Biblical evidence that Jesus is God from God

[apostoli]

In another thread it was asked "Is there any Biblical evidence that proves that Jesus is God?" This question is erroneous.

If the premise behind the question is "Jesus is God himself", then the answer is a resounding NO! That is an idea resoundingly rejected by the Church in the third century (the Sabellian controversies)

If the premise behind the question is "Jesus is God of himself", then the answer is a resounding NO! That is an idea resoundingly rejected by the Church in the fourth century (the Arian controversies).

If the premise behind the question is "Jesus is God in himself", then the answer is a resounding Yes! That is an idea resoundingly accepted by the Church since its inception. At Nicea it was confessed in the phrase "begotten not made, God from God..."

So whats the biblical evidence? Col 2:9; 1 Tim 3:16; John 1:10,18; 17:1-2; Phil 2:6-10; Heb 1:1-3 are a start...

[OneSizeFit]

If Jesus was god or there was a trinity why didn't he just say it? If something was of such importance, why didn't Jesus say I am god and here is the mathematical formulae you must follow to be saved from eternal damnation. Just sayin.

[barnasha]

Jesus is a god, many people worship him. There is no logical rule that you can't worship people as gods.

But Abraham had a great realization that we should not worship things that are finite or mortal, instead, we should worship that which is above all, aka Our Father Who Art In Heaven

[Bowman]

Jesus is a god, many people worship him.

Jesus is The God according to the NT.

[apostoli]

Jesus is The God according to the NT.

Actually not! At John 8:42 Jesus identifies his Father as the God (cp John 17:1-3). Jesus at John 8:40+58 identifies himself as the God of Abraham (and who appeared to Moses as the God of Abraham, Isacc & Jacob John 8:40=Gen 18, John 8:58=Ex 3:2-6, 6:3) Its the main reason at John 1:1 Jesus in his pre-incarnation is referred to as the Logos (the Word) because as the Jewish Targums teach, he who appeared to the ancients was the very memra of YHWH.

[apostoli]

If Jesus was god or there was a trinity why didn't he just say it? If something was of such importance, why didn't Jesus say I am god and here is the mathematical formulae you must follow to be saved from eternal damnation. Just sayin.

The same reason he never revealed himself as the Christ (Messiah) to the Jews! (The only time he made a direct association was to the Samaritian woman at the well - shortly afterwards, we encantour the only mass conversion recorded in scripture). Jesus was about revelation not enumeration. Have a think on what Jesus said at John 12:45 & 14:9...

[Bowman]

Actually not! At John 8:42 Jesus identifies his Father as the God (cp John 17:1-3). Jesus at John 8:40+58 identifies himself as the God of Abraham (and who appeared to Moses as the God of Abraham, Isacc & Jacob John 8:40=Gen 18, John 8:58=Ex 3:2-6, 6:3) Its the main reason at John 1:1 Jesus in his pre-incarnation is referred to as the Logos (the Word) because as the Jewish Targums teach, he who appeared to the ancients was the very memra of YHWH.

Your understanding of the Trinity and Greek grammar is deficient, brother.

The Granville Sharp rule of Greek grammar has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt to show that Jesus is indeed God.

[barnasha]

keep on spreading lies... it doesnt make what you believe any more correct

[Bowman]

keep on spreading lies... it doesnt make what you believe any more correct

You can do better than this...can't you brother?

[apostoli]

Your understanding of the Trinity and Greek grammar is deficient, brother.

The Granville Sharp rule of Greek grammar has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt to show that Jesus is indeed God.

My friend,

The GSR as set by Granville Sharp is usually ignored by the people who rely on a distortion of the GSR. Granville set set several conditions for when his rule applied, go do some study. Apart from 2 Peter 1:1 all the usual proof texts espoused by American evangelists reliant on the GSR are disputed amoungst the grammarians. And 2 Peter 1:1 is disputed on the internal distinction that the author makes between God and Jesus our Lord in the very next verse (not to mention the rest of the letter, and not to mention the distinction made in 1 Peter).

At John 1:1 the GSR doesn't apply (according to Granville Sharp), instead Colwell's Rule is usually appealed to by non-trinitarians (oneness pentecostals etc) to make God and Logos a convertible proposition, but nearly all modern Grammarians and most theologians recognise that John 1:1c describes the quality of the Logos.

