Titus 2:13 and the deity of Christ

[Shadow Phoenix]

According to the NWT in Titus 2:13

"While we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] savior of us Christ Jesus.

First off, it's interesting that the WT says that if you don't have the article in John 1:1 it should be translated as "a god" but right here where there is no article, it's perfectly acceptable to add the word "the" and it's not theological bias.

Secondly and a question that I think seems more glaring....

Where do you ever read anything where Jesus talks about God the Father appearing at the Second Coming? Especially since JWs make it clear that no one can see God and live. If the Father isn't coming at the Second Coming, then the text can only refer to the coming of Jesus and address him as our God and Savior.

[Tsmith]

According to the NWT in Titus 2:13

"While we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] savior of us Christ Jesus.

First off, it's interesting that the WT says that if you don't have the article in John 1:1 it should be translated as "a god" but right here where there is no article, it's perfectly acceptable to add the word "the" and it's not theological bias.

Secondly and a question that I think seems more glaring....

Where do you ever read anything where Jesus talks about God the Father appearing at the Second Coming? Especially since JWs make it clear that no one can see God and live. If the Father isn't coming at the Second Coming, then the text can only refer to the coming of Jesus and address him as our God and Savior.

The text doesn't speak of the appearing of the Father, it speaks of the appareing of the GLORY of the Father, sometime Jesus said he is coming in back in Luke.

As for comparing it to John 1:1, the texts are entirely different constructions, and in John 1:1 you can only add the article theologically if you are a modalist.

[Shadow Phoenix]

The text doesn't speak of the appearing of the Father, it speaks of the appareing of the GLORY of the Father, sometime Jesus said he is coming in back in Luke.

As for comparing it to John 1:1, the texts are entirely different constructions, and in John 1:1 you can only add the article theologically if you are a modalist.

Ah yes! It's ALT again. Maybe then this just means that the Son is only appearing. He's not really coming.

Beautiful thing with JOhn 1:1 here. All JWs suffer from what Rob Bowman called indefinitis apparently.

[exaJeet]

Nick,
this is me...





:popcorn:





ROFL,
exaJeet.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Nick,
this is me...





:popcorn:





ROFL,
exaJeet.

Hey Exajeet. Come on and be somewhat civil here....

Share the popcorn with your friends. Alright?

[Tsmith]

Ah yes! It's ALT again. Maybe then this just means that the Son is only appearing. He's not really coming.

Beautiful thing with JOhn 1:1 here. All JWs suffer from what Rob Bowman called indefinitis apparently.


Way to go out addressing what I said. I'm starting to become used to this. The text does not speak of a "coming" (ERCOMAI) at all. It speaks of what they are waiting for, which is the appearing of the glory of the great God and our savior Jesus Christ. Now, this appearing does take place in Christ's coming, but this is not explcit within this particular text.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

tsmith,

please explain why Granville Sharp's rule doesn't apply to Titus 2:13, thanks

:smile:

from Punkish

[Shadow Phoenix]

Way to go out addressing what I said. I'm starting to become used to this. The text does not speak of a "coming" (ERCOMAI) at all. It speaks of what they are waiting for, which is the appearing of the glory of the great God and our savior Jesus Christ. Now, this appearing does take place in Christ's coming, but this is not explcit within this particular text.

Well we've been doing that so much ALT that we just got tired of hearing over and over stuff that we hadn't even addressed. Turnabout is fun huh?

What else could this passage be about by the Second Coming?

Btw, are you saying men actually see God here?

[Tsmith]

Well we've been doing that so much ALT that we just got tired of hearing over and over stuff that we hadn't even addressed. Turnabout is fun huh?

What else could this passage be about by the Second Coming?

Btw, are you saying men actually see God here?


The text doesn't say "see God" it speaks of God's glory.

[Shadow Phoenix]

The text doesn't say "see God" it speaks of God's glory.

Hey! This is interesting then! According to TSmith, the NWT mistranslated this verse then. The NWT talks about the manifestation of our great God. The manifestation is described as glorious instead.

Oh my. Are you telling me the NWT translators didn't know Greek?

[Tsmith]

Hey! This is interesting then! According to TSmith, the NWT mistranslated this verse then. The NWT talks about the manifestation of our great God. The manifestation is described as glorious instead.

Oh my. Are you telling me the NWT translators didn't know Greek?

The NWT is accurate, but there is more than one accurate translation. They translated it based on a Hebraic idiom that I find unlikely that Paul would have been making use of, as he was writing to a Greek.

[Shadow Phoenix]

The NWT is accurate, but there is more than one accurate translation. They translated it based on a Hebraic idiom that I find unlikely that Paul would have been making use of, as he was writing to a Greek.

Hmmm. The NWT is accurate but they translated it inaccurately? They used a Hebrew idiom. I had no idea that the translators were skilled in Hebrew idioms.

btw, it's interesting that in another thread the BIble was thoroughly Jewish so we should read it as a Jew, but now Paul is really writing in Greek terminology.

So what credentials did the NWT translators have in Hebrew?

[Tsmith]

Hmmm. The NWT is accurate but they translated it inaccurately? They used a Hebrew idiom. I had no idea that the translators were skilled in Hebrew idioms.

btw, it's interesting that in another thread the BIble was thoroughly Jewish so we should read it as a Jew, but now Paul is really writing in Greek terminology.

So what credentials did the NWT translators have in Hebrew?

I don't know who they were, so I couldn't tell you. I usually use Green's translation anyway.

Yes, the Bible is Jewish, but he was writing to Titus, who is not. It would not make much sense to make use of an idiom Titus would likely not know, now would it?

[Shadow Phoenix]

I don't know who they were, so I couldn't tell you. I usually use Green's translation anyway.

Yes, the Bible is Jewish, but he was writing to Titus, who is not. It would not make much sense to make use of an idiom Titus would likely not know, now would it?

Oh wow. We don't know who the translators are? In fact, that has been kept somewhat secretive.

Maybe you should write the WT and find out who the translators were and what their credentials were.

[Tsmith]

Oh wow. We don't know who the translators are? In fact, that has been kept somewhat secretive.

Maybe you should write the WT and find out who the translators were and what their credentials were.


I don't really see a need. It is not a perfect translation, but none are. It is just as reliable as anything else I've found.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I don't really see a need. It is not a perfect translation, but none are. It is just as reliable as anything else I've found.

Now this is interesting. We were just told the NWT wasn't a perfect translation while God's organization was behind it. Interesting. Interesting. Interesting.

Now if you wanted to know who translated other Bibles, a list is readily available. Now why is the WT so hesitant? Could this be an adamant refusal to not accept the challenge to write and find out who translated the NWT?

And also, here's your way out to dodge that, the question about Granville Sharp is still open

[Tsmith]

Now this is interesting. We were just told the NWT wasn't a perfect translation while God's organization was behind it. Interesting. Interesting. Interesting.

Now if you wanted to know who translated other Bibles, a list is readily available. Now why is the WT so hesitant? Could this be an adamant refusal to not accept the challenge to write and find out who translated the NWT?

And also, here's your way out to dodge that, the question about Granville Sharp is still open

There are other Bibles out there that list no translators. This is nothing new.

As for Sharp's rule, there are a number of clear exceptions to it. Some people try and argue out of, some they don't. However, I find the text much simpler if we view the single article as being used under the classification of there being what will appear, in which both are found. This is grammatical and provides a clear answer for why Paul used only one article.

[Shadow Phoenix]

There are other Bibles out there that list no translators. This is nothing new.

As for Sharp's rule, there are a number of clear exceptions to it. Some people try and argue out of, some they don't. However, I find the text much simpler if we view the single article as being used under the classification of there being what will appear, in which both are found. This is grammatical and provides a clear answer for why Paul used only one article.

And if you write them, you can get names for who wrote those Bibles. Why don't you do the same with the NWT? Don't you think the WT will give you a clear answer that you can give to satisfy those who ask and thus fulfill 1 Peter 3:15?

Now, why did the WT then feel the need to add that little word "The" in there when Paul didn't use it?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

okay please list three bibles for which we don't know the translators. And also, please give (in Greek!) these exceptions to Sharp's rule. It isn't sufficient to say "there are exceptions" - we need to know what they are as well!

Punkish

[Tsmith]

And if you write them, you can get names for who wrote those Bibles. Why don't you do the same with the NWT? Don't you think the WT will give you a clear answer that you can give to satisfy those who ask and thus fulfill 1 Peter 3:15?

Now, why did the WT then feel the need to add that little word "The" in there when Paul didn't use it?

No you can't. Such as with The Christian Bible, who have specifically not released them.

As for "the", Greek idiom does not always carry over into English. At times, it is necessary to properly render the sentence in English.

[Tsmith]

okay please list three bibles for which we don't know the translators. And also, please give (in Greek!) these exceptions to Sharp's rule. It isn't sufficient to say "there are exceptions" - we need to know what they are as well!

Punkish


Proverbs 24:21 is one of the more known ones, but there are pothers

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

I'm sorry, I AFAIK Sharp's rule was defined for the New Testament.

[Tsmith]

I'm sorry, I AFAIK Sharp's rule was defined for the New Testament.


There is no such thing as New Testament Greek. It is Koine. In other words, the New Testament falls under the larger classification of Koine.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Why is Proverbs 24:21 a counter-example to Sharp's rule, since Proverbs was originally penned in Hebrew? (Edited to remove a linguistic error.)

Please present your other examples :smile:
Punkish

[Tsmith]

Alright, my apologies. Now explain this: the Septuagint was written in *Attic* Greek, not Koine. Hence, why is Proverbs 24:21 a counter-example to Sharp's rule? (Indeed, since Proverbs was originally penned in Hebrew, why cite it at all?)


The LXX is indeed Koine. There are other sources within the early church that break the "rule" as well. In reality, the single article can be used both to denote either one or two people.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

yes I apologise, I was relying on various things I have read in the past. I've edited my post to correct this. Odd isn't it, how I'm prepared to admit error, and you are not...

[Shadow Phoenix]

No you can't. Such as with The Christian Bible, who have specifically not released them.

As for "the", Greek idiom does not always carry over into English. At times, it is necessary to properly render the sentence in English.

If the translators are not willing to be identified even upon request, I find no reason to trust it. Hence, I haven't used "The Christian Bible" and doing a websearch on how it was translated made me feel like I was reading a joke book on translating the Bible.

You're gonna have to give me a better answer than that. Of course, you could end this easily. Just write to them and then get back to me the names of the translators. It'll only cost you 37 cents for a stamp.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

tsmith,

would you do us all a favour please and define Sharp's rule so we all know (including our readers) that we're on the same page, thanks

Punkish

[Tsmith]

yes I apologise, I was relying on various things I have read in the past. I've edited my post to correct this. Odd isn't it, how I'm prepared to admit error, and you are not...


I've admitted error on many things before.. but here I've yet to see where I've been wrong. If you'd care to show me where I am wrong on something I'll be happy to admit as much.

[Tsmith]

tsmith,

would you do us all a favour please and define Sharp's rule so we all know (including our readers) that we're on the same page, thanks

Punkish

Basically the rule states that in a TSKS construction it is a reference to a single person. There are a number of qualifications that were originally and/or have over time been placed on it, in order to maintain the rule when exceptions have popped up, but that is essentially it.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Basically the rule states that in a TSKS construction it is a reference to a single person. There are a number of qualifications that were originally and/or have over time been placed on it, in order to maintain the rule when exceptions have popped up, but that is essentially it.

Now are we going to get a list of Bible translators for the NWT? It'll only cost 37 cents for a stamp

[Tsmith]

Now are we going to get a list of Bible translators for the NWT? It'll only cost 37 cents for a stamp


The translators requested to be anonymous, so they aren't going to give it.. obviously.

[Shadow Phoenix]

The translators requested to be anonymous, so they aren't going to give it.. obviously.

If they refuse to give their names when asked, I see no reason to use it. Don't you want to know that the people who translated it had credentials in Greek and Hebrew? Could it do harm to ask?!

[Tsmith]

If they refuse to give their names when asked, I see no reason to use it. Don't you want to know that the people who translated it had credentials in Greek and Hebrew? Could it do harm to ask?!


I don't really care, frankly, as I make no theological determinations by a single translation.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I don't really care, frankly, as I make no theological determinations by a single translation.

I'd definitely care if this is supposedly God's organization. One would think God's organization would have the best translation of the Bible. Wouldn't you? So why don't they name the scholars that translated it when asked? All you have to do end the qualms here is write a letter. Is that too hard?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

I'd add that giving one's name to the work of translation is a matter of responsibility before both God and His people. (and also the academic world.)

