The word and the flesh

[Not3in1]

The following versions call Jesus God in Titus 2:13
RV, RSV, NEB, Goodspeed, TEV, NIV, MLB, NASB

The following versions to not call Jesus God (mg=margin)
KJV, RVmg, RSVmg, NEBmg, Moffatt, NWT

Apparently it is of some debate.

It has been stated that the grammar of Titus 2:13 forces the interpretation that Jesus is God because of the Granville Sharp Rule of grammar. That is not the case, however. The point is that when scripture refers to “our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” it can mean two beings – both the “Great God,” and the “Savior,” Jesus Christ. 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. [See his book “The Greek NT].

The context of the verse helps us to understand its meaning. The verse is talking about saying “no” to ungodliness while we wait for the appearing of Jesus Christ, who is the glory of God. Its purpose is not to expound the doctrine of the Trinity in any way, nor is there any reason to assume that Paul would be making a Trinitarian reference here. It makes perfect sense for scripture to call Christ “the glory of God” and for the Bible to exhort us to say “no” to ungodliness in light of the coming of the Lord, which will be quickly followed by the Judgment.

[GeneBalthrop]

not 3in1 >GOOD POST IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHO'S RIGHT IN THE FUTURE BUT DON'T YOU AND DAVID GET DISCOURAGED BY THE BLIND LEADERS OF THE BLIND IF THESE PEOPLE CAN'T SEE THE ERRORS OF THEIR POSTION I DOUGHT IF THEy WILL AT LEST IN THIS LIFE. But there is always hope.

BUT YOU AND DAVID HOLD TO THE SOUND TEACHINGS YOU HAVE LEARNED. MAY God bless and keep you both.:)

[Is 1:18]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 22 2007,12:57)

Isa 1:18 Amen! Amen! But they wont believe if Jesus was standing in front of them and proclaimed it. They would say… Lord are you sure that you are God?

Hey Brother,
He he…exactly. This verse comes to mind:

So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” (John 20:25)

But blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed…..

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 22 2007,05:30)

Isa1:18 >  we are looking for Jesus the anonited who will come in the glory of our Great God where does that say He is God. i maintain you are forcing the text. Show me where Jesus said he was God.i  can't fine it, doint you think that would have been an inportant subject espically to the Jewish population of his day. and there are many translators who translate you titus verse completely different then what you have shown.

Are you saying:

1. Titus 2:13 is not in Granville Sharp's (rule 1) construction?

or

2. Granville Sharp's rule #1 is invalid?

Quote

the rules you state say they should not be proper name so are Jesus christ and God not proper names .???

I have no idea how what you have written here relates to what I posted. Can you please explain?

[david]

Quote

The following versions call Jesus God in Titus 2:13 RV, RSV, NEB, Goodspeed, TEV, NIV, MLB, NASB The following versions to not call Jesus God (mg=margin) KJV, RVmg, RSVmg, NEBmg, Moffatt, NWT Apparently it is of some debate.

Anyway, I imagine Is 1:18 would like to withdraw his comment that in this scripture Jesus is specifically called God.

It is not specific. If it were, there wouldn't be the various translations. The very fact that they exist prove that you were wrong in your statement.

Perhaps what you meant to say was:
I believe, based on my belief of the trinity, that in this particular scripture, Jesus is called God.

That would be a more honest statement.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 22 2007,16:47)

It has been stated that the grammar of Titus 2:13 forces the interpretation that Jesus is God because of the Granville Sharp Rule of grammar.  That is not the case, however.  The point is that when scripture refers to “our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” it can mean two beings – both the “Great God,” and the “Savior,” Jesus Christ.

Hi Not3,
I think you have confused rule #1 with GSR # IV where the definite article is used is association with BOTH nouns. In this instance the two nouns are referring to distinct things or persons. Granville Sharp's rule 1 states that when two nouns, which are not proper names (but which are describing a person) are connected by the copulative conjunction “kai” (English=and), and the first noun has the article (“the”) while the second does not, both nouns are referring to the same subject (person). In the instance of Titus 2:13 the words “God” and “Saviour” are both used in reference to Yahshua.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 22 2007,05:30)

the rules you state say they should not be proper name so are Jesus christ and God not proper names .???

Oh I see what you mean. No Gene “God” and “Savior” are not proper names. I would have thought that would have been obvious.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 22 2007,19:39)

Are you saying: 1. Titus 2:13 is not in Granville Sharp's (rule 1) construction? or 2. Granville Sharp's rule #1 is invalid?

I pose the same question to you David.

[NickHassan]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 22 2007,19:30)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 22 2007,12:57) Isa 1:18 Amen! Amen! But they wont believe if Jesus was standing in front of them and proclaimed it. They would say… Lord are you sure that you are God? Hey Brother, He he…exactly. This verse comes to mind: So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” (John 20:25) But blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed…..