In formal Orthodox Trinitarian theology only the Father is "God of himself", the Son (following scripture) is said to be "God in himself". Thus the Nicene (and later creeds) declare the Son to be "God from God". (nb: The Arians in the 4th century taught that the Son was God of himself, which was resoundingly rejected as it made the Son's existence uncommon with his Father).

In formal Orthodox Trinitarian theology the Son is begotten not made. It is his filial relationship with the Father in which his theotētos (Col 2:9) is assured. Thus the ancient fathers in the battle with the Arians added to the creed that the Son was homoousios with the Father (based on John 1:1; 12:45; 14:9; Heb 1:3 etc). Thus in English, formal Orthodox Trinitarian theology refers to the Father, Son & Spirit as being "one in being" (have the same existence = cp. Genesis 2:24) but not "one being" (one individual).

In formal Orthodox Trinitarian theology the individuality of the Father, Son and Spirit, and their distinction are always protected, so as not to fall into the error of Sabellius (and/or numerous other errors contested through the centuries, that the common sunday school testimonies of American evangelism tend to inadvertantly propogate).

I draw your attention to John 8. You should note who the last referees are at vs30. Particularly note vs31: "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him", contextually everything Jesus says afterwards was to these...have a read of the text from vs31 to vs59, then have a long think on what Jesus reveals...

[Bowman]

My friend,

The GSR as set by Granville Sharp is usually ignored by the people who rely on a distortion of the GSR. Granville set set several conditions for when his rule applied, go do some study. Apart from 2 Peter 1:1 all the usual proof texts espoused by American evangelists reliant on the GSR are disputed amoungst the grammarians. And 2 Peter 1:1 is disputed on the internal distinction that the author makes between God and Jesus our Lord in the very next verse (not to mention the rest of the letter, and not to mention the distinction made in 1 Peter).

At John 1:1 the GSR doesn't apply (according to Granville Sharp), instead Colwell's Rule is usually appealed to by non-trinitarians (oneness pentecostals etc) to make God and Logos a convertible proposition, but nearly all modern Grammarians and most theologians recognise that John 1:1c describes the quality of the Logos.

In formal Orthodox Trinitarian theology only the Father is "God of himself", the Son (following scripture) is said to be "God in himself". Thus the Nicene (and later creeds) declare the Son to be "God from God". (nb: The Arians in the 4th century taught that the Son was God of himself, which was resoundingly rejected as it made the Son's existence uncommon with his Father).

In formal Orthodox Trinitarian theology the Son is begotten not made. It is his filial relationship with the Father in which his theotētos (Col 2:9) is assured. Thus the ancient fathers in the battle with the Arians added to the creed that the Son was homoousios with the Father (based on John 1:1; 12:45; 14:9; Heb 1:3 etc). Thus in English, formal Orthodox Trinitarian theology refers to the Father, Son & Spirit as being "one in being" (have the same existence = cp. Genesis 2:24) but not "one being" (one individual).

In formal Orthodox Trinitarian theology the individuality of the Father, Son and Spirit, and their distinction are always protected, so as not to fall into the error of Sabellius (and/or numerous other errors contested through the centuries, that the common sunday school testimonies of American evangelism tend to inadvertantly propogate).

I draw your attention to John 8. You should note who the last referees are at vs30. Particularly note vs31: "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him", contextually everything Jesus says afterwards was to these...have a read of the text from vs31 to vs59, then have a long think on what Jesus reveals...

It is most apparent that your googled understanding of the TSKS construction is limited to an outdated and outmoded comprehension of the topic, leaving your position completely without any merit whatsoever, and wanting at all possible levels.


Observe the most recent research into the validity of Granville Sharp’s rule...

“Our restatement of Sharp’s rule is believed to be true to the nature of the language, and able to address all classes of exceptions that were raised.

The “Sharper” rule is as follows:

In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected via και (thus, article-substantive-και-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent.”

Ref:
Granville Sharp’s Canon and its Kin; Semantics and Significance
2009 Daniel B. Wallace
p. 281

Observe these two examples...