[exaJeet]

I've admitted error on many things before..... If you'd care to show me where I am wrong, I'll be happy to admit as much.


Tsmith (Dave),

Here is somewhere that you are wrong.

"...tou megalou qeou kai swthros hmwn Ihsou Cristou" (Titus 2:13)

which is correctly translated as,
... our great God and savior, Jesus Christ.


:popcorn:
....thanks again for the entertainment.

exaJeet

[exaJeet]

I don't really care, frankly, as I make no theological determinations by a single translation.

It is funny that you say you make no theological determinations by a single translation, yet all your theological assertions seek to support that translation.

Sad.... how sad.


Proverbs 18:2 A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing personal opinion.

This verse is just for you.



exaJeet.

[betzerg]

According to the NWT in Titus 2:13

"While we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] savior of us Christ Jesus.

First off, it's interesting that the WT says that if you don't have the article in John 1:1 it should be translated as "a god" but right here where there is no article, it's perfectly acceptable to add the word "the" and it's not theological bias.

Secondly and a question that I think seems more glaring....

Where do you ever read anything where Jesus talks about God the Father appearing at the Second Coming? Especially since JWs make it clear that no one can see God and live. If the Father isn't coming at the Second Coming, then the text can only refer to the coming of Jesus and address him as our God and Savior.

What is the "glorious manifestation" of G-d...it is obviously the Sh'kinah...the glory cloud that filled the mishkon...the temple. The cloud by day and the fire by night. This passage is not an allusion to the appearing of G-d as Jesus...It means that accompanying YESHUA will be the the Sk'khinah glory cloud that represented G-d throught history.

Shalom,

Betzer

[Shadow Phoenix]

Tsmith (Dave),

Here is somewhere that you are wrong.

"...tou megalou qeou kai hmwn Ihsou Cristou" (Titus 2:13)

which is correctly translated as,
... our great God and savior, Jesus Christ.


:popcorn:
....thanks again for the entertainment.

exaJeet

Hiya Jeet. How about looking at the very next verse?

hos edwken eauton huper hmwn, hina lutrwshtai hmas apo pashs anomias kai kaqapish eautw laon periousion zhlwthn kalwn ergwn

Who gave himself for us, that he may deliver us from all lawlessness and cleanse for himself people chosen, devoted to good works.

Gave himself, he may, for himself. All of this activity seems to point to one person. Could it be that only one person is in view in Titus 2:13?

[Tsmith]

Tsmith (Dave),

Here is somewhere that you are wrong.

"...tou megalou qeou kai swthros hmwn Ihsou Cristou" (Titus 2:13)

which is correctly translated as,
... our great God and savior, Jesus Christ.


:popcorn:
....thanks again for the entertainment.

exaJeet

I never said it is a wrong translation, but it is not the ONLY allowable translation. The translation of "the great God and our savior Jesus Christ" is perfectly grammatical. So no, I am not wrong.

[Tsmith]

Hiya Jeet. How about looking at the very next verse?

hos edwken eauton huper hmwn, hina lutrwshtai hmas apo pashs anomias kai kaqapish eautw laon periousion zhlwthn kalwn ergwn

Who gave himself for us, that he may deliver us from all lawlessness and cleanse for himself people chosen, devoted to good works.

Gave himself, he may, for himself. All of this activity seems to point to one person. Could it be that only one person is in view in Titus 2:13?


It is not uncommon for there to be two referents and then the following text only speak of one. This does nothing to help you on if one or two persons are spoken of prior.

[Shadow Phoenix]

What is the "glorious manifestation" of G-d...it is obviously the Sh'kinah...the glory cloud that filled the mishkon...the temple. The cloud by day and the fire by night. This passage is not an allusion to the appearing of G-d as Jesus...It means that accompanying YESHUA will be the the Sk'khinah glory cloud that represented G-d throught history.

Shalom,

Betzer

That is an interesting point, except that the Bible speaks about the glory of Jesus as one shared with the Father from the beginning. (John 17:5) It also speaks of the glory of the only begotten son. In other words, Jesus dwelt among us as the embodiment of the shekinah glory.

[Shadow Phoenix]

It is not uncommon for there to be two referents and then the following text only speak of one. This does nothing to help you on if one or two persons are spoken of prior.

Assertion assertion assertion. Evidence please?

[Shadow Phoenix]

I never said it is a wrong translation, but it is not the ONLY allowable translation. The translation of "the great God and our savior Jesus Christ" is perfectly grammatical. So no, I am not wrong.

Now I want to frame this one! It's perfectly grammatical eh? So what's the reason for not accepting it in this case? Every other verse our grammar has supposedly not been fitting. Now what's the real reason for not translating this as Exajeet has which would be in perfect accordance with the one person doing all the action in the next verse?

[exaJeet]

I never said it is a wrong translation, but it is not the ONLY allowable translation. The translation of "the great God and our savior Jesus Christ" is perfectly grammatical. So no, I am not wrong.



ROFLATAHBE



:rasberry:


exaJeet

[betzerg]

That is an interesting point, except that the Bible speaks about the glory of Jesus as one shared with the Father from the beginning. (John 17:5) It also speaks of the glory of the only begotten son. In other words, Jesus dwelt among us as the embodiment of the shekinah glory.


I certainly understand that Messiah was pre-existent. AS a Son of G-d...he, in fact, was the firstborn of all of G-d's creations. Can you imagine the Shekinah glory of G-d that engulfed the entire world as HE..along with YESHUA ...began creating the universe. ALL of the Sons of G-d shouted for joy, we are told. This does not mean that YESHUA is "G-d"...and that it is "G-D"s second coming that is implied here.

shalom,

BETZER

YEHSUA is simply G-d's "right arm". HE is NOT FULLY G-d. His second coming is to glorify G-d by accomplishing G-d's purposes on the earth. Rev.5:12 says "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory."...It was ONLY in doing the will of the father that exalted MESSIAH above any other created being.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I certainly understand that Messiah was pre-existent. AS a Son of G-d...he, in fact, was the firstborn of all of G-d's creations. Can you imagine the Shekinah glory of G-d that engulfed the entire world as HE..along with YESHUA ...began creating the universe. ALL of the Sons of G-d shouted for joy, we are told. This does not mean that YESHUA is "G-d"...and that it is "G-D"s second coming that is implied here.

shalom,

BETZER

YEHSUA is simply G-d's "right arm". HE is NOT FULLY G-d. His second coming is to glorify G-d by accomplishing G-d's purposes on the earth. Rev.5:12 says "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory."...It was ONLY in doing the will of the father that exalted MESSIAH above any other created being.

So Jesus is not the one who always pleases him but just another tool in the pack? Interesting.

Since Messiah is also the wisdom of God as seen in both the OT and the NT, exactly how long was it before God had wisdom?

[betzerg]

So Jesus is not the one who always pleases him but just another tool in the pack? Interesting.

Since Messiah is also the wisdom of God as seen in both the OT and the NT, exactly how long was it before God had wisdom?

Did I say just another tool in the pack? Is there anyone like YESHUA? I think not. HE is the beginning...and will be the end..in our creation scenario. He was the first creation...before all others...yet he is a "servant of G-d" which is stated over and over in the scriptures.

And if I read scripture correctly Messiah was slain from the very foundation of the world. Yeshua HIMSELF said "G-d is a spirit, and those who worship HIM must worship HIM in spirit and Truth." Our prayers are to be to "OUR Father". YESHUA NEVER placed himself in the position of G-d...HE always made a distinction. Even the famous "the father and i are ONE"...proceeds to include the possiblity that we can be ONE also with our brethern.

So,

Please don't twist what I say. He is not one of many. HE IS UNIQUE. The first.

Shalom,

BETZER

[Shadow Phoenix]

Did I say just another tool in the pack? Is there anyone like YESHUA? I think not. HE is the beginning...and will be the end..in our creation scenario. He was the first creation...before all others...yet he is a "servant of G-d" which is stated over and over in the scriptures.

And if I read scripture correctly Messiah was slain from the very foundation of the world. Yeshua HIMSELF said "G-d is a spirit, and those who worship HIM must worship HIM in spirit and Truth." Our prayers are to be to "OUR Father". YESHUA NEVER placed himself in the position of G-d...HE always made a distinction. Even the famous "the father and i are ONE"...proceeds to include the possiblity that we can be ONE also with our brethern.

So,

Please don't twist what I say. He is not one of many. HE IS UNIQUE. The first.

Shalom,

BETZER

Even a unique tool is still a tool in the pack.

The distinction is there mainly if you assume that God is unipersonal. I notice for instance my post on wisdom was neglected. Now how about time? What happened there? Did Jesus create time? Okay. If he did, was this after his creation? hmmmm. After this, then time? That doesn't make sense does it?

Yes. God is Spirit, but even the OT has visible manifestations of God. Also, I have no problem praying to the Father. I usually do. It's what Yeshua said to do after all. Yet in Acts 7, Stephen prays to Jesus.

And we can be one with our brethren? In what way are the Father and Son one? Not just in function but in love. Love is an eternally relational virtue and we are to mirror the love of the Trinity

[Tsmith]

Now I want to frame this one! It's perfectly grammatical eh? So what's the reason for not accepting it in this case? Every other verse our grammar has supposedly not been fitting. Now what's the real reason for not translating this as Exajeet has which would be in perfect accordance with the one person doing all the action in the next verse?

There are various reasons. 1) Christ speaks of coming in his Father's glory. 2) Paul's use of God for the Father in verse 11, so it is likely that this reference would continue.

As for the one person performing the action in the next verse, I cannot find an issue with this. The pronoun is singular, and here it refers to the nearest antecedent, Christ.

[Shadow Phoenix]

There are various reasons. 1) Christ speaks of coming in his Father's glory. 2) Paul's use of God for the Father in verse 11, so it is likely that this reference would continue.

As for the one person performing the action in the next verse, I cannot find an issue with this. The pronoun is singular, and here it refers to the nearest antecedent, Christ.

Reason #1-Why would that argue against it?

Reason #2-Can you show that grammatically? Go through the text and translate it.

[betzerg]

So Jesus is not the one who always pleases him but just another tool in the pack? Interesting.

Since Messiah is also the wisdom of God as seen in both the OT and the NT, exactly how long was it before God had wisdom?

Wisdom is an attribute. So..you're saying that Messiah is an attribute of G-d? why don't you give me scripture to help me understand where this logic is comming from.

shalom,

betzer

[Tsmith]

Reason #1-Why would that argue against it?


There are two glories spoken of, making two more probable.


Reason #2-Can you show that grammatically? Go through the text and translate it.

It is pretty simple.

the appearing of the glory of the great God and our savior Jesus Christ

<- who = Jesus Christ (nearest antecedent)

[Shadow Phoenix]

Wisdom is an attribute. So..you're saying that Messiah is an attribute of G-d? why don't you give me scripture to help me understand where this logic is comming from.

shalom,

betzer

Actually, he's a hypostasis.

1 Cor. 1:24. Christ is the power and wisdom of God. How long has God had power? How long has God had wisdom?

[Shadow Phoenix]

There are two glories spoken of, making two more probable.



It is pretty simple.

the appearing of the glory of the great God and our savior Jesus Christ

<- who = Jesus Christ (nearest antecedent)

Dave. I asked you to go through and translate the passage so we can see how this conclusion is being reached. You started at verse 11. Go from there through 14.

[betzerg]

Actually, he's a hypostasis.

1 Cor. 1:24. Christ is the power and wisdom of God. How long has God had power? How long has God had wisdom?

Since he created MESSIAH as his first creation...oh..and before that he was dumb...and couldn't do much.

You're not a very logical person. To say that the only source of G-d's wisdom is YESHUA negates the scripture in matthew that says "ONLY my father knows the day and the hour" (of the end of the age)...wow...you do tend to misconstrue scripture to prove a point.

Shalom,

BETZER

[Shadow Phoenix]

Since he created MESSIAH as his first creation...oh..and before that he was dumb...and couldn't do much.

You're not a very logical person. To say that the only source of G-d's wisdom is YESHUA negates the scripture in matthew that says "ONLY my father knows the day and the hour" (of the end of the age)...wow...you do tend to misconstrue scripture to prove a point.

Shalom,

BETZER

Did I say Yeshua was the source of the Father's logic? Not at all. The Father is the source of Yeshua. "I live because the Father lives" and the Son is eternally proceeding from the Father.

