.”
The highly regarded Trinitarian Henry Alford gives a number of reasons as to why the grammar of the Greek does not force the interpretation of the passage to make Christ God.
Many grammarians and Biblical scholars have recognized that the absence of the definite article before “our Savior Jesus Christ” is quite inadequate to establish the Trinitarian claim that Jesus is here called ‘the great God’ .
You are going to have to do a lot better than using references that appeal to doubtful disputations to persuade me that Titus 2:13 is to be understood the way you take it. As far as I am concerned, any proof text that has been the subject of much debate and uncertainty, is a poor point to hang your hat on.
Now what about this point that you have made:
“1. It is he whom God hath appointed to be the judge of the quick and dead.”
If Christ is God (Almighty God, I take it) as you are advocating, what does this point mean?
Who may I ask is appointing whom? According to your viewpoint, if Christ is God, He must be appointing Himself to be judge?
What sort of appointment is that?
Epistemaniac, I could go on picking holes in what you have said, but all I will end up doing is making this post un-necessarily long.
The end of the matter is, if you are truly honest, you cannot use Titus 2:13 to support your contention that Christ is God (Almighty God/Yahweh).
Now let me make myself clear. What I am contesting is not that Christ is God, but rather that Christ is Almighty God, which is what I am reading as your point of view.
Christ is God in the same sense that Moses was God, and for that matter the Judges of Israel. I won't burden you with all the proof texts. Such is beside the point of what I believe you are understanding when reading Titus 2:13.
Back to you, but please don't come back with unsound lines of appeal.
Elidad
J .. LOL … your getting your information from a false website… i could easily make a website that attacks your denomonation and then try using it as proof against you…. your very naive and ignorant…. and if you didnt mean to attack my religion then WHY DID YOU ATTACK IT?? lol your covered with lies and twisted words and that is probably obvious to everyone on this board… notice that you didnt get one person, besides me to pay attention to anything your saying… lol
lol where are you getting your information from on the NWT… i think you need to stop looking into apostate websites and actually read no biased FACTS from encylcopedias about this translation… thats funny…. if i wanted to i could stoop to your level and create a website filled with lies that attacks your religion and then use it against you… but im not that ignorant and besides why should i tell lies when i have total truth in the bible to back me up?
Quote (camrezaie @ Aug. 24 2006,16:15) J .. LOL … your getting your information from a false website… i could easily make a website that attacks your denomonation and then try using it as proof against you…. your very naive and ignorant…. and if you didnt mean to attack my religion then WHY DID YOU ATTACK IT?? lol your covered with lies and twisted words and that is probably obvious to everyone on this board… notice that you didnt get one person, besides me to pay attention to anything your saying… lol
HI cam,
Surely following Christ is your religion rather than adherence to a denomination? Only if you cling to man's ways will these attacks on bad doctrine seem personal.oh dont worry im not taking it offensively im just trying to make that person realize how foolish they are being… and honestly, i began my search with no attachments to any organization at all but after i had decided everything for myself i had the opportunity to speak with a jehovah's witness and everything i believed in seemed to go along with everything that they believe, because its what the bible says and nothing more… no other organization i know is preaching in over 230 lands in over 400 languages… the bible talks about one group who will witness in his name and they it says “they will spread the good news of the kingdom in all of the lands, and then the end will come” thats somewhere in Matthew.. in my opinion there has to be one group of people out there who are fullfilling everything the bible says and are preaching in 100% truth, because why would god not allow this to happen? he must have made it possible for one group to have complete and full truth in them in order to fullfill his purpose… it just makes sense to me.. and i am deeply convinced from reading the bible and meeting the types of people Jehovah's Witnesses are that they are truly his people… i couldnt find more proper people if i searched the world my entire life, any other religion ive witnessed has people who claim to be such good christians yet you see them leading immoral lives, constantly using curse words, and just not following precisely what the bible says, i cant find that in a kingdom hall, so ive decided to fully stand behind Jehovah's Witnesses until the end.. :/
and besides how can someone possibly endure all of this by them self without the support of an entire congregation who are all believing exactly what the bible says and nothing more… there is something in one of the book of apostles, one of you may recall this, but it talks about a man who was reading the bible or something and was confused and one of the apostles came and the man asked him a question and the apostle helped him and talked about how no one could understand it alone or something and then the guy said well then what keeps me from getting baptised now, and then the apostle baptized him right away..
and of course we know the bible talks about unity… well i dont know any other group more unified than jehovahs witnesses…. you have a billion catholic churches but none of them is more unified with the next, im sure some of their teachings also fluctuate depending on the church… well thats not the case with jehovahs witnesses, every congregation is studying the exact same things as eachother on the same days… it gives me a good feeling to know all of this and im not going to let it go…
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 24 2006,10:17) Hi E,
I could call you Charles Darwin.