Titus 2.13

προσδεχομενοι την μακαριαν ελπιδα και επιφανειαν της δοξης του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων χριστου ιησου

prosdechomenoi tēn makarian elpida kai epiphaneian tēs doxēs tou megalou theou kai sōtēros ēmōn christou iēsou

Looking for the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,





2 Peter 1.1

σιμων πετρος δουλος και αποστολος ιησου χριστου τοις ισοτιμον ημιν λαχουσιν πιστιν εν δικαιοσυνη του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου

simōn petros doulos kai apostolos iēsou christou tois isotimon ēmin lachousin pisten en dikaiosunē tou theou ēmōn kai sōtēros iēsou christou

Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those equally precious with us, having obtained faith in the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:




Regarding the TSKS construction, Wallace has this to say…

“…..there is no good reason to reject Titus 2:13 as an explicit affirmation of the deity of Christ.”

Ref:
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament
Daniel B. Wallace
p. 276

“…there is no good reason for rejecting 2 Pet 1:1 as an explicit affirmation of the deity of Christ.”

Ref:
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament
Daniel B. Wallace
pp. 276 - 277

Regarding the above two passages, Wallace has this to say…

“…these two passages are as secure as any in the canon when it comes to identifying Christ as θεός.”

Ref:
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament
Daniel B. Wallace
p. 290

From the most recent work on this topic...

“On the other hand, when substantives meet the requirements of Sharp’s cannon, apposition is the result – inviolably so in the NT. The canon, as would be expected, works outside the sacred text and hence, ought to be resurrected as a sound principle that has overwhelming validity in all of ancient Greek literature. Consequently, in Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 we are compelled to recognize that, on a grammatical level, a heavy burden rests with the one who wishes to deny that “God and Savior” refers to one person, Jesus Christ.”

Ref:
Granville Sharp’s Canon and its Kin; Semantics and Significance
2009 Daniel B. Wallace
p. 284

[apostoli]

It is most apparent that your googled understanding of the TSKS construction is limited to an outdated and outmoded comprehension of the topic, leaving your position completely without any merit whatsoever, and wanting at all possible levels. Observe the most recent research into the validity of Granville Sharp’s rule...

So you think Daniel Wallace has a googled understanding of the TSKS construction and his writings are without merit whatsoever, strange that you cite him, he himself says that of the eight Christological pregnant passages that Sharp appealed to only two stand up! I said only 2 Peter 1:1, as Titus 2:13 has been grammatically disputed on grounds external to the GSR (and in anycase both texts are disputed on textual grounds).

I recommend you have a read of Daniel Wallace's paper on "A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule" available online here.

I presume you have never read what Granville Sharp actually wrote and the qualifications he made. Sharp's manuscript is available online here..

To quote Wallace "Sharp’s rule has been almost totally neglected, discounted, or misapplied in recent discussions on [various] passages." Pretty well every grammarian has "restated" Sharp’s rule to suit themselves (something wallace set out to correct, read carefuuly the quote you gave). Wallace on page 290 of "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics" remarks "Sharp's rule [like Colwell's rule as applied to John 1:1] has also been misunderstood, the net effect being to lessen certainty as to its value in christologically pregnant texts. It has been applied only with great hestitation to Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 by Trinitarians in the past two centuries. However, a proper understanding of the rule shows it to have the highest degree of validity within the NT..."

Regarding the TSKS construction, Wallace has this to say…“…..there is no good reason to reject Titus 2:13 as an explicit affirmation of the deity of Christ.”

Might do you good to actually read what Wallace says more fully at page 276 (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics is available online here):

"Granville Sharp believed that several christological significant texts involved TSKS construction. However, several of these involved dubious textual varients (eg acts 20:28; Jude 4) and others were proper names (Eph 5:5; 2 Thess 1:12; 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1). This leaves two passages, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1."

Wallace's remarks on Titus 2:13 & 2 Peter 1:1 which you disfigured weren't as carte blanche as you want. In both case wallace was responding to particular objections and his response is limited to those objections. Wallace pointed out that for Titus 2:13 "It has frequently been alledged that Theos is a proper name, hence, that Sharp's rule cannot apply..." He then gives a very cursory response then concludes "Since that argument carries no weight, there is no good reason to reject Titus 2:13 as an explicit affirmation of the deity of Christ."

Wallace's conclusion might be grammatically true but only in regard to the objection he addresses. Titus 2:13 over the centuries has been understood in one of three ways:

1. that two persons are in view and that the glory of the one (God and Savior) appears in the other (Jesus Christ) so that the statement should read 'the appearing of the glory of our God and Savior (which is) Jesus Christ. (This rendering is fully in harmony with vs11, and the GSR)

2. that two persons are in view and that the statement should read 'appearing of the glory of our great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. Augustine and many of the early fathers understood the text to read that way (Tractates on John 17:4).