Why did Yeshua not know? Because he was coming in the form of the servant as well. Acts 1 implies that he knew the time though at that point.

[Tsmith]

Dave. I asked you to go through and translate the passage so we can see how this conclusion is being reached. You started at verse 11. Go from there through 14.

I don't understand why we need a new translation to do this. Let us keep this quick and easy. Pickup your nearest Bible, start in verse 11 and read.

The grace of God appeared. That grace appeared in Jesus.

He taught us a whole bunch of important stuff, including to look forward to an appearing.

What will appear? The glory of the great God. Who is the God being spoke of? Not Christ, for Christ is spoken of as the grace of that God in the context. But also him, our savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us.

[oldsage_nc]

Proverbs 24:21 is one of the more known ones, but there are pothers
Ok, I am still stuck on this one, yes, the G.S. Rule is for Kione Greek, but Prov 24:21 in the LXX is a translation and that may be the cause of the exception. In the rest of the text of the LXX and the NT there isn't any more exception to the rule.

Here is the translator's note from the NET bible for Titus 2:13:

The terms "God and Savior" both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-kai,-noun (where kai, [kai] = "and"), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as "the friend and brother," "the God and Father," etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp's point. The only issue is whether terms such as "God" and "Savior" could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both "God" (qeo,j, theos) and "savior" (swth,r, soÒteÒr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp's rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp's rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp's rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on Sharp's rule see ExSyn 270-78, esp. 276. See also 2 Pet 1:1 and Jude 4.

Now, I am doing a search of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to see if there are any more exceptions other than the one in the LXX. But I don't think I will find them.

I would also look at 2Peter 1:11 and Jude 4 as more examples

[Shadow Phoenix]

I don't understand why we need a new translation to do this. Let us keep this quick and easy. Pickup your nearest Bible, start in verse 11 and read.

The grace of God appeared. That grace appeared in Jesus.

He taught us a whole bunch of important stuff, including to look forward to an appearing.

What will appear? The glory of the great God. Who is the God being spoke of? Not Christ, for Christ is spoken of as the grace of that God in the context. But also him, our savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us.

I could do that, but your claim is speaking of an antecedent. I've read that passage all my life and never read it that way. It's always been clear that it's our great God and savior Jesus Christ. Now why not translate all the way from verse 11 to verse 14? It's not that difficult is it?

[exaJeet]

Here is the translator's note from the NET bible for Titus 2:13:

Quote: Originally posted by NET bible notes

The terms "God and Savior" both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-kai,-noun (where kai, [kai] = "and"), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as "the friend and brother," "the God and Father," etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp's point. The only issue is whether terms such as "God" and "Savior" could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both "God" (qeo,j, theos) and "savior" (swth,r, soÒteÒr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp's rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp's rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp's rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on Sharp's rule see ExSyn 270-78, esp. 276. See also 2 Pet 1:1 and Jude 4.



Oldsage,
that is a great summation of the G.S. rule and how it clearly applies to Titus 2:13. Good find.

I was gonna start digging in Robertson's or Chamberlain's or Porter's grammars to help Tsmith out with what he is misunderstanding.

It looks like Tsmith gets spanked in this thread also.



exaJeet.

[Tsmith]

Ok, I am still stuck on this one, yes, the G.S. Rule is for Kione Greek, but Prov 24:21 in the LXX is a translation and that may be the cause of the exception. In the rest of the text of the LXX and the NT there isn't any more exception to the rule.

Here is the translator's note from the NET bible for Titus 2:13:



Now, I am doing a search of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to see if there are any more exceptions other than the one in the LXX. But I don't think I will find them.

I would also look at 2Peter 1:11 and Jude 4 as more examples


Regardless of if it is a translation does not take it outside of the realm of Greek idiom. There are definitely exceptions in the ANF and other Koine literature. I'd be happy to provide some if you'd like, but regardless Proverbs is a clear one.

[Tsmith]

Oldsage,
that is a great summation of the G.S. rule and how it clearly applies to Titus 2:13. Good find.

I was gonna start digging in Robertson's or Chamberlain's or Porter's grammars to help Tsmith out with what he is misunderstanding.

It looks like Tsmith gets spanked in this thread also.



exaJeet.

Might I suggest you check Smyth's grammar. The basis for my understanding of this text is actually found in his.

Here is the Expositor's Greek Testament:

"The Second Coming of Christ may, therefore, be regarded as an epifaneia ths dozhs qeou [appearing of the glory of God], even though we should not speak of an epifaneia tou patros [appearing of the Father], while epifaneia ihsou cristou [appearing of Jesus Christ] is normal and natural (see on I Tim. vi. 14). . . In any case, the conception of the Second Coming as an occasion of manifestation of two doxai [glories], that of the Father and of the Son, is familiar from Luke ix. 26..."

There is a lot more there on page 195 is anyone would care to lookup the reference.

As I said, there are numerous exceptions to Sharp's rule. What interests me is that Wallace's coverage of the use of the article in GGBB has him agreeing with Sharp's rule, but then provides a different classification of the TSKS construction immediately following that which fits perfectly for Titus 2:13. A little theological bias perhaps? Maybe not, but it wouldn't be surprising.

I understand the "rule" just fine, but with the exceptions out there, I find it simply invalid. Smyth's handling of the article deals with the would-be exceptions and also easily explains the use of the singular article without attempting to formulate a rule for a theological agenda (which as you may or may not know, was the purpose of Sharp's rule- to attempt to find texts that call Jesus God).

[InChristAlways]

Way to go out addressing what I said. I'm starting to become used to this. The text does not speak of a "coming" (ERCOMAI) at all. It speaks of what they are waiting for, which is the appearing of the glory of the great God and our savior Jesus Christ. Now, this appearing does take place in Christ's coming, but this is not explcit within this particular text.Hi Tsmith. Is that glory going to be revealed as Christ in the flesh or as a bright light? I can't really tell myself how He will appear. Blessings.

Revelation 4:8 [The] four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and within. And they do not rest day or night, saying: "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!"

Reve 11:17 saying: "We give You thanks, O Lord God Almighty, The One who is and who was and who is to come, Because You have taken Your great power and reigned.

Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing/brightness of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

appearing 2015 epiphaneia {ep-if-an'-i-ah}
from 2016; TDNT - 9:7,1244; n f
AV - appearing 5, brightness 1; 6

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness/apperance of His coming.

Hebrews 9:28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

shall he appear 3700 optanomai {op-tan'-om-ahee} or optomai {op-tom-ahee} a (middle voice) prolonged form of the primary (middle voice)
optomai {op'-tom-ahee}, which is used for it in certain
tenses, and both as alternate of 3708; TDNT - 5:315,706; v
AV - see 37, appear 17, look 2, show (one's) self 1, being seen 1; 58


2 thess 1:7 and to [give] you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence/FACE of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints


Revelation 1:7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.

he shall come 2064 erchomai {er'-khom-ahee} middle voice of a primary verb (used only in the present and imperfect tenses, the others being supplied by a kindred [middle voice] eleuthomai {el-yoo'-thom-ahee}, or [active] eltho {el'-tho}, which do not otherwise occur); TDNT - 2:666,257; v AV - come 616, go 13, misc 13, vr come 1; 643

[frankdecker]

Of course they can do anything they want. Since 1973 and I saw 1975 come and go and the WT remained silent. As long as they, witnesses, believe in the GB more then God's Word, they will do anything the GB says.
The very first word (WHOEVER) 1 John 5:1, they ignore. The same with John 1:1......."a god." Schantz, who head up the Spanish Translation for the GB brought it up "1John 5:1," to the GB. Both him and his wife was Dfd for it.
So what's new? :lol:








According to the NWT in Titus 2:13

"While we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] savior of us Christ Jesus.

First off, it's interesting that the WT says that if you don't have the article in John 1:1 it should be translated as "a god" but right here where there is no article, it's perfectly acceptable to add the word "the" and it's not theological bias.

Secondly and a question that I think seems more glaring....

Where do you ever read anything where Jesus talks about God the Father appearing at the Second Coming? Especially since JWs make it clear that no one can see God and live. If the Father isn't coming at the Second Coming, then the text can only refer to the coming of Jesus and address him as our God and Savior.

[Anarthrous]

Yeah, the Catholics must be wrong as well:

New American Bible for Catholics
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/titus/titus2.htm

Titus 2:13:

"as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ,"

[Anarthrous]

Wait, this is weird. The KJV says at Titus 2:13-
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=titus%202:13;&version=9;

13Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;


Why does in put that "our" in between, that doesn't sound right?

Can you guys help me here? Thanks

[NonTrinitarian]

Wait, this is weird. The KJV says at Titus 2:13-
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=titus%202:13;&version=9;

13Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;


Why does in put that "our" in between, that doesn't sound right?

Can you guys help me here? Thanks

While the King James seems to suggest a separation between God and Jesus here, it could still be refering to the same person. But it reads very oddly that way and I would say the natural interpretation would be to separate the terms for two different persons.

However, the New American Bible is definite on its separation. That's because JW's have secretly snuck into Catholic seminaries and impersonated their theologians.:wink:

But you're not going to win a fight here on this subject. Trinitarians can't even agree amongst themselves what verses support their doctrine so the last person they'll listen to is a non-Trinitarian.

[Anarthrous]

Going along with the quotes by InChristAlways:

Revelation 1:4-8 NIV
4John,
To the seven churches in the province of Asia:
Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits[a] before his throne, 5and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
7Look, he is coming with the clouds,
and every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him;
and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.

8"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

It is plain Verse 4 is talking about the LORD God
Verse 7 talks about the Christ
Verse 8 is the Words of the the LORD God, the Almighty

[FormerFundy]

For those who have not read it, I would suggest Robert Countess's Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament: A Critical Analysis . It is still available I believe. It is the publication of Countess' Ph.D. dissertation on the same subject. If I remember correctly he does identify some of the translators.

Countess' book, though, shows clearly that the NWT is a poor translation done by those with a clear theological bias and very little Greek skills.

As for the Granville-Sharpe rule, I would recommend Daniel Wallace's treatment of this subject (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1496). After an exhaustive study of the subject, he concludes:

In sum, Sharp’s rule outside of the NT has been very strongly confirmed both in the classical authors and in the koine. And although a few possible exceptions to his rule were found in the literature, the phrase oJ qeoV" kaiV swthvr (Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1) admitted of no exceptions—either in Christian or secular writings. Ironically, then, the very passages in which Sharp sought to prove his rule have become among the least contestable in their singular referentiality.

So here the JW's are on very slippery ground.

[Strategos]

Wait, this is weird. The KJV says at Titus 2:13-
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=titus%202:13;&version=9;

13Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;


Why does in put that "our" in between, that doesn't sound right?

Can you guys help me here? Thanks

KJV was written before Granville Sharpe was even born, so there's not surprise that the KJV doesn't follow the Granville Sharp Rule.

[NonTrinitarian]

For those who have not read it, I would suggest Robert Countess's Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament: A Critical Analysis . It is still available I believe. It is the publication of Countess' Ph.D. dissertation on the same subject. If I remember correctly he does identify some of the translators.

Countess' book, though, shows clearly that the NWT is a poor translation done by those with a clear theological bias and very little Greek skills.

As for the Granville-Sharpe rule, I would recommend Daniel Wallace's treatment of this subject (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1496). After an exhaustive study of the subject, he concludes:

In sum, Sharp’s rule outside of the NT has been very strongly confirmed both in the classical authors and in the koine. And although a few possible exceptions to his rule were found in the literature, the phrase oJ qeoV" kaiV swthvr (Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1) admitted of no exceptions—either in Christian or secular writings. Ironically, then, the very passages in which Sharp sought to prove his rule have become among the least contestable in their singular referentiality.

So here the JW's are on very slippery ground.

Personally I wouldn't put much stock in anything Robert Bowman or Countess have to say. I do recommend Murray Harris' Jesus As God. He does a much more respectable study on the issue. Not to be left out are Ezra Abbott's writings on the Granville-Sharp rule and also Greg Stafford's Jehovah's Witnesses Defended. (If you want to see both sides of the debate.)

I don't debate this verse because even Trinitarians can't agree amongst themselves regarding it.

[Thomas Didymus]

Way to go out addressing what I said. I'm starting to become used to this. The text does not speak of a "coming" (ERCOMAI) at all. It speaks of what they are waiting for, which is the appearing of the glory of the great God and our savior Jesus Christ. Now, this appearing does take place in Christ's coming, but this is not explcit within this particular text.

Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ

Seems to be describing the appearing of Jesus Christ Himself as "glorious" not "glory" as the subject making the appearance.

[NonTrinitarian]

Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ

Seems to be describing the appearing of Jesus Christ Himself as "glorious" not "glory" as the subject making the appearance.

Well yeah, maybe by your particular translation. But see the following Bibles:
American Standard Version
Revised Standard Version
Todays English Version
New English Bible
The Jerusalem Bible
New American Standard Bible

Those translations believe the greek reads in this way: "appearing of the Glory of the Great God"

Which would be in harmony with Jesus' words at Matthew 16:27, "And the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels."

[Thomas Didymus]

Well yeah, maybe by your particular translation. But see the following Bibles:
American Standard Version
Revised Standard Version
Todays English Version
New English Bible
The Jerusalem Bible
New American Standard Bible

Those translations believe the greek reads in this way: "appearing of the Glory of the Great God"

Which would be in harmony with Jesus' words at Matthew 16:27, "And the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels."

Which still seems to make Christ Himself (from your quote of Matt 16) the object or subject coming, not the glory. Same as "coming in the clouds." The clouds are not the subject, Christ is. That's what we look for, not the clouds and not the glory.

[NonTrinitarian]

Which still seems to make Christ Himself (from your quote of Matt 16) the object or subject coming, not the glory. Same as "coming in the clouds." The clouds are not the subject, Christ is. That's what we look for, not the clouds and not the glory.

You're taking Matt and transfering it to Titus. :blush:

Matt just shows whose glory is coming. Not Christ's, his Fathers. Now read Titus 2:13 from just about any Bible you can find. Everything I've checked (and you can add to my earlier list the following translations as well, New Jerusalem Bible, NRSV, The New Living Translation and the New American Bible) reads as the following:

'the appearing of the GLORY of the Great God'

From the Bibles I have, only the King James incorrectly translates the Greek.
literally reads: "and appearing of the glory of the great God" (Note the word order in greek)

Thus, it doesn't say God is appearing. It says God's GLORY is appearing. (note appearing, not coming). IE, Jesus is 'coming with his Father's GLORY' (Matthew). Titus 2:13 clearly does NOT say GOD is appearing. It says what will appear is God's Glory, manifested through his Son, Jesus Christ.

Just put Matthew and Titus next to each other and see what they say.

"as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the GLORY OF GOD (not Jesus) and of our Savior Jesus Christ."-New American Bible

"For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his FATHER'S GLORY."

It's no wonder Trinitarians can't agree on this verse. At least, from all the Bibles I have, they recognize it says "the appearing of the glory of God", not the "appearing of the glorious God" which would be an incorrect translation.

[David Ragland]

Oh wow. We don't know who the translators are? In fact, that has been kept somewhat secretive.

Maybe you should write the WT and find out who the translators were and what their credentials were.

The publisher of NWT allegedly never made the names of the translators public knowledge. However, ecapees from JW leadership say the guilty parties are:

Nathan H. Knorr (President of the organization)
Frederick W. Franz (Vice-President)
George D. Gangas
Albert D. Schroeder

source: (http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-world.html)

Regards,
david the servant

[David Ragland]

I'd definitely care if this is supposedly God's organization. One would think God's organization would have the best translation of the Bible. Wouldn't you? So why don't they name the scholars that translated it when asked? All you have to do end the qualms here is write a letter. Is that too hard?

You are right. They should have no qualms whatsoever with giving up names and credentials. People with nothing to hide, hide nothing. :wink:

Peace,
david the servant

[David Ragland]

You're taking Matt and transfering it to Titus. :blush:

Matt just shows whose glory is coming. Not Christ's, his Fathers. Now read Titus 2:13 from just about any Bible you can find. Everything I've checked (and you can add to my earlier list the following translations as well, New Jerusalem Bible, NRSV, The New Living Translation and the New American Bible) reads as the following:

'the appearing of the GLORY of the Great God'



Quick quetion here. Why exactly would Father God send his glory to make an appearance and not come "in" His glory Himself? Let's take a look at the big picture known as context here. :smile:




From the Bibles I have, only the King James incorrectly translates the Greek.
literally reads: "and appearing of the glory of the great God" (Note the word order in greek)

Thus, it doesn't say God is appearing. It says God's GLORY is appearing. (note appearing, not coming). IE, Jesus is 'coming with his Father's GLORY' (Matthew). Titus 2:13 clearly does NOT say GOD is appearing. It says what will appear is God's Glory, manifested through his Son, Jesus Christ.

Just put Matthew and Titus next to each other and see what they say.

"as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the GLORY OF GOD (not Jesus) and of our Savior Jesus Christ."-New American Bible

"For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his FATHER'S GLORY."

It's no wonder Trinitarians can't agree on this verse. At least, from all the Bibles I have, they recognize it says "the appearing of the glory of God", not the "appearing of the glorious God" which would be an incorrect translation.

Now, here is a literal word for word translation of the verse in question with Strong’s numbers to boot.

13.

|4325| expecting
|3588| the
|3107| blessed
|1680| hope
|2532| and
|2015| appearance
|3588| of the
|1391| glory
|3588| of the
|3173| great
|2316| God
|2532| and
|4990| Savior
|2257| of us,
|2424| Jesus
|5547| Christ,
Now the issue, as I understand it here, is that the JW’s are trying to say it’s not God Himself returning but His glory making an appearance, right? They intend to interpret it this way in order to avoid accepting that this verse is calling Jesus God, right? Correct me if I’m right. :lol:

So, in keeping with my interpretation of this fray, let’s look at what I hope will shed some light. Let’s look at what exactly we mean when we refer to God’s glory. I mean, if His glory is making an appearance, will it not be because He Himself is the deliverer thereof? Are JW’s trying to say that Jesus will be wearing the Father’s glory at the SC like someone would borrow someone’s jacket for a party? :wink:

Observe: (from a previous writing I’m not finished with)

Glory as material wealth, moral attribute, or reputation
We see in Ps. 49:12, Gen. 31:1, Matt. 4:8, and Rev. 21:24, 26 that material possession and an honorable reputation are to be counted as one type of glory. This makes God’s glory, in this respect, above that of all others. He owns all things and there is no one who possesses His flawless reputation. The Bible even makes specific mention of man’s falling short of God’s glory regarding righteousness and reputation. (Rom. 3:23) Looking more specifically at reputation, 1 Kings 3:13, Heb. 2:7, and 1 Pet. 1:24 portray glory as exaltation. To clarify, glorification results when one is rightfully placed in an exalted or honorable position. We see in Psalms 29:2 that this type of glory is attributed to God’s name: "Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name; worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness."

Glory as splendor or majesty in appearance

Some measure of God’s glory has actually been viewed by human eyes. (Ex. 3:6, 16:10) On mount Sinai, when God gave the law unto Moses, God’s glory appears to the people of Israel as a consuming fire. (Ex. 24:17) The full glory of God Himself however, is inconceivable. No one can stand in the presence of God’s glory when He moves in power. (I Kin. 8:11) When God appeared to Moses in a burning bush that was not consumed, Moses was afraid to look upon God because of His immense glory. (Ex. 3:6)

Paul was smitten temporarily blind by God’s glory on the road to Damascus and had to be lead by the hand for the remainder of his journey. (Ac. 22:11) Moses was endowed with a glorious luminescence just from being near God’s glory. This glory was of such magnitude that the people of Israel could not keep a fixed gaze upon him. (II Cor.3:7) And Heb. 1:3, John 1:14, and John 2:11 all refer to Jesus as a tangible, viewable example of God’s glory since He was God in the flesh.

God’s glory is His own and all other forms of true glory stem from God’s glory. We are allowed glimpses of God’s gloriousness in creation. When you see a glorious sunset for example, you are seeing an extension of God’s own glory by His power to create. The birth of a new life, the stars of the heavens, the roaring oceans, and the mighty winds are all examples of God’s dazzling handiwork and gloriousness as a creator. The first sight of snow-capped peaks set along shorelines take one’s breath. Who can look upon the Grand Canyon without experiencing a sense of awe and wonder?

Yet, the spectacle and pageantry of God’s magnificent creations are but examples of the mere fingerprints of God. (Psa. 19:1) No matter how awesome and beautiful our perceptions of creation are to us, they are merely examples of what God created with the words of His mouth. (Gen. 1:3 - "And God said . . ." ) As wondrous as the universe is, it does not compare to the splendor of the One who created it!
In Exodus 33:18-23, we are given some idea of just how great and powerful Gods’ glory really is. Moses had recently spent a great deal of time with God. We, as Christians, spend time with God in prayer. To varying degrees, we are also in His presence. However, Moses had been enjoying a very intimate communion with God. It is unlikely that any man since Adam has been so close to God as was Moses on Mount Sinai.

Moses’ relationship with God had been growing in leaps and bounds. He managed to prevail in receiving one blessing after the next because of the God’s favor. Still, Moses could not get enough. In v. 18 Moses asks God to show His glory. The appearance of the burning bush, though most astounding, was not enough for Moses. Moses was not looking for proof of God or wishing to fulfill some childish craving for amusement. Moses simply loved God so immensely, that he wanted to be as close to Him as was possible. He wanted to be consumed in God’s glorious presence!

The success of Moses’ past prayers had no doubt fostered great boldness within him. Yet, he was humble before God Almighty and was petitioning, not demanding, to see more of Him. (By the way, herein lies a lesson in reverence and how to get one’s prayers answered!) Moses obviously saw his nearness to the thrown at this time as an invaluable opportunity. He also saw an even closer communion with God as the ultimate gift and sought to seek God while He could be found. More than likely, Moses felt that such an opportunity may never come again.

Until this point, Moses had seen the burning bush and heard God’s voice emanating from a pillar of fire, but He knew that this could not be all there was to God’s glory. He wanted God to enable him to see more. In saying, "Show me thy glory; make me to see it", Moses was not supposing that the human eye was capable of seeing or withstanding the sudden appearance of God’s full embodiment. Moses was merely looking to get a glimpse of whatever God saw fit to show him.



Now, there is another facet to the gift which Moses sought. One reason that God is not disposed to reveal actual images of His divine Self, is the result of man’s tendency to copy and worship these images. Let’s say God’s shows up one day and say’s, "Here I am! Look upon me now as you have so craved to do!". Can any one of us deny that we would want a photo of His likeness? Should such an event transpire, there would be photos, paintings, statues, and engravings galore! This fact alone would not be so terribly harmful. However, the subsequent worship of these images and objects of likeness would be! To anyone denying this as a possible outcome, we would call their attention to all the statues and paintings people kneel in front of to this very day. Additionally, they do so with no detailed account of Jesus’ actual likeness.

A considerable byproduct lies in the granting of Moses’ request. God had to trust Moses enough to show some him part of Himself. For God to have this type of trust in a mere man was indeed a significant event. Man complains daily about God’s invisibility because, he fails to understand or even realize that seeing God would only cause man to corrupt himself in his present form and state of consciousness. It is apparent that, until we ourselves become spirit, we are to be protected from complimentary glimpses into the spirit realm. Additionally, seeing God is to be considered a gift to be enjoyed by holy souls who have passed on to the glory of Heaven. Besides all of this, God wants us to walk by faith and not by sight while we are yet citizens of this world. (II Cor. 5:7) The type of faith we are commanded to possess comes by hearing and not by sight. The story of Thomas’ demand to examine Jesus’ resurrected body illustrated God’s position beautifully. Jesus’ statement to Thomas Didymus sums it up as plainly and succinctly as one ever could. (John 20:29)

So, God graciously grants Moses’ request, but he denies that which He knows Moses could not withstand. We see in v. 20 that God explains to Moses that he could not see his face and live. So, Moses was allowed to see only God’s "back-parts", which were - quite purposely - not described in the Biblical text. After the death of his mortal body however, we know that he was allowed a much greater view when he was present at Christ’s transfiguration.

Now, Jacob made the statement that he saw God face to face and lived. (Gen. 32:30) Take care here not to see this as a contradiction. Jacob did not wrestle with God in the same form as He appeared to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Careful examination of these two very different scenarios make it clear that God appeared in very different forms in each of them. He appeared to Jacob in the form of a man and was a consuming fire hidden within a cloud on Mt. Sinai. Also, the fullness of God was in the body of Jesus but, people were not overcome by His presence. We note also, that Jesus himself appeared to people in different forms after to His resurrection. (Mark 16:12, John 20:17)

Now, someone tell me. Which glory is being referred to in the verse in question. And tell me this. Does God accompany His glory or not?