You are not Chrales Darwin.
Calling you Charles Darwin would not make you Chrales Darwin.
You would not become the creator of fanciful theories about nature if I did.So why would you think calling Jesus God would make him our Creator God?
That is his Father and his God you are talking about“The Scripture plainly calls Jesus God:”you said.
So do not add fanciful theories about God to the bible.
They have less credibility than Charles Darwin's have.
Nick!! you still are obfuscating and denying what the Bible plainly says about Jesus, He is God, period. If the Bible calls Him the true God, the mighty God, the only Savior, and if He actually isn't, the Bible is deceptive and contradictory. You simply cannot have it both ways, and actually your responses show this to be the case… you have to pick and choose what you want to believe about what the Bible says… and where it says that Jesus is God, you have to try and dance around, doing all kinds of twisting in the wind, to try and get out from under what the Scriptures… the Word of God… actually teaches concerning who it is that Jesus really is…… you don't have to do this though Nick… you can submit your beliefs as to what the Bible teaches about Jesus…. its ok… it is better to realize your error, admit it, maybe be a bit embarrassed, perhaps have your pride take a bit of a hit…. but to end up believing and preaching the truth. What is more important? Your pride or the truth? Your answer could have eternal consequences.As far as the “Creator God” is concerned… well, as a matter of fact, that is exactly who Jesus is.
Eph 3:8-9 ESV To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, (9) and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,”
Col 1:15-17 ESV He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (16) For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things were created through him and for him. (17) And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
He is the creator. God created by Him and through Him, but it is He who actually did the creating. And, not only this, the entire universe is said to be held together by the power of Christ. I find it very hard to believe that any being except God would have this power. But aside from my beliefs as to what kind of being would be necessary to both create and sustain the entire created realm, the most important point is that in the word God is said to be the creator and sustainer of all things, and Jesus is said to be the creator and sustainer of all things, therefore, it automatically follows that Jesus must be God. Elementary my dear Watson… errr ….. Nick.
blessings
“God created by Him and through Him”
you just said god was created by god? what in the world…. ur crazy man
I don't know why all the confusion. Scripture clearly points out that the Word was WITH God and WAS God. The Word gave up His deity to be born of Mary. At that point He became the only begotten of the Father. Before that there was no Father because He had no children, but He who was God submitted Himself to be born into this earth, the Firstborn of the Father. The Word (Jesus) has returned to the Father and has been given all authority. Because of this God is able to be the Father to His many children that He always wanted to be. Simple, no?
lol if you cared enough to look and compare with say 2 thess 1:12 in many versions it looks like this
NIV
12We pray this so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.NASB
12so that the (A)name of our Lord Jesus will be glorified in you, and you in Him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.KJV
12That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.go look at the greek text if you have a greek bible which i hope you do…. it uses the same greek as that of Titus 2:13… and actually in both there is a greek word “hmwn” which is translated in many different verses as “of us”.. this word comes after God so there for it would be God of us AND (this and signifies that it is now talking about another person) lord Jesus Christ…. how does this translation saying that jesus is god fit in with titus 1:4… it absolutely doesnt… the correct and PROPER translation of this verse would be “..of the great God and of the Savior of us, Christ Jesus.” … yes they are both referred to as Savior, this text clearly differentiates between him and Christ Jesus, the one through whom God provides the salvation.. but ultimately it comes from the Father, we just receive it through his son who was created, annointed, and then sacrificed for us… im going to quote Henry Alford who wrote the book The Greek Testament:
“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 Apostles way of writing.” (Boston, 1877) Vol. III pg 421
Hi E,
You quote
“Eph 3:8-9 ESV To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, (9) and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,”So Paul preaches Christ in whose Spirit are all the graces and powers of God available. The mystery is in him, hidden there by the Creator God.
Eph 3
“3(A)that (B)by revelation there was ©made known to me (D)the mystery, (E)as I wrote before in brief.4By referring to this, when you read you can understand (F)my insight into the (G)mystery of Christ,
5which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy (H)apostles and prophets in the Spirit;”
Now how can you read it as Jesus being the God who created all things? His Father is the Creator who created all things by and through the Son of God.
So, to be consistent, do you read all verses relating to the Creator to relate to Jesus. What about when Jesus himself said this about the Creator in Mk 13- Was he speaking of himself?
” 19″For those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred (A)since the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will.”