Hi Is 1.18,
Jn 20
24But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

26And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. “

So when the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples after his resurrection Thomas was not among them. He did not believe they had seen their Lord. They had not seen God but the Son of God.
Thomas required the evidence of his eyes that Jesus had been resurrected. Jesus had never claimed to Thomas or any of the disciples that he was God. Jesus had taught Thomas that to see him was also to see God.
Yet you say.

“They would say… Lord are you sure that you are God?”

So why would you put this implication in his mouth?

[Is 1:18]

Quote (david @ June 22 2007,12:57)

1934  “of the great God and of our     The Riverside New       Savior Christ Jesus”            Testament,Boston and                                       New York. 1935  “of the great God and of our     A New Translation of the       Saviour Christ Jesus”           Bible, by James Moffatt, New                                       York and London. 1950  “of the great God and of our     New World Translation of       Savior Christ Jesus”            the Christian Greek                                       Scriptures, Brooklyn. 1957  “of the great God and of our     La Sainte Bible, by Louis       Savior Jesus Christ”           Segond, Paris. 1970  “of the great God and of our     The New American Bible,       Savior Christ Jesus”            New York and London. 1972  “of the great God and of         The New Testament in       Christ Jesus our saviour”       Modern English, by                                       J. B. Phillips, New York. In this place we find two nouns connected by καί (kai, “and”), the first noun being preceded by the definite article τοῦ (tou, “of the”) and the second noun without the definite article. A similar construction is found in 2Pe 1:1, 2, where, in vs 2, a clear distinction is made between God and Jesus. This indicates that when two distinct persons are connected by καί, if the first person is preceded by the definite article it is not necessary to repeat the definite article before the second person. Examples of this construction in the Greek text are found in Ac 13:50; 15:22; Eph 5:5; 2Th 1:12; 1Ti 5:21; 6:13; 2Ti 4:1. This construction is also found in LXX. (See Pr 24:21 ftn.) According to An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p. 109, the sense “of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ . . . is possible in κοινή [koi·ne′] Greek even without the repetition [of the definite article].” A detailed study of the construction in Tit 2:13 is found in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays, by Ezra Abbot, Boston, 1888, pp. 439-457. On p. 452 of this work the following comments are found: “Take an example from the New Testament. In Matt. xxi. 12 we read that Jesus ‘cast out all those that were selling and buying in the temple,’ τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας [tous po·loun′tas kai a·go·ra′zon·tas]. No one can reasonably suppose that the same persons are here described as both selling and buying. In Mark the two classes are made distinct by the insertion of τούς before ἀγοράζοντας; here it is safely left to the intelligence of the reader to distinguish them. In the case before us [Tit 2:13], the omission of the article before σωτῆρος [so·te′ros] seems to me to present no difficulty,—not because σωτῆρος is made sufficiently definite by the addition of ἡμῶν [he·mon′] (Winer), for, since God as well as Christ is often called “our Saviour,” ἡ δόξα τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν [he do′xa tou me·ga′lou The·ou′ kai so·te′ros he·mon′], standing alone, would most naturally be understood of one subject, namely, God, the Father; but the addition of ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ to σωτῆρος ἡμῶν changes the case entirely, restricting the σωτῆρος ἡμῶν to a person or being who, according to Paul’s habitual use of language, is distinguished from the person or being whom he designates as ὁ θεός [ho The·os′], so that there was no need of the repetition of the article to prevent ambiguity. So in 2 Thess. i. 12, the expression κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου [ka·ta′ ten kha′rin tou The·ou′ he·mon′ kai ky·ri′ou] would naturally be understood of one subject, and the article would be required before κυρίου if two were intended; but the simple addition of ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ to κυρίου makes the reference to the two distinct subjects clear without the insertion of the article.” Therefore, in Tit 2:13, two distinct persons, Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, are mentioned. Throughout the Holy Scriptures it is not possible to identify Jehovah and Jesus as being the same individual. –Appendix in the NWT.

“Appendix in the NWT”??

Gee David, could you have quoted a less credible source??

[david]

Quote

Gee David, could you have quoted a less credible source??

If you are allowed to use fallacious arguments, am I as well?

Anyway, now that you've been forced to retract your wrong belief about how definite this scripture is, we can move on to something else…

Is there a time limit on t8 answering your John 1:1 thread?

[Is 1:18]

Quote (david @ June 22 2007,20:05)

Quote Gee David, could you have quoted a less credible source?? If you are allowed to use fallacious arguments, am I as well? Anyway, now that you've been forced to retract your wrong belief about how definite this scripture is, we can move on to something else… Is there a time limit on t8 answering your John 1:1 thread?

Have I retracted something?

T8 is entitled to take as long as he needs. I'm looking forward to reading his rebuttal, so I hope he hurries up too….