3. that one person is in view and that the statement should read 'appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. While this might be allowable under the GSR, textually this is out of harmony with with the entire letter, especially Titus 1:3-4 where God is defined as our τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ and θεοῦ πατρὸς. In vs4 the Lord Jesus Christ is also called τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν. The focus throughout Titus is the Father as God and the Son as Lord. Note particularly Titus 3:4-6 "But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour..."

[Bowman]

So you think Daniel Wallace has a googled understanding of the TSKS construction and his writings are without merit whatsoever, strange that you cite him, he himself says that of the eight Christological pregnant passages that Sharp appealed to only two stand up!

Two that you are completely unable to refute as we see below...

I said only 2 Peter 1:1, as Titus 2:13 has been grammatically disputed on grounds external to the GSR (and in anycase both texts are disputed on textual grounds).

Neither text has been refuted.

On the contrary, Wallace provides proof positive that all counter arguments fall flat - as you can provide no viable alternative...

I recommend you have a read of Daniel Wallace's paper on "A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule" available online here.

Done.

I presume you have never read what Granville Sharp actually wrote and the qualifications he made. Sharp's manuscript is available online here..

Done.

To quote Wallace "Sharp’s rule has been almost totally neglected, discounted, or misapplied in recent discussions on [various] passages." Pretty well every grammarian has "restated" Sharp’s rule to suit themselves (something wallace set out to correct, read carefuuly the quote you gave). Wallace on page 290 of "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics" remarks "Sharp's rule [like Colwell's rule as applied to John 1:1] has also been misunderstood, the net effect being to lessen certainty as to its value in christologically pregnant texts. It has been applied only with great hestitation to Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 by Trinitarians in the past two centuries. However, a proper understanding of the rule shows it to have the highest degree of validity within the NT..."

Proving our point even more, brother...

Might do you good to actually read what Wallace says more fully at page 276 (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics is available online here):

Done.

"Granville Sharp believed that several christological significant texts involved TSKS construction. However, several of these involved dubious textual varients (eg acts 20:28; Jude 4) and others were proper names (Eph 5:5; 2 Thess 1:12; 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1). This leaves two passages, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1."

Just like we already stated, brother.

Wallace's remarks on Titus 2:13 & 2 Peter 1:1 which you disfigured weren't as carte blanche as you want. In both case wallace was responding to particular objections and his response is limited to those objections. Wallace pointed out that for Titus 2:13 "It has frequently been alledged that Theos is a proper name, hence, that Sharp's rule cannot apply..." He then gives a very cursory response then concludes "Since that argument carries no weight, there is no good reason to reject Titus 2:13 as an explicit affirmation of the deity of Christ."

Wallace provides ample evidence for the validity of the 'sharper rule', and it stands unrefuted both inside the NT and outside.

Wallace's conclusion might be grammatically true but only in regard to the objection he addresses.

Unless you can demonstrate where it does not hold true in the Greek language, then you have nothing...

Titus 2:13 over the centuries has been understood in one of three ways:

1. that two persons are in view and that the glory of the one (God and Savior) appears in the other (Jesus Christ) so that the statement should read 'the appearing of the glory of our God and Savior (which is) Jesus Christ. (This rendering is fully in harmony with vs11, and the GSR)

2. that two persons are in view and that the statement should read 'appearing of the glory of our great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. Augustine and many of the early fathers understood the text to read that way (Tractates on John 17:4).

3. that one person is in view and that the statement should read 'appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. While this might be allowable under the GSR, textually this is out of harmony with with the entire letter, especially Titus 1:3-4 where God is defined as our τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ and θεοῦ πατρὸς. In vs4 the Lord Jesus Christ is also called τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν. The focus throughout Titus is the Father as God and the Son as Lord. Note particularly Titus 3:4-6 "But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour..."

All that googling and the best you could do is confirm our position even more.

Nice!

[apostoli]

So you think Daniel Wallace has a googled understanding of the TSKS construction and his writings are without merit whatsoever, strange that you cite him, he himself says that of the eight Christological pregnant passages that Sharp appealed to only two stand up!