Laterness . . .

david the servant

[NonTrinitarian]

Quick quetion here. Why exactly would Father God send his glory to make an appearance and not come "in" His glory Himself? Let's take a look at the big picture known as context here. :smile:

This is just great! Another Trinitarian who just argues against most others. Sir, you have no idea how many times I've been in discussions with Trinitarians at this site where they insist the scriptures do NOT say God (as in God the Father) is coming due to other scriptures. Before you rant on much longer about how God the Father is coming, why don't you search some other threads in this forum where you fellow trinitarians adamantly argue against your theory. You see, if you are saying God the Father is coming, then there are other scriptures (apparantly ones your not familiar with!) that create problems for other trinitarian scriptures. in fact, go and read the threads on the Alpha and Omega to see what can of worms you just opened.

Then comeback and re-read Jesus' words at Matthew.

Titus 2:13 is very explicit that is the GLORY of GOD that is making the appearance, not God Himself. Jesus highlights in Matthew it is the glory of God the Father that he will come with.

So stop disagreeing with your fellow trinitarians by saying the Father is coming. It causes them a lot of problems with other verses.:teeth:

[Sparko]

This is just great! Another Trinitarian who just argues against most others. Sir, you have no idea how many times I've been in discussions with Trinitarians at this site where they insist the scriptures do NOT say God (as in God the Father) is coming due to other scriptures.

:duh:

Yo, We never said it wasn't God who was coming. We said it was God who is coming. Jesus is the one who is coming back right? No one ever said the Father was coming back (he never came in the first place) and since God is coming and Jesus is coming and we know the FATHER is NOT coming, then that makes Jesus God. Get it? Good.

[NonTrinitarian]

:duh:

Yo, We never said it wasn't God who was coming. We said it was God who is coming. Jesus is the one who is coming back right? No one ever said the Father was coming back (he never came in the first place) and since God is coming and Jesus is coming and we know the FATHER is NOT coming, then that makes Jesus God. Get it? Good.

Why don't you go back and read what he wrote, goofus.:whack:

[Sparko]

Why don't you go back and read what he wrote, goofus.:whack:

I could care less what he said. I was commenting on what YOU said:

Sir, you have no idea how many times I've been in discussions with Trinitarians at this site where they insist the scriptures do NOT say God (as in God the Father) is coming due to other scriptures.

You are confusing God the Father with God the Son. We DO say that GOD is coming in his glory, but God the SON, Jesus.

God the FATHER is not going to be making a command appearance will he? Exactly how do you expect the Father to appear? He is Spirit and cannot be seen. Who will be coming back and making another appearance? Jesus. The bible tells us that Jesus is coming back. Titus tells us that he is coming back. Titus 2:13 says that they are waiting for the appearance of Jesus, the great God and Savior.

Any other interpretation is just wishful thinking on your part.Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.


And reading what David said, it is obvious he was asking you a rhetorical question. YOU seemed to be claiming that the GLORY of God the Father was making an appearance in titus 2:13 but the bible says that no one can see the Father, so David was asking how could you see the Father's Glory without seeing him? He was trying to get you to understand that the verse was about JESUS and NOT the FATHER. Get it??

[NonTrinitarian]

God the FATHER is not going to be making a command appearance will he? Exactly how do you expect the Father to appear? He is Spirit and cannot be seen. Who will be coming back and making another appearance? Jesus. The bible tells us that Jesus is coming back. Titus tells us that he is coming back. Titus 2:13 says that they are waiting for the appearance of Jesus, the great God and Savior.





Any other interpretation is just wishful thinking on your part.Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.


And what Bible translation did this come from? It doesn't follow the Greek or any Bible translation I have except the King James Version.

The Greek says it is 'the appearing of the Glory of great God', not 'the glorious appearing of the great God.' Ahhgg!






And reading what David said, it is obvious he was asking you a rhetorical question. YOU seemed to be claiming that the GLORY of God the Father was making an appearance in titus 2:13 but the bible says that no one can see the Father, so David was asking how could you see the Father's Glory without seeing him?


Easy. Jesus is coming in his father's glory. Said so in Matthew. So how can he come in his father's glory and yet no one can see him come in his father's glory according to David? Jesus' own words debunk his and your theory. That's why Titus doesn't say God will appear. (He's not). It says what will appear is God's Glory, seen via Jesus Christ. But you have to choose a bible translation that goes against the greek and just about every other bible translation out there.

[Sparko]

The Granville-Sharp rule says that Great God and Savior both refer to Jesus Christ. You can't divide the sentence up into two parts and say Great God refers to the Father and Savior refers to Jesus. Only one person will be appearing, Jesus. His appearing IS the Glory, He IS the Great God. He IS the Savior. Go study some Greek instead of the watchtower junk you normally read. And when you are done, just start reading this thread from the beginning so I don't have to repeat myself. It has already been discussed previously.




Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person*. In our texts, this is demonstrated by the words "God" and "Savior" at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. "God" has the article, it is followed by the word for "and," and the word "Savior" does not have the article. Hence, both nouns are being applied to the same person, Jesus Christ. This rule is exceptionless. One must argue solely on theological grounds against these passages. There is truly no real grammatical objection that can be raised. Not that many have not attempted to do so, and are still trying. However, the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the above interpretation. Lets look at some of the evidence from the text itself.

In Titus 2:13, we first see that Paul is referring to the "epiphaneia" of the Lord, His "appearing." Every other instance of this word is reserved for Christ and Him alone. It is immediately followed by verse 14, which says, "who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." The obvious reference here is to Christ who "gave Himself for us" on the cross of Calvary. There is no hint here of a plural antecedent for the "who" of verse 14 either. It might also be mentioned that verse 14, while directly referring to Christ, is a paraphrase of some Old Testament passages that refer to Yahweh God. (Psalm 130:8, Deuteronomy 7:6, etc). One can hardly object to the identification of Christ as God when the Apostle goes on to describe His works as the works of God!

[NonTrinitarian]

The Granville-Sharp rule says that Great God and Savior both refer to Jesus Christ. You can't divide the sentence up into two parts and say Great God refers to the Father and Savior refers to Jesus. Only one person will be appearing, Jesus. His appearing IS the Glory, He IS the Great God. He IS the Savior. Go study some Greek instead of the watchtower junk you normally read. And when you are done, just start reading this thread from the beginning so I don't have to repeat myself. It has already been discussed previously.




Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person*. In our texts, this is demonstrated by the words "God" and "Savior" at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. "God" has the article, it is followed by the word for "and," and the word "Savior" does not have the article. Hence, both nouns are being applied to the same person, Jesus Christ. This rule is exceptionless. One must argue solely on theological grounds against these passages. There is truly no real grammatical objection that can be raised. Not that many have not attempted to do so, and are still trying. However, the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the above interpretation. Lets look at some of the evidence from the text itself.

In Titus 2:13, we first see that Paul is referring to the "epiphaneia" of the Lord, His "appearing." Every other instance of this word is reserved for Christ and Him alone. It is immediately followed by verse 14, which says, "who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." The obvious reference here is to Christ who "gave Himself for us" on the cross of Calvary. There is no hint here of a plural antecedent for the "who" of verse 14 either. It might also be mentioned that verse 14, while directly referring to Christ, is a paraphrase of some Old Testament passages that refer to Yahweh God. (Psalm 130:8, Deuteronomy 7:6, etc). One can hardly object to the identification of Christ as God when the Apostle goes on to describe His works as the works of God!



I'm well aware of Granville Sharp and his rule and I've read several works pointing the exceptions to it, including works by Trinitarians. Why don't you go brush up on that for awhile. The issue isn't whether Titus 2:13 refers both titles to Jesus or one to Jesus, one to God. I already said earlier (why don't you go read this post from the beginning) I am not debating that point because many Trinitarians disagree with Sharp's rule.

But nice attempt at side-stepping the issue. My point for posting here was that basically all respectable bibles say it is the appearing of God's Glory, not the appearing of the glorious god or the glorious appearing of God. Even a novice can see what the greek says. Basically the only Bible that supports your rendition is the King James, from what I've seen. Unless you got another translation out there that also translates it incorrectly.

[Sparko]

I'm well aware of Granville Sharp and his rule and I've read several works pointing the exceptions to it, including works by Trinitarians. Why don't you go brush up on that for awhile. The issue isn't whether Titus 2:13 refers both titles to Jesus or one to Jesus, one to God. I already said earlier (why don't you go read this post from the beginning) I am not debating that point because many Trinitarians disagree with Sharp's rule.

But nice attempt at side-stepping the issue. My point for posting here was that basically all respectable bibles say it is the appearing of God's Glory, not the appearing of the glorious god or the glorious appearing of God. Even a novice can see what the greek says. Basically the only Bible that supports your rendition is the King James, from what I've seen. Unless you got another translation out there that also translates it incorrectly.

You are right, even a novice can read what the greek says. It says that we are awaiting the appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

The greek literally says: Looking for (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4327) (5740 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5740)) that blessed (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3107) hope, (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1680) and (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) the glorious (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1391) appearing (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2015) of the great (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3173) God (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2316) and (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) our (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2257) Saviour (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4990) Jesus (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2424) Christ; (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5547)

So even if you try to separate God and Jesus, you are stuck with the appearing of the great God, not the appearing of the great God's blessed hope. And God the Father is not going to appear, is he? Only Jesus will appear. You are still stuck with the same conclusion: Jesus is God.

and "reputable" Bibles do agree on that fact in translation, as well as all reputable commentaries. Jesus is God.

(ALT) waiting for the blessed hope [or, confident expectation] and appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

(EMTV) looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

(ESV) waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

(GNB) as we wait for the blessed Day we hope for, when the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ will appear.

(GW) At the same time we can expect what we hope for-the appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

(HNV) looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Yeshua the Messiah;

(KJV) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ

(KJVA) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

(LITV) looking for the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,


So isn't it about time for you to scream that we are too hard headed to argue with and leave the thread?

[NonTrinitarian]

You are right, even a novice can read what the greek says. It says that we are awaiting the appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

The greek literally says: Looking for (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4327) (5740 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5740)) that blessed (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3107) hope, (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1680) and (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) the glorious (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1391) appearing (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2015) of the great (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3173) God (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2316) and (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) our (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2257) Saviour (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4990) Jesus (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2424) Christ; (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5547)

So even if you try to separate God and Jesus, you are stuck with the appearing of the great God, not the appearing of the great God's blessed hope. And God the Father is not going to appear, is he? Only Jesus will appear. You are still stuck with the same conclusion: Jesus is God.

and "reputable" Bibles do agree on that fact in translation, as well as all reputable commentaries. Jesus is God.

(ALT) waiting for the blessed hope [or, confident expectation] and appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

(EMTV) looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

(ESV) waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

(GNB) as we wait for the blessed Day we hope for, when the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ will appear.

(GW) At the same time we can expect what we hope for-the appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

(HNV) looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Yeshua the Messiah;

(KJV) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ

(KJVA) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

(LITV) looking for the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,


So isn't it about time for you to scream that we are too hard headed to argue with and leave the thread?

Yeah, I think it is about time to leave. But before I go, let me say this. Dude, you have to be one of the dumbest people I've met. In the post you quote me as saying this:
My point for posting here was that basically all respectable bibles say it is the appearing of God's Glory, not the appearing of the glorious god or the glorious appearing of God.

You just quoted that and turned around and, (apparently in an attempt to refute me?:lmbo: ) quoted Bibles, most of which support what I just said.:ahem: (not that I consider most of them that "reputable")

I boldened the parts where they say it is not the glorious appearing of God, it is the appearing of the glory of God. (I also underlined the ones that translate the Greek incorrectly. BTW, I recommend you read Jesus As God by Murray Harris where he goes into detail why it is incorrect to translate it as the KJV does. (He is a Trinitarian BTW)

It should be clear to all (I said should because I had to factor in you) that Matthew 16:27 and Titus 2:13 are referring to the same event.

Titus 2:13
"as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the GLORY OF GOD (not Jesus) and of our Savior Jesus Christ."-New American Bible

Matthew 16:27
"For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his FATHER'S GLORY."

Jesus says when he comes he will come in his Father's Glory. Paul, referring to the same event, says when Christ comes, God's glory will appear. The boldened words are parallels and the underlined words are parallels.