[GeneBalthrop]

1s1:18 > you were shown how the very rules you quote are ambigouse and are played from two different stand points..

again i maintain you have not produced any (DEFINET) proofs of your position.

Please show me where Jesus ever said (I AM GOD) it may be in your bibles but not mine. quit skerting the issue like all trenitarians do.

if it were so obvious you should not have to use a verse that could go either way. you and worshiping jesus should stop mudding the water by skerting the issues.

again show me a definite place where Jesus said Spicificly he is GOD.
you can't, bit ill show you where he said he wasn't God through the words he spoke and he even went so far to say even the words he spoke were not his.

how do you reconcile this in your thinking.you choose to delebertly ignore these things don't you. and there are many schiptures that back up this position. you have been indoctrinated into a trenitarian mind set please step back and reconsider your position.

shake yourself from those shakles and start afresh and seen what will happen. my God bless you to try.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 22 2007,19:39)

Are you saying: 1. Titus 2:13 is not in Granville Sharp's (rule 1) construction? or 2. Granville Sharp's rule #1 is invalid?

Gene, you have not yet answered this question.

[Not3in1]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 22 2007,19:30)

But blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed…..

Amen!

I know this passage was supposed to be used against believers like myself, however, I tend to think that it applies to all of us.

[Not3in1]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 22 2007,19:45)

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 22 2007,16:47) It has been stated that the grammar of Titus 2:13 forces the interpretation that Jesus is God because of the Granville Sharp Rule of grammar.  That is not the case, however.  The point is that when scripture refers to “our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” it can mean two beings – both the “Great God,” and the “Savior,” Jesus Christ. Hi Not3, I think you have confused rule #1 with GSR # IV where the definite article is used is association with BOTH nouns. In this instance the two nouns are referring to distinct things or persons. Granville Sharp's rule 1 states that when two nouns, which are not proper names (but which are describing a person) are connected by the copulative conjunction “kai” (English=and), and the first noun has the article (“the”) while the second does not, both nouns are referring to the same subject (person). In the instance of Titus 2:13 the words “God” and “Saviour” are both used in reference to Yahshua.

Isaiah, there are problems with the GSR. It is impossible to prove that it was a rule of grammar at the time of the apostle Paul.

Nigel Turner, a Trinitarians writes:
“Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive. Sometimes the definite article is not repeated even when there is a clear separation in idea. [Moulton-Howard-Turner, Grammar, Vol. 3, p. 181.]

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 23 2007,10:46)

Isaiah, there are problems with the GSR.  It is impossible to prove that it was a rule of grammar at the time of the apostle Paul. Nigel Turner, a Trinitarians writes: “Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive.  Sometimes the definite article is not repeated even when there is a clear separation in idea. [Moulton-Howard-Turner, Grammar, Vol. 3, p. 181.]

Hi Not3,
Can you find me an exception to this rule in the NT? (i.e. a verse where two nouns, which are not proper names (but which are describing a person) are connected by the copulative conjunction “kai”, and the first noun has the article (“the”) while the second does not, but both nouns are referring to different subjects).

Blessings

[Not3in1]

What Trinitarians are asked to prove is this:  does the NT say that Jesus is God as explicitly as it says he is not?

You can't deny “God is One.”  However you can deduce and deduct to make that mean whatever you want it to; as we have seen here.
But it's quite another task to make Jesus God when scripture does not explicitly say that he is.
Scripture explicitly says that the Father is God; likewise it does not explicitly say that Jesus is God.

And if scripture doesn't clearly teach it about my Jesus, then I am not going to believe it for fear of believing in *another Jesus.*

[Is 1:18]

Alright Not3,
You show me a verse in the NT that explicitly says Jesus is not God…..(remember it has to be explicit)

[Not3in1]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 23 2007,10:59)

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 23 2007,10:46) Isaiah, there are problems with the GSR.  It is impossible to prove that it was a rule of grammar at the time of the apostle Paul. Nigel Turner, a Trinitarians writes: “Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive.  Sometimes the definite article is not repeated even when there is a clear separation in idea. [Moulton-Howard-Turner, Grammar, Vol. 3, p. 181.] Hi Not3, Can you find me an exception to this rule in the NT? (i.e. a verse where two nouns, which are not proper names (but which are describing a person) are connected by the copulative conjunction “kai”, and the first noun has the article (“the”) while the second does not, but both nouns are referring to different subjects). Blessings

As fun as that sounds…….

I really don't have time to. The GSR has also been proven unrealiable in Ephesians 5:5. The GSR here, would make the word “God” a double reference to Christ and remove the Father from the verse! And there is every reason to see that He should be in the verse along with Jesus Christ.

Using the GSR and running after proof of it's effectiveness is a waste of time, brother (imho).

[Author]

Posts