Hi E,
You quote
“Col 1:15-17 ESV He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.”
Do you say this is speaking of God himself?Eli, you said “Hi Epistemaniac, Thanks for your long post. Did I learn anything, you ask?
Yes, I learnt that you take things out of context, by disconnecting the way God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are addressed in Titus 1:4, where, if we read such the way you do when it comes to Titus 2:13, then Christ must be His own Father. Hence, you end up denying the fatherhood of the Father and the sonship of the Son?”Unfortunately, for you anyway, is that your saying that I take things out of context does not automatically make it so. You see, there is this little matter of actually proving your case, and this, you have not even come close to doing. Your dogmatic assertions do not create reality.
As far as Jesus being His own Father, this is a very simplistic, even juvenile, response. Jesus’ being God does not mean He is His Father, this is actually an example of taking a fleshly human relationship (a human Father’s relationship to his son) and trying to make a simile or metaphor, and insisting on a rigid application in such a way as to end of with not only nonsense, but a committal of the informal fallacy of category confusion. No matter what you think the phrase “Son of God” means, it most certainly does not mean that Jesus is a son in the same sense that any human male is a son. So Jesus’ being God does not in any way make Him His own Father. We are talking about a relationship that is not biological in nature (its sad to even have to take the time and effort to say this) but is rather one of relation and economy, and relationship based on roles in creation and salvation, not one of biological progeny.
you said “Secondly, you surprised me indeed when part of your argument appeals to a long tried and tested line of reasoning that has been rejected, even by honest trinitarians. It embraces what has been referred to as the Granville Sharp's rule”. However, Nigel Turner (who writes as a Trintarian) in “Grammatical Insights into the New Testament” states that “during that particular period of Greek writing one cannot be sure that that particular rule is decisive.”
Titus 2:13’s meaning does not stand or fall based solely on the application of Granville Sharp’s in regard to the absence or presence of the definite article. There are other reasons to suppose that the Bible is saying here that Jesus is God, were I to grant that Grnavill Shapr does not actually apply to this passage, and you certainly have done nothing to prove this to be the case either. Simply stating that it might not apply does not mean it doesn't.
you said “The highly regarded Trinitarian Henry Alford gives a number of reasons as to why the grammar of the Greek does not force the interpretation of the passage to make Christ God.”
So, since you take this scholar’s word on this passage, do you take it as well regarding his belief in the Trinity?
you said “Many grammarians and Biblical scholars have recognized that the absence of the definite article before “our Savior Jesus Christ” is quite inadequate to establish the Trinitarian claim that Jesus is here called ‘the great God’ .
You are going to have to do a lot better than using references that appeal to doubtful disputations to persuade me that Titus 2:13 is to be understood the way you take it. As far as I am concerned, any proof text that has been the subject of much debate and uncertainty, is a poor point to hang your hat on.”
I see nothing doubtful at all about the opinions I gave regarding Paul clearly stating that Jesus is God in this passage and other passages as well. The doubt is strictly in your mind only, perhaps you are bothered by this, and feel your own supposedly firm foundation creaking and giving way under the weight of the biblical testimony such that you feel the need to project your own doubts on to me? That is understandable given the weight and clarity of the biblical testimony against your man made opinions. You will either have to elevate the Scriptures to their proper place, or try and force them into your presuppositions as to what the Bible MUST say in order to support your previously held beliefs. This is a typical pattern for persons who do not want to change their beliefs. The fact is, many grammarians and Biblical scholars HAVE recognized this verse as teaching the deity of Christ; the fact that some have not recognized this does not change this fact. However, it does mean that we all are faced with different paradigms by which to interpret the Bible. A similar situation is the decision of which paradigm one will use to interpret the Bible concerning God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. One has to be convinced in their own mind which paradigm best comports with the overall testimony in Scripture. In my case, it seems to me that if anyone were to read Titus 2:13 (as well as the other passages I mentioned earlier) in any number of modern translations, they would come to the simple and self evident conclusion that Jesus is God.