If there's any question about who "God" is in reference to at Titus 2:13 when it says God's glory will appear at Christ's coming, the answer can be found in Jesus' words when he speaks of the same event.

I'm done with this thread too, unless someone else has something intelligent to say. And quotes Bibles that support his argument, not mine.:bonk:

[Strategos]

But nice attempt at side-stepping the issue. My point for posting here was that basically all respectable bibles say it is the appearing of God's Glory, not the appearing of the glorious god or the glorious appearing of God. Even a novice can see what the greek says. Basically the only Bible that supports your rendition is the King James, from what I've seen. Unless you got another translation out there that also translates it incorrectly.

The NET Bible translates it "the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." Since they are generally very accurate in regards to the Greek and usually enjoy discussing their translation choices, I've emailed them asking for their justification for their translation. I will post what they reply when (if?) I get it.

[NonTrinitarian]

The NET Bible translates it "the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." Since they are generally very accurate in regards to the Greek and usually enjoy discussing their translation choices, I've emailed them asking for their justification for their translation. I will post what they reply when (if?) I get it.

Cool! I'd like to hear what they have to say. If I get time, I will type out the part in the book Jesus as God on why grammatically it is incorrect to translate as such. My immediate feeling is the word order is very specific with "appearing" occuring before "glory" in the Greek. But I know you can't always go by that.

[Sparko]

Yeah, I think it is about time to leave. But before I go, let me say this. Dude, you have to be one of the dumbest people I've met. In the post you quote me as saying this:


You just quoted that and turned around and, (apparently in an attempt to refute me?:lmbo: ) quoted Bibles, most of which support what I just said.:ahem: (not that I consider most of them that "reputable")

I boldened the parts where they say it is not the glorious appearing of God, it is the appearing of the glory of God. (I also underlined the ones that translate the Greek incorrectly. BTW, I recommend you read Jesus As God by Murray Harris where he goes into detail why it is incorrect to translate it as the KJV does. (He is a Trinitarian BTW)


LOL, all the ones where you bolded "the appearing of the glory.." all keep God and Savior as ONE PERSON -- a single cause referring to Jesus Christ. So you can't have the appearing of the glory of God and not have that God be the Savior Jesus Christ. Learn to read NonTrin. Learn to read. And the rest all say the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Either way the "great God" is Jesus. :lmbo:

And YOU giving out lessons in Greek is completely hilarious. :lmbo:

If Paul did NOT mean to say Jesus was God, he sure chose a poor way to express it. Do you think he didn't realize that a plain reading of the text would lead people to think that Jesus was God? He would have. And he would have written it different if he didn't want to give that impression.


Time for you to wander off now... but before you do, lets look at some respectable commentaries:

(the following are not copyrighted so I will quote all relevant parts)

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown:
the great God and our Saviour Jesus--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.


Barnes:
Of the great God - There can be little doubt, if any, that by “the great God” here, the apostle referred to the Lord Jesus, for it is not a doctrine of the New Testament that God himself as such, or in contradistinction from his incarnate Son, will appear at the last day. It is said, indeed, that the Saviour will come “in the glory of his Father, with his angels” Mat_16:27, but that God as such will appear is not taught in the Bible. The doctrine there is, that God will be manifest in his Son; that the divine approach to our world be through him to judge the race; and that though he will be accompanied with the appropriate symbols of the divinity, yet it will be the Son of God who will be visible. No one, accustomed to Paul’s views, can well doubt that when he used this language he had his eye throughout on the Son of God, and that he expected no other manifestation than what would be made through him.
In no place in the New Testament is the phrase ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ Θεοῦ epiphaneian tou Theou - “the manifestation or appearing of God” - applied to any other one than Christ It is true that this is spoken of here as the “appearing of the glory - τῆς δόξης tēs doxēs - of the great God,” but the idea is that of such a manifestation as became God, or would appropriately display his glory. It is known to most persons who have attended to religious controversies, that this passage has given rise to much discussion. The ancients, in general, interpreted it as meaning” The glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” This sense has been vindicated by the labors of Beza, Whitby, Bull, Matthaei, and Middleton (on the Greek article), and is the common interpretation of those who claim to be orthodox; see Bloomfield, Rec. Syn., and Notes, in loc. He contends that the meaning is, “the glorious appearance of that great being who is our God and Saviour.” The arguments for this opinion are well summed up by Bloomfield. Without going into a critical examination of this passage, which would not be in accordance with the design of these Notes, it may be remarked in general:
(1) that no plain reader of the New Testament, accustomed to the common language there, would have any doubt that the apostle referred here to the coming of the Lord Jesus.
(2) that the “coming” of God, as such, is not spoken of in this manner in the New Testament.
(3) that the expectation of Christians was directed to the advent of the ascended Saviour, not to the appearing of God as such.
(4) that this is just such language as one would use who believed that the Lord Jesus is divine, or that the name God might properly be applied to him.
(5) that it would naturally and obviously convey the idea that he was divine, to one who had no theory to defend.
(6) that if the apostle did not mean this, he used such language as was fitted to lead people into error.
(7) and that the fair construction of the Greek here, according to the application of the most rigid rules, abundantly sustains the interpretation which the plain reader of the New Testament would affix to it. The names above referred to are abundant proof that no violation is done to the rules of the Greek language by this interpretation, but rather that the fair construction of the original demands it. If this be so, then this furnishes an important proof of the divinity of Christ.

Robertson's Word Pictures:
The blessed hope and appearing of the glory (tēn makarian elpida kai epiphaneian tēs doxēs). The word epiphaneia (used by the Greeks of the appearance of the gods, from epiphanēs, epiphainō) occurs in 2Ti_1:10 of the Incarnation of Christ, the first Epiphany (like the verb epephanē, Tit_2:11), but here of the second Epiphany of Christ or the second coming as in 1Ti_6:14; 2Ti_4:1, 2Ti_4:8. In 2Th_2:8 both epiphaneia and parousia (the usual word) occur together of the second coming.
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.

John Gill:
and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 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, who will appear at his second coming; for of that appearance are the, words to be understood, as the great God, in all the glories and perfections of his divine nature; as well as a Saviour, which is mentioned to show that he will appear to the salvation of his people, which he will then put them in the full possession of; and that the brightness of his divine Majesty will not make them afraid: and this appearance will be a glorious one; for Christ will come in his own glory, in the glory of his deity, particularly his omniscience and omnipotence will be very conspicuous; and in his glory as Mediator, which will be beheld by all the saints; and in his glory as a Judge, invested with power and authority from his Father, which will be terrible to sinners; and in the glory of his human nature, with which it is now crowned; and in his Father's glory, in the same he had with him before the world was, and which is the same with his, and in that which he will receive from him as man and Mediator, and as the Judge of the whole earth; and in the glory of his holy angels, being attended with all his mighty ones: to which may be added, that saints will be raised from the dead, and with the living ones appear with Christ in glory, and make up the bride, the Lamb's wife, having the glory of God upon her; so that this will be a grand appearance indeed. Now this the Gospel directs, and instructs believers to look for, to love, to hasten to, most earnestly desire, and yet patiently wait for, most firmly believing that it will be: and this the saints have reason to look for, with longing desire and affection, and with pleasure, since it will be not only glorious in itself, but advantageous to them; they will then be glorified with Christ, and be for ever with him.


:smile:

[Krusader]

An anyalysis of this vs. can be found at the blueletterbible.org site, with a complete analysis of the texts and the corresponding Greek. In any case, even the illustrious scholars of the Watchtower will admit that Jehovah is not appearing - so the Great God and Savior who is appearing must be Christ.

[apostoli]

Hi All,

Thought some of you might find the below study of interest....

As part of a personal study, I've been trying to determine how the early church understood the first clause of Titus 2:13 but it seems that it was taken for granted and the emphasis has always been on the second clause. As yet I haven't found a reference to Titus 2:13 earlier than the end of 2nd century/ beginning of the 3rd century. The few verifiable cites I've found are below.

Before anyone gets too excited reading these, it should be remembered: based on their overall writing, most of the pre-Nicene authors quoted, held a subordinationist view of Jesus' Godship. So when they refer to him as God, it is not in a fundalmentalist sense. The emphasis of post-Nicene writers is also different. Augustine's slant is of interest. The full text for all cites is available in the link provided so you can verify context etc.

A couple of other qualifiers: in all instances the original manuscript isn't available, and of those originally written in Greek, generally only a Latin translation is extant. Additionally, there is probably translational bias in the English renditions, so context becomes very important. Also, many of the writers are refuting some heresy, so the emphasis might be different to what A.Paul had in mind when he penned his letter to Titus, again context is important in understanding the writers usage of the text.


A few final notes: I believe the English translation of Theodoret and Chrysostom was by the same person, but the renderings of Titus have significant differences. This is a hint that the original writers may have quoted from memory or from different mss. Also, notice the various renderings in the cites reflect the diversity in modern bible translations - this might reflect the translators bias, but might also reflect a diversity of understanding within the early church. Finally, there is a fair amount of evidence that many early writings have been altered, with texts interpolated and/or deleted, we can only assume the same is true for the cites I have made and so none of the following cites can be reliably held up as conclusive evidence about how the writers meant Titus 2:13 to be understood. That said, the cites do give a view of the "official" understanding from the late fourth century or maybe a century or two later.

Any comments or additional cites would be appreciated.


Clement of Alexandria (b.??? d.215), Exhortation to the Heathen
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-50.htm
Well, in as much as the Word was from the first, He was and is the divine source of all things; but in as much as He has now assumed the name Christ, consecrated of old, and worthy of power, he has been called by me the New Song. This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being God and man, the Author of all blessings to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way to life eternal. For, according to that inspired apostle of the Lord, "the grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

Hippolytus (b.??? d.236) Last paragraph in Treatise on Christ and Antichrist
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-18.htm#P3417_1067439
These things, then, I have set shortly before thee, O Theophilus, drawing them from Scripture itself, in order that, maintaining in faith what is written, and anticipating the things that are to be, thou mayest keep thyself void of offence both toward God and toward men, "looking for that blessed hope and appearing of our God and Saviour," when, having raised the saints among us, He will rejoice with them, glorifying the Father. To Him be the glory unto the endless ages of the ages. Amen."

Athanasius (b.296 d.373), To Adelphius, Bishop and Confessor: against the Arians
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806060.htm

"Such then, as we have above described, is the madness and daring of those men. But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the New Testament and the Old. For the Prophets say: 'Send out Thy Word and Thy Truth,' and ' Behold the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is being interpreted God with us.' But what does that mean, if not that God has come in the Flesh? While the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, 'Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh;' and in what Paul writes, 'Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a people for His own possession, and zealous of good works.' How then has He given Himself, if He had not worn flesh? For flesh He offered, and gave Himself for us, in order that undergoing death in it, 'He might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.' Hence also we always give thanks in the name of Jesus Christ, and we do not set at nought the grace which came to us through Him. For the coming of the Saviour in the flesh has been the ransom and salvation of all creation."

St Basil the Great (b. 329 d.379)
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-08/Npnf2-08-03.htm
On John XVII. 3. That They May Know Thee, the Only True God.
"The true (sing.) is spoken of in contradistinction to the false (pl.). But He is incomparable, because in comparison with all He is in all things superexcellent. When Jeremiah said of the Son, 'This is our God, and there shall none other be accounted of in comparison with Him,' did he describe Him as greater even than the Father? That the Son also is true God, John himself declares in the Epistle, 'That we may know the only true God, and we are (in Him that is true, even) in his (true) Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.' It would be wrong, on account of the words 'There shall none other be accounted of in comparison of Him,' to understand the Son to be greater than the Father; nor must we suppose the Father to be the only true God. Both expressions must be used in connexion with those who are falsely styled, but are not really, gods. In the same way it is said in Deuteronomy, 'So the Lord alone did lead him, and there was no strange God with him.' If God is alone invisible and wise, it does not at once follow that He is greater than all in all things. But the God Who is over all is necessarily superior to all. Did the Apostle, when he styled the Saviour God over all, describe Him as greater than the Father? The idea is absurd. The passage in question must be viewed in the same manner. The great God cannot be less than a different God. When the Apostle said of the Son, we look for 'that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,' did he think of Him as greater than the Father? It is the Son, not the Father, Whose appearance and advent we are waiting for. These terms are thus used without distinction of both the Father and the Son, and no exact nicety is observed in their employment. 'Being equally with God' is identical with being equal with God. Since the Son 'thought it not robbery' to be equal with God, how can He be unlike and unequal to God? Jews are nearer true religion than Eunomius. Whenever the Saviour called Himself no more than Son of God, as though it were due to the Son, if He be really Son, to be Himself equal to the Father, they wished, it is said, to stone Him, not only because He was breaking the Sabbath, but because, by saying that God was His own Father, He made Himself equal with God. Therefore, even though Eunomius is unwilling that it should be so, according both to the Apostle and to the Saviour's own words, the Son is equal with the Father."