On the contrary, Wallace provides proof positive that all counter arguments fall flat - as you can provide no viable alternative...

I have no interest in proving or disproving the grammar, my Trinitarian faith isn't as weak as yours seems to be. I've got a whole bible to demonstrate that Jesus is truely the only begotten Son of God - homoousious with his Father.

Wallace provides no proof positive against the textual argument merely a hyperthetical grammar (like others, Wallace himself redefines the GSR). As is reasonably expected, Wallace doesn't address the textual arguments. At a textual level Titus 2:13 & 1 Peter 1:1, the arguments rather than falling flat are rather firm...throughout the NT, the Father is identified as God and the Son as Lord very consistantly...the distinction always made...Wallace does make fleeting reference that the two texts in question could be overextending by the writers, just as he makes fleeting reference to the partiarchs over extending in their apologies.

To quote Wallace "Sharp’s rule has been almost totally neglected, discounted, or misapplied in recent discussions on [various] passages." Pretty well every grammarian has "restated" Sharp’s rule to suit themselves (something Wallace set out to correct, read carefully the quote you gave). Wallace on page 290 of "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics" remarks "Sharp's rule [like Colwell's rule as applied to John 1:1] has also been misunderstood, the net effect being to lessen certainty as to its value in christologically pregnant texts. It has been applied only with great hestitation to Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 by Trinitarians in the past two centuries. However, a proper understanding of the rule shows it to have the highest degree of validity within the NT..."

Proving our point even more, brother...

From your demeanor I suspect I know who your father is = John 8:31,44, so if true, I ain't your brother.

The reality is the only people that benefit from your line of argument is the Oneness Pentecostal's (Sabellianisers, modalist etc). If you want to be one then be upfront deny the Trinity and become one. There is very good reason why (as wallace said) Trinitarians have resisted the GSR in regard to several texts. Have a read of the NT, Jesus is recognised as the Son of God, God of God, not God himself.

Wallace provides ample evidence for the validity of the 'sharper rule', and it stands unrefuted both inside the NT and outside.

It might also be worthwhile you reading Irenaeus who lamented A.Paul's atrocious grammar. Grammar by itself ain't the final argument...grammar in textual context is...

Wallace's conclusion might be grammatically true but only in regard to the objection he addresses.

Unless you can demonstrate where it does not hold true in the Greek language, then you have nothing...

Of course you mean the various opinions on Greek grammar. In the case of the two letters in question the Greek language is the entirity of each letter, not an isolated phrase.

Many a commentator arguing for a single nominee at Titus 2:13 declare that there is no expectation for God to appear in A.Paul's writings, but while this is true, at least in A.John's revelation there is! At Rev 22:4 it is said we will see God's face (and the text distinguishes God from the Lamb=Jesus). In anycase, if there is no expectation for God to appear in A.Paul's writings then Titus 2:13 logically can't be calling Jesus God.

Titus 2:13 over the centuries has been understood in one of three ways:

1. that two persons are in view and that the glory of the one (God and Savior) appears in the other (Jesus Christ) so that the statement should read 'the appearing of the glory of our God and Savior (which is) Jesus Christ. (This rendering is fully in harmony with vs11, and the GSR)

2. that two persons are in view and that the statement should read 'appearing of the glory of our great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. Augustine and many of the early fathers understood the text to read that way (Tractates on John 17:4).

3. that one person is in view and that the statement should read 'appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. While this might be allowable under the GSR, textually this is out of harmony with with the entire letter, especially Titus 1:3-4 where God is defined as our τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ and θεοῦ πατρὸς. In vs4 the Lord Jesus Christ is also called τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν. The focus throughout T itus is the Father as God and the Son as Lord. Note particularly Titus 3:4-6 "But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour..."

All that googling and the best you could do is confirm our position even more.

I suspect you were too busy biting at the bit to actually have had a rational think. If various trinitarian authoritive grammarians understand the text in various ways then the Greek ain't settled.

From a Trinitarian viewpoint options 1 or 2 would be preferred over option 3.

[Bowman]

I have no interest in proving or disproving the grammar, my Trinitarian faith isn't as weak as yours seems to be. I've got a whole bible to demonstrate that Jesus is truely the only begotten Son of God - homoousious with his Father.

If you are incapable of speaking to the Greek, then your position is indefensible.