As far as your picking holes in what I have said, well that is truly in the eye of the “picker”, from my perspective, you have failed to do any such thing, kind of like someone thinking they are a legend in their own mind, their legendary status is all in their own mind, and nowhere else. So to be truly honest, I can and will use Titus to support the deity of Christ, and I am far far from being alone in this, as the numerous biblical scholars I have already quoted attests to. In fact, here is another one, which points out that even if one were to admit that Granville Sharp does not “always” hold true, as I mentioned earlier, it does not follow that it is therefore not the case with this particular passage. That is, one has to actually prove that in this case (Titus 2:13) it ought not apply. All you have done is to assert that at times it might not apply, but you have not even come close to proving why it ought not hold for this passage. Here is Greek scholar Hendriksen on the issue:
“Now the realization of the blessed hope is “the appearing in glory.” Note the
two appearings. There had been one (see on verse 11; cf. II Tim. 1:10). There is going to be another (see N.T.C. on II Thess. 2:8; cf. I Tim. 6:14; II Tim. 4:1, 8). It will be the appearing of … well, of whom? Throughout the history of interpretation that question has divided grammarians and commentators. Are we waiting for the appearing in glory of one Person or of two Persons?Those who endorse the one-Person view favor the rendering:
Literally the text reads “the appearing of the glory.” Some (for example, A.V., Berkeley Version, Goodspeed) prefer the rendering “the glorious appearing.” Others (for example, Lenski and White) object to this rendering. Yet, I cannot see that the objection is very formidable. If the expression “the steward of the unrighteousness” (Luke 16:8) means “the unrighteous steward,” why cannot the phrase “the appearing of the glory” mean “the glorious appearing”? But whether a person translates one way or the other, the resultant meaning is about the same, namely, “the appearing in glory” (as Weymouth renders the phrase and as Bouma and others interpret it). Cf. Matt. 25:31; Mark 13:26; II Thess. 1:10.“of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus.” (Another reading has “Jesus Christ,” but that makes no difference in connection with the point at issue.) Now if that view be correct, those who accept Scripture’s infallibility have in this passage an additional prooftext for the deity of Christ; and even those who do not accept Scripture’s infallibility but who do accept the one-Person rendering must admit that at least the author of the Pastorals (perhaps erroneously, according to them) held Jesus to be one in essence with God the Father. The one-Person rendering is favored by the A.R.V. margin, Weymouth, Goodspeed, Berkeley Version, R.S.V., and many commentators:
Van Oosterzee, Bouma, Lenski, Gealy, Simpson, etc. The great New Te
stament grammarian A. T. Robertson has given a strong defense of this view, from the standpoint of grammar, basing his arguments upon Granville Sharp’s rule.Among others, John Calvin was unwilling to choose between the one-Person and the two-Persons rendering. Yet, he emphasized that on either view the purpose of the passage is to state that when Christ appears, the greatness of the divine glory will be revealed in him (cf. Luke 9:26); and that, accordingly, the passage can by no means give any comfort to the Arians in their attempt to prove that the Son is less divine than the Father.
The two-Persons theory is represented, with minor variations, in the versions of Wyclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, A.V., A.R.V. (text), Moffatt, and R.S.V. (margin). It has been supported by a long list of commentators (among whom are De Wette, Huther, White [in The Expositor’s Bible], E. F. Scott, etc.) and especially by the grammarian G. B. Winer.
The rendering then becomes:
“of the great God and the (or “and of the”) Savior Jesus Christ.”
Winer was willing to admit that his endorsement of this view was based not so much upon grammar — which, as even he admitted, allowed the one-Person rendering — as upon “the dogmatic conviction derived from Paul’s writings that this apostle cannot have called Christ the great God.” (Such argumentation encounters difficulty in interpreting Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:15–20; Col. 2:9; etc.) But he should have noticed that even the very context (verse 14) ascribes to Jesus functions which in the Old Testament are ascribed to Jehovah, such as redeeming and purifying (II Sam. 7:23; Ps. 130:8; Hos. 13:14; then Ezek. 37:23); and that the word Savior is in each of the three chapters of Titus ascribed first to God, then to Jesus (Titus 1:3, 4; 2:10, 13; 3:4, 6). It is therefore evidently the purpose of the author of this epistle (namely, Paul!) to show that Jesus is fully divine, just as fully as is Jehovah or as is the Father.The one-Person rendering must be considered the correct one. It is supported by the following considerations:
(1) Unless in any specific instance there are strong reasons to the contrary, the rule holds that when the first of two nouns of the same case and connected by the conjunction and is preceded by the article, which is not repeated before the second noun, these two nouns refer to the same person. When the article is repeated before the second noun, two persons are indicated. Examples:
a. The article, preceding the first of two nouns and not repeated before the second: “the brother your and fellow-partaker.” The two nouns refer to the same person, John, and the expression is correctly translated, “your brother and fellow-partaker” (Rev. 1:9).
b. Two articles, one preceding each noun: “Let him be unto you as the Gentile and the tax-collector” (Matt. 18:17). The two nouns refer to two persons (in this case, each representing a class).