Theodoret (b.393 d.457)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.iv.x.clii.html
That our Lord Jesus Christ is God is asserted by the blessed evangelist John “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made.” And again, “That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” And the Lord Himself distinctly teaches us, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” And “I and my Father are one” and “I am in the Father and the Father in me,” and the blessed Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews says “Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power” and in the epistle to the Philippians “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God but made Himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant.” And in the Epistle to the Romans, “Whose are the fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever. Amen.” And in the epistle to Titus “Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

St. John Chrysostom (b.347 d.407) - Homily VI.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iv.iii.vii.html
He who is not of that nature is not God. For He is everywhere called great in Scripture; “Great is the Lord, and highly to be praised.” (Ps. xlviii. 1) This is said of the Son also, for it always calls Him Lord. “Thou art great, and doest wondrous things. Thou art God alone.” (Ps. lxxxvi. 10) And again, “Great is our Lord, and great is His power, and of His greatness there is no end.” (Ps. cxlv. 3) But the Son, he says, is little. But it is thou that sayest this, for the Scripture says the contrary: as of the Father, so it speaks of the Son; for listen to Paul, saying, “Looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of our great God.” (Tit. ii. 13 ) But can he have said “appearing” of the Father? Nay, that he may the more convince you, he has added with reference to the appearing “of the great God.” Is it then not said of the Father? By no means. For the sequel suffers it not which says, “The appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” See, the Son is great also. How then speakest thou of small and great?

Augustine (b.354 d.430)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm
Then again he writes to Titus as follows: "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." And to the like effect in another passage: "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; that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

[alam]

Hi All,

Thought some of you might find the below study of interest....

As part of a personal study, I've been trying to determine how the early church understood the first clause of Titus 2:13 but it seems that it was taken for granted and the emphasis has always been on the second clause. As yet I haven't found a reference to Titus 2:13 earlier than the end of 2nd century/ beginning of the 3rd century. The few verifiable cites I've found are below.

Before anyone gets too excited reading these, it should be remembered: based on their overall writing, most of the pre-Nicene authors quoted, held a subordinationist view of Jesus' Godship. So when they refer to him as God, it is not in a fundalmentalist sense. The emphasis of post-Nicene writers is also different. Augustine's slant is of interest. The full text for all cites is available in the link provided so you can verify context etc.

A couple of other qualifiers: in all instances the original manuscript isn't available, and of those originally written in Greek, generally only a Latin translation is extant. Additionally, there is probably translational bias in the English renditions, so context becomes very important. Also, many of the writers are refuting some heresy, so the emphasis might be different to what A.Paul had in mind when he penned his letter to Titus, again context is important in understanding the writers usage of the text.


A few final notes: I believe the English translation of Theodoret and Chrysostom was by the same person, but the renderings of Titus have significant differences. This is a hint that the original writers may have quoted from memory or from different mss. Also, notice the various renderings in the cites reflect the diversity in modern bible translations - this might reflect the translators bias, but might also reflect a diversity of understanding within the early church. Finally, there is a fair amount of evidence that many early writings have been altered, with texts interpolated and/or deleted, we can only assume the same is true for the cites I have made and so none of the following cites can be reliably held up as conclusive evidence about how the writers meant Titus 2:13 to be understood. That said, the cites do give a view of the "official" understanding from the late fourth century or maybe a century or two later.

Any comments or additional cites would be appreciated.


Clement of Alexandria (b.??? d.215), Exhortation to the Heathen
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-50.htm
Well, in as much as the Word was from the first, He was and is the divine source of all things; but in as much as He has now assumed the name Christ, consecrated of old, and worthy of power, he has been called by me the New Song. This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being God and man, the Author of all blessings to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way to life eternal. For, according to that inspired apostle of the Lord, "the grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

Hippolytus (b.??? d.236) Last paragraph in Treatise on Christ and Antichrist
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-18.htm#P3417_1067439
These things, then, I have set shortly before thee, O Theophilus, drawing them from Scripture itself, in order that, maintaining in faith what is written, and anticipating the things that are to be, thou mayest keep thyself void of offence both toward God and toward men, "looking for that blessed hope and appearing of our God and Saviour," when, having raised the saints among us, He will rejoice with them, glorifying the Father. To Him be the glory unto the endless ages of the ages. Amen."

Athanasius (b.296 d.373), To Adelphius, Bishop and Confessor: against the Arians
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806060.htm

"Such then, as we have above described, is the madness and daring of those men. But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the New Testament and the Old. For the Prophets say: 'Send out Thy Word and Thy Truth,' and ' Behold the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is being interpreted God with us.' But what does that mean, if not that God has come in the Flesh? While the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, 'Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh;' and in what Paul writes, 'Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a people for His own possession, and zealous of good works.' How then has He given Himself, if He had not worn flesh? For flesh He offered, and gave Himself for us, in order that undergoing death in it, 'He might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.' Hence also we always give thanks in the name of Jesus Christ, and we do not set at nought the grace which came to us through Him. For the coming of the Saviour in the flesh has been the ransom and salvation of all creation."

St Basil the Great (b. 329 d.379)
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-08/Npnf2-08-03.htm
On John XVII. 3. That They May Know Thee, the Only True God.
"The true (sing.) is spoken of in contradistinction to the false (pl.). But He is incomparable, because in comparison with all He is in all things superexcellent. When Jeremiah said of the Son, 'This is our God, and there shall none other be accounted of in comparison with Him,' did he describe Him as greater even than the Father? That the Son also is true God, John himself declares in the Epistle, 'That we may know the only true God, and we are (in Him that is true, even) in his (true) Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.' It would be wrong, on account of the words 'There shall none other be accounted of in comparison of Him,' to understand the Son to be greater than the Father; nor must we suppose the Father to be the only true God. Both expressions must be used in connexion with those who are falsely styled, but are not really, gods. In the same way it is said in Deuteronomy, 'So the Lord alone did lead him, and there was no strange God with him.' If God is alone invisible and wise, it does not at once follow that He is greater than all in all things. But the God Who is over all is necessarily superior to all. Did the Apostle, when he styled the Saviour God over all, describe Him as greater than the Father? The idea is absurd. The passage in question must be viewed in the same manner. The great God cannot be less than a different God. When the Apostle said of the Son, we look for 'that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,' did he think of Him as greater than the Father? It is the Son, not the Father, Whose appearance and advent we are waiting for. These terms are thus used without distinction of both the Father and the Son, and no exact nicety is observed in their employment. 'Being equally with God' is identical with being equal with God. Since the Son 'thought it not robbery' to be equal with God, how can He be unlike and unequal to God? Jews are nearer true religion than Eunomius. Whenever the Saviour called Himself no more than Son of God, as though it were due to the Son, if He be really Son, to be Himself equal to the Father, they wished, it is said, to stone Him, not only because He was breaking the Sabbath, but because, by saying that God was His own Father, He made Himself equal with God. Therefore, even though Eunomius is unwilling that it should be so, according both to the Apostle and to the Saviour's own words, the Son is equal with the Father."

Theodoret (b.393 d.457)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.iv.x.clii.html
That our Lord Jesus Christ is God is asserted by the blessed evangelist John “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made.” And again, “That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” And the Lord Himself distinctly teaches us, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” And “I and my Father are one” and “I am in the Father and the Father in me,” and the blessed Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews says “Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power” and in the epistle to the Philippians “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God but made Himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant.” And in the Epistle to the Romans, “Whose are the fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever. Amen.” And in the epistle to Titus “Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

St. John Chrysostom (b.347 d.407) - Homily VI.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iv.iii.vii.html
He who is not of that nature is not God. For He is everywhere called great in Scripture; “Great is the Lord, and highly to be praised.” (Ps. xlviii. 1) This is said of the Son also, for it always calls Him Lord. “Thou art great, and doest wondrous things. Thou art God alone.” (Ps. lxxxvi. 10) And again, “Great is our Lord, and great is His power, and of His greatness there is no end.” (Ps. cxlv. 3) But the Son, he says, is little. But it is thou that sayest this, for the Scripture says the contrary: as of the Father, so it speaks of the Son; for listen to Paul, saying, “Looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of our great God.” (Tit. ii. 13 ) But can he have said “appearing” of the Father? Nay, that he may the more convince you, he has added with reference to the appearing “of the great God.” Is it then not said of the Father? By no means. For the sequel suffers it not which says, “The appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” See, the Son is great also. How then speakest thou of small and great?

Augustine (b.354 d.430)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm
Then again he writes to Titus as follows: "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." And to the like effect in another passage: "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; that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."


Hi Apostoli:


Here is how Maximinus (c. 428) applied Titus 2:13 :

A nobis unus colitur Deus, innatus, infectus, invisibilis, qui ad humana contagia et ad humanam carnem non descendit. Est autem et Filius secundum Apostolum, non pusillus, sed magnus Deus: sicut ait beatus Paulus: Exspectantes beatam spem et adventum gloriae magni Dei et Salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi. Iste enim magnus Deus Christus dicit, quod ascendo ad Patrem meum et Patrem vestrum, Deum meum et Deum vestrum (Coll. Max. 13b; http://www.agostino-santo.it/latino/conferenza_massimino/conferenza_massimino.htm)


By us, one God is worshiped, unborn, unmade, invisible, who does not descend to human contagions and human flesh. However, according to the Apostle, even the Son is not petty but a great God, as the blessed Paul says: "Awaiting the blessed hope and advent of the glory of the great God and our savior, Jesus Christ." For that great God, Christ, says "I ascend to my Father and your Father, my God and your God"

In his Christianity there is no tension between the supremacy of the Father and Christ's possession of very high attributes, since, owing to the begotten nature of the Son, the attributes point beyond themselves to God who conferred them.

Another reference to Titus 2:13 in Homoian literature comes in the Fragmenta in Lucam:


. . . et ERIT MAGNUS non ut Iohannes, et vinu(m) et siceram non gustauit, sed MAGNUS ut unigenitus deus: Magnus d(omi)n(u)s et laudabilis nimis; expectantes beatam spem at aduentum gloriae magni d(e)i et saluatoris nostri Ie(s)u Cr(ist)i. Hic magnus non tuus filius, non Ioseph, non Dauid et Abraham, sed FILIUS ALTISSIMI UOCAUITUR, non altissimus, sed ALTISSIMI, non paracletus, non pater, sed filius, non unus et solus, sed alter alterius, de quo scribtum est : Altissimum posuisti refugium tuum, et : Tu solus altissimus super omnem terram. . . . (Scripta Arriana Latina I, R. Gryson 1982, p. 205).


. . . And HE WILL BE GREAT not as John, "and wine and strong drink he shall not taste," but GREAT as only-begotten God: "The Lord is great and greatly to be praised;" "awaiting the blessed hope and advent of the glory of the great God and our savior, Jesus Christ." This Great One is not (merely) your son, not Joseph's, not David's and Abraham's, but THE SON OF THE MOST HIGH HE SHALL BE CALLED, not the Most High, but OF THE MOST HIGH, not the Paraclete, not the Father, but the Son; not the one and only, but the one of the Other of whom it was written, "Thou hast made the Most High thy refuge" and "Thou alone art the Most High over all the earth" . . . .


God bless

[apostoli]

Hi Alam,

Nice to see you have returned. Hope all is well!

Thanks for the additional cites.

The thread I started in unorthodox religion didn't take off. There seems to be an opinion that there is no fun in the first clause in Titus 2:13. Guess people just like the tinkling of many bells ;-)

All the best.

[alam]

Hi Alam,

Nice to see you have returned. Hope all is well!


Thanks, it is. I hope it is with you too. Haven't been gone, just lurking btw.



Thanks for the additional cites.

The thread I started in unorthodox religion didn't take off. There seems to be an opinion that there is no fun in the first clause in Titus 2:13. Guess people just like the tinkling of many bells ;-)



I did read your thread on verse 13a, but did not feel entitled to an opinion without putting in some study first. By then a serviceable answer had emerged. But 13a has my attention now, and if I find something to add will do so, God willing.

Yours in Christ

[apostoli]

Hi Alam.

Thanks, it is. I hope it is with you too. Haven't been gone, just lurking btw.I tried that but not a lot of serious studiers around lately.

On my end of the world the heat has been unbearable and made me a little dormant. Not into deep thought, so just keeping in fellowship on threads that don't take a lot of energy.

I did read your thread on verse 13a, but did not feel entitled to an opinion without putting in some study first. By then a serviceable answer had emerged. But 13a has my attention now, and if I find something to add will do so, God willing.What interested me, was whether the "blessed hope" referred to the resurrection of the righteous in the first resurrection or merely the second coming of Jesus (given the and appearance clause). Subtle differentiator, but I think you know what I mean.

The discussion didn't take off, so here is a quick link to it, should you want to help resurrect it...
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=67874

[alam]

Hello Apostoli,


Hi Alam.

I tried that but not a lot of serious studiers around lately.

On my end of the world the heat has been unbearable and made me a little dormant. Not into deep thought, so just keeping in fellowship on threads that don't take a lot of energy.

You have my sympathies. It doesn't often get hot like that here, but have lived where it does.


What interested me, was whether the "blessed hope" referred to the resurrection of the righteous in the first resurrection or merely the second coming of Jesus (given the and appearance clause). Subtle differentiator, but I think you know what I mean.

The discussion didn't take off, so here is a quick link to it, should you want to help resurrect it...
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=67874


My hunch is that since the structure of 13a is similar to that of 13b, they should be understood in a similar way. Sharp's rule is not a source of contention for me and the title "our God and savior" is applied to Christ in ancient non-Nicene writings. The analogy to 13b would mean that the blessed hope is, or is at least bound up in thought with, the glorious appearance of Christ. The resurrection and glorification of the saints is inseparable from this event, and so the "blessed hope" in 2:13 would have some connotation of that as well (cf. Titus 3:7)

When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory (Colossians 3:4).

If you wish to discuss further I would join you there on the thread. All the best,

[apostoli]

Hi alam,

I've replied on the "2:13a" thread.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1340754#post1340754

If you wish to discuss further I would join you there on the thread. All the best,

[apostoli]

Hi NonTrinitarian,

My point for posting here was that basically all respectable bibles say it is the appearing of God's Glory, not the appearing of the glorious god or the glorious appearing of God. Even a novice can see what the greek says. Basically the only Bible that supports your rendition is the King James, from what I've seen. Unless you got another translation out there that also translates it incorrectly.I thought you were a JW (?)

The NWT (1984) renders Titus 2:13 as "While we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Saviour of us, Christ Jesus".

Seems the faithful and discreet slave (aka WTS) disagree with you.

[NonTrinitarian]

Hi NonTrinitarian,

I thought you were a JW (?)

The NWT (1984) renders Titus 2:13 as "While we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Saviour of us, Christ Jesus".

Seems the faithful and discreet slave (aka WTS) disagree with you.

I am a JW. I disagree with the NWT in this verse, as do some other JW's. (This is when Crusdaer or Sparko jump in and say something asinine like I'm going to get disfellowshipped!) If you look at the NWT Reference Edition you'll see numerous footnotes on many verses where they will mention an alternative rendering, sometimes saying the exact opposite of the one they chose. Sometimes in WT articles an alternative rendering is mentioned with a statement such as "and if this alternative rendering is used, then the meaning may be such and such..." So they put in the main text what they think is the best translation and in the footnotes mention alternative options. Personally I think, as is obvious from my earlier posts, the rendering found in most Bibles, "appearing of the glory of God", is a more likely translation. Maybe in the next edition of the NWT they'll change it.:sigh:

[Sparko]

Maybe in the next edition of the NWT they'll change it.:sigh:

Yeah sure, why should they stop changing the bible now? They left way too many verses alone that disprove their own doctrines. Pretty sloppy editing if you ask me.

[Krusader]

I am a JW. I disagree with the NWT in this verse, as do some other JW's. (This is when Crusdaer or Sparko jump in and say something asinine like I'm going to get disfellowshipped!) If you look at the NWT Reference Edition you'll see numerous footnotes on many verses where they will mention an alternative rendering, sometimes saying the exact opposite of the one they chose. Sometimes in WT articles an alternative rendering is mentioned with a statement such as "and if this alternative rendering is used, then the meaning may be such and such..." So they put in the main text what they think is the best translation and in the footnotes mention alternative options. Personally I think, as is obvious from my earlier posts, the rendering found in most Bibles, "appearing of the glory of God", is a more likely translation.''

Crusader's response:

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh! So you are guilty of independent thinking - have you discussed this with the elders down at the Hall?

[Thomas Didymus]

Crusader's response:

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh! So you are guilty of independent thinking - have you discussed this with the elders down at the Hall?
:lol:

[Cal_Minian]

According to the NWT in Titus 2:13

"While we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] savior of us Christ Jesus.

First off, it's interesting that the WT says that if you don't have the article in John 1:1 it should be translated as "a god" but right here where there is no article, it's perfectly acceptable to add the word "the" and it's not theological bias.

Secondly and a question that I think seems more glaring....

Where do you ever read anything where Jesus talks about God the Father appearing at the Second Coming? Especially since JWs make it clear that no one can see God and live. If the Father isn't coming at the Second Coming, then the text can only refer to the coming of Jesus and address him as our God and Savior.

You might find it interesting the leading Greek Lexicon used by seminaries not only says that it is questionable whether or not Jesus is called God at Titus 2:13, but they also give Greek with an "a god" rendering to explain how Jesus is θεοσ in John 1:1. In addtion they say to compare how Moses was elohim at Exodus 7:1 to how Jesus is θεοσ at John 1:1.

The actually quotes are over in the Languages board and reference in my sig file.

[anewlife]

hmmm...

Here are the textual critic notes on this verse (NET Bible)

tn The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on Sharp’s rule see ExSyn 270-78, esp. 276. See also 2 Pet 1:1 and Jude 4.

[NonTrinitarian]

hmmm...

Here are the textual critic notes on this verse (NET Bible)


I don't beleive this quote is correct as I have read in other articles that Sharp's rule does have exceptions other than proper nouns. I will see what I can find and post. I'm pretty sure there are examples in the LXX that refute Sharp's rule.

[anewlife]

I don't beleive this quote is correct as I have read in other articles that Sharp's rule does have exceptions other than proper nouns. I will see what I can find and post. I'm pretty sure there are examples in the LXX that refute Sharp's rule.

The notes posted were specific to this Titus verse in question, within the NET Bible and direct quotes from Textual Critics abroad (somewhat of a consensus)that is placed within the NET Bible itself. Daniel Wallace (also a textual critic) is the editor on this New English Translation Bible.

[NonTrinitarian]

Those were direct quotes from Textual Critics abroad (somewhat of a consensus)that is placed within the NET Bible itself. Daniel Wallace (also a textual critic) is the editor on this New English Bible Translation.

I'm not saying you were misquoting or anything. I believe what you quoted is what was said. I just believe Wallace is mistaken and I believe Greg Stafford has addressed his arguments before, pointing to situations in the LXX where Sharps rule fails.

[anewlife]

I'm not saying you were misquoting or anything. I believe what you quoted is what was said. I just believe Wallace is mistaken and I believe Greg Stafford has addressed his arguments before, pointing to situations in the LXX where Sharps rule fails.

I understand but it would have to be well articulated before I would believe in any mere suggestions. As of now the statement stands until we have all in agreement.

[NonTrinitarian]

I understand but it would have to be well articulated before I would believe in any mere suggestions. As of now the statement stands until we have all in agreement.

Can't work on this right now but Prov 24:21 in the LXX is an example of the greek writers appearing to not be aware of Sharp's rule. Check it out and we can discuss later.

[anewlife]

OK but again we are talking about Titus 2:13 in specific for this rule. :lol:

Comparable scripture would be:

2 Pet 1:1 From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours.

Jude 1:4 For certain men have secretly slipped in among you – men who long ago were marked out for the condemnation I am about to describe – ungodly men who have turned the grace of our God into a license for evil and who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Proverbs is written in poetic form (24:21) There is no implication (IMO) of a deity used within this verse. I am still uncertain of implying a trinity within the OT scriptures. It could look as if the implication is there but I would rather not speculate at this time. Let's work with Titus and the rule as it applies to it.

[NonTrinitarian]

OK but again we are talking about Titus 2:13 in specific for this rule. :lol:

Comparable scripture would be:

2 Pet 1:1 From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours.

Jude 1:4 For certain men have secretly slipped in among you – men who long ago were marked out for the condemnation I am about to describe – ungodly men who have turned the grace of our God into a license for evil and who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Proverbs is written in poetic form (24:21) There is no implication (IMO) of a deity used within this verse. I am still uncertain of implying a trinity within the OT scriptures. It could look as if the implication is there but I would rather not speculate at this time. Let's work with Titus and the rule as it applies to it.


What? That's ridiculous! If it's GREEK grammar rule then it's a greek grammar rule. You don't just say 'Well I don't want to consider anyother verse than yada yada.' It has the SAME greek structure as the other verses. Article-noun-kai-noun. And where in Sharp's rule does it say it only applies to deity? My argument is that Sharp's rule was not a rule in ancient greek and that the greeks did not feel obligated to hold to his theory. Daniel Wallace said there have been no examples where Sharp's rule fails and I say Prov 24:21 is one as it's clear that even though it has the same construction as Titus 2:13, it is also equally clear that two persons are spoken of.

[Sparko]

What? That's ridiculous! If it's GREEK grammar rule then it's a greek grammar rule. You don't just say 'Well I don't want to consider anyother verse than yada yada.' It has the SAME greek structure as the other verses. Article-noun-kai-noun. And where in Sharp's rule does it say it only applies to deity? My argument is that Sharp's rule was not a rule in ancient greek and that the greeks did not feel obligated to hold to his theory. Daniel Wallace said there have been no examples where Sharp's rule fails and I say Prov 24:21 is one as it's clear that even though it has the same construction as Titus 2:13, it is also equally clear that two persons are spoken of.

Actually the Granville-Sharp rule only applies to natively written Koine Greek, not translations done by others, such as Greek translations of Hebrew by Hebrews.

In the article written by D L. Christiansen "A Reexamination of Granville
Sharp's Rule" he has the following footnote #16:

"The sole LXX contender for the title of Sharp's dethroner
(Proverbs 24:21 [FOBOU TON QEON UIE KAI BASILEA]) is not
admissible, even though it clearly contradicts the rule; the
omission of the article before the clearly distinct is a comment,
not on hellenistic Greek syntax, but on the slavish
method of translation employed by certain of the LXX scribes.
cf. Wallace, Selected Notes, 104-5; also Thomas Fanshaw Middleton,
The Doctrine of the Greek Article, new ed., (London: J.G .F.
& J. Rivington, et al, 1841): 120."

[NonTrinitarian]

Actually the Granville-Sharp rule only applies to natively written Koine Greek, not translations done by others, such as Greek translations of Hebrew by Hebrews.

In the article written by D L. Christiansen "A Reexamination of Granville
Sharp's Rule" he has the following footnote #16:

"The sole LXX contender for the title of Sharp's dethroner
(Proverbs 24:21 [FOBOU TON QEON UIE KAI BASILEA]) is not
admissible, even though it clearly contradicts the rule; the
omission of the article before the clearly distinct is a comment,
not on hellenistic Greek syntax, but on the slavish
method of translation employed by certain of the LXX scribes.
cf. Wallace, Selected Notes, 104-5; also Thomas Fanshaw Middleton,
The Doctrine of the Greek Article, new ed., (London: J.G .F.
& J. Rivington, et al, 1841): 120."



This is Wallace's wishful thinking. The LXX is anything but slavishly faithful to the Hebrew. It deviates from it all the time. And there was no reason for the greek to not follow the greek rules of grammar in the translation from Hebrew to Greek. The LXX does this all the time too. Prov is just an embarassment to Wallace and he's desperately looking for a reason to get around it.

[Sparko]

This is Wallace's wishful thinking. The LXX is anything but slavishly faithful to the Hebrew. It deviates from it all the time. And there was no reason for the greek to not follow the greek rules of grammar in the translation from Hebrew to Greek. The LXX does this all the time too. Prov is just an embarassment to Wallace and he's desperately looking for a reason to get around it.

LOL. to me THAT sounds like wishful thinking on YOUR Part. You don't even understand what he is talking about. Have you even read the work?


You can't just point to ONE exception of a rule, in a translation, and say "see? that proves that