Wallace provides no proof positive against the textual argument merely a hyperthetical grammar (like others, Wallace himself redefines the GSR). As is reasonably expected, Wallace doesn't address the textual arguments.

On the contrary, Wallace provides the most in-depth analysis on the subject to date, and has refined the original rule to address any known argument against the rule.

As we can see, you googling has provided absolutely no rebut.

At a textual level Titus 2:13 & 1 Peter 1:1, the arguments rather than falling flat are rather firm...throughout the NT, the Father is identified as God and the Son as Lord very consistantly...the distinction always made...Wallace does make fleeting reference that the two texts in question could be overextending by the writers, just as he makes fleeting reference to the partiarchs over extending in their apologies.

Wallace demonstrates, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Jesus is God in the NT.

From your demeanor I suspect I know who your father is = John 8:31,44, so if true, I ain't your brother.

Did you stay awake all night thinking of this ‘great comeback’ since you were unable to thwart our position exegetically or grammatically….brother..?

The reality is the only people that benefit from your line of argument is the Oneness Pentecostal's (Sabellianisers, modalist etc). If you want to be one then be upfront deny the Trinity and become one. There is very good reason why (as wallace said) Trinitarians have resisted the GSR in regard to several texts. Have a read of the NT, Jesus is recognised as the Son of God, God of God, not God himself.

Wallace is a Trinitarian himself.

Perhaps you need to spend a little more quality time with the Word of God and see what you are missing.

It might also be worthwhile you reading Irenaeus who lamented A.Paul's atrocious grammar. Grammar by itself ain't the final argument...grammar in textual context is...

This is yet another lame attempt to thwart an obvious Greek grammar construct.

Just learn to accept this rule, and deal with it…

Of course you mean the various opinions on Greek grammar. In the case of the two letters in question the Greek language is the entirity of each letter, not an isolated phrase.

Greek grammar has its rules, and these rules were in place before the NT was written.

You not liking the rules won’t cause them to change for you…

Many a commentator arguing for a single nominee at Titus 2:13 declare that there is no expectation for God to appear in A.Paul's writings, but while this is true, at least in A.John's revelation there is! At Rev 22:4 it is said we will see God's face (and the text distinguishes God from the Lamb=Jesus). In anycase, if there is no expectation for God to appear in A.Paul's writings then Titus 2:13 logically can't be calling Jesus God.

You just keep going from bad to worse, brother.

Had you bothered to study the Book of Revelation, then you would have quickly realized that Theos and Jesus have interchangeable deity.

You even provided a prime example for our position, as thus…


και εδειξεν μοι ποταμον υδατος ζωης λαμπρον ως κρυσταλλον εκπορευομενον εκ του θρονου του θεου και του αρνιου εν μεσω της πλατειας αυτης και του ποταμου εντευθεν και εκειθεν ξυλον ζωης ποιουν καρπους δωδεκα κατα μηνα εκαστον αποδιδουν τον καρπον αυτου και τα φυλλα του ξυλου εις θεραπειαν των εθνων και παν καταθεμα ουκ εσται ετι και ο θρονος του θεου και του αρνιου εν αυτη εσται και οι δουλοι αυτου λατρευσουσιν αυτω και οψονται το προσωπον αυτου και το ονομα αυτου επι των μετωπων αυτων

And he showed me a river of water of life, clear/white as crystal, coming forth out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of its street and of the river, from here and from there, was a Tree of life producing twelve fruits: according to one month each yielding its fruit. And the leaves of the tree were for healing of the nations. And every curse will no longer be. And the throne of God and the Lamb will be in it; and His slaves will worship Him. And they will see His face; and His name will be on their foreheads. (Rev 22.1 – 4)

Observe that Revelation chapter 22 declares that both the Water of Life and the Tree of Life are intertwined with one another, and emanate from the singular throne of God and the Lamb.

Although both God and the Lamb are identified, they are treated as one entity, one God, via the prolific usage of singular personal pronouns and singular nouns:

• One Throne (thronos)
• His (autou) slaves
• Worship Him (autō)
• His (autou) face (prosōpon)
• His (autou) name (onoma)

I suspect you were too busy biting at the bit to actually have had a rational think. If various trinitarian authoritive grammarians understand the text in various ways then the Greek ain't settled.

From a Trinitarian viewpoint options 1 or 2 would be preferred over option 3

Again…this is the best rebut that you could google?




Owned.