Now, according to this rule the disputed words in Titus 2:13 clearly refer to one Person, namely, Christ Jesus, for when translated word for word the phrase reads:
“of the great God and of Savior our Christ Jesus.” The article before the first noun is not repeated before the second, and therefore the expression must be rendered:
“of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus.”
No valid reason has ever been found which would show that the (Granville Sharp) rule does not apply in the present case. In fact, it is generally admitted that the words which in the original occur at the close of II Peter 1:11 refer to one Person, and must be rendered, “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” But if that be true, then why should not the essentially identical idiom in II Peter 1:1 and here in Titus 2:13 be rendered, “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (or “Christ Jesus”)?
(2) Nowhere in the entire New Testament is the term epiphany (appearing or
manifestation) used with respect to more than one Person. Also, the one Person to whom it refers is always Christ (see II Thess. 2:8; I Tim. 6:14; II Tim. 4:1; II Tim. 4:8; and II Tim. 1:10, where the reference is to the First Coming).
(3) The phraseology here in Titus 2:13 may well have been framed in reaction to the type of language that was often used by the heathen with respect to their own idol-gods, whom they regarded as “saviors,” and particularly to the phraseology in connection with the worship of earthly rulers. Was not Ptolemy I called “Savior and God”? Were not Antiochus and Julius Cesar addressed as “God Manifest”?Now if it could be established that not only is σωτήρ a proper name but that in addition Paul generally refers the epiphany to two Persons, we would have something parallel to the expression “of the God our and of Lord Jesus Christ” where in spite of the one article the reference is in all probability to two Persons, and the phrase can be rendered: “of our God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (II Thess. 1:12).
But II Thess. 1:12 and Titus 2:13 are not identical. See E. Stauffer, Christ and the Caesars, Philadelphia, 1955 (reviewed in WThJ, XVIII, Number 2 (May, 1956), pp. 171–176. And see also footnote 76. indicates that believers look forward to the Appearing of the One who is really God and Savior, yes “our great (exalted, glorious) God and Savior, namely, Christ Jesus.”
The real “point” of the passage, in connection with all that has preceded, is that
our joyful expectation of the appearing in glory of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus effectively prepares us for the life with him. How does it do this? First, because the Second Coming will be so altogether glorious that believers will not want to “miss out on” it, but will want to “be manifested with him in glory” (Col. 3:4). Secondly, because the blissful expectation fills believers with gratitude, and gratitude produces preparedness, by God’s grace.” (NTC)Joseph Sutcliff adds “Launay, in his excellent critique on the bible, ed. Geneva, 1667, reads, L' apparition de la gloire du grand Dieu, qui est notre Sauver. The appearing of the glory of the great God, who is our Saviour. Paul speaks here as the oracles of truth, respecting the glory of Christ which was to be revealed. Isai. xl. 5. And they shall look on him whom they have pierced. Zech. xii. 10. St. John refers to these words, and in the same sense. They also which pierced him shall wail because of him. Rev. i. 7. Ah, Socinian, where is the foundation of thy faith? All thy philosophy is but a vain conspiracy against “the Lord of glory.””
“But there are stronger arguments for referring the entire expression to Christ alone: (1) Grammatically this is the most natural view since both nouns are connected by one article as referring to one person. (2) The combination “god and savior” was familiar to the Hellenistic religions. (3) The added clause in v. 14 refers to Christ alone and it is most natural to take the entire preceding expression as its antecedent. (4) In the Pastorals the coming epiphany is referred to Christ alone. (5) The adjective “great” of God is rather pointless but highly significant if applied to Christ. (6) This view is in full harmony with other passages such as John 20:28; Rom 9:5; Heb 1:8; and 2 Peter 1:1. (7) It is the view of the majority of the church fathers. This view takes the statement as an explicit assertion of the deity of Christ. Under the other view his deity is assumed, for the intimate association of his glory with that of God would be blasphemous for a monotheist like Paul if he did not accept Christ's deity.” (Expositors)
All in all… the support for the declaration of Christ's deity is very sound, whether you choose to ignore this evidence or not….
blessings
Hi E,
One person-two person.
It is all irrelevant because the Son is in union with the Father. Jesus said so.
Those who see Jesus see the Father who is in Him now and forever.
So these arguments are baseless when the glorious vessel contains the treasure.
Jn 14
8f
“8(A)Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”9Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? (B)He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
10″Do you not believe that ÂI am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? (D)The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.
11″Believe Me that (E)I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise (F)believe because of the works themselves.”
Thomas understood.
Jn 20.27-29
” 27Then He said to Thomas, “(A)Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.”28Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
29Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? (B)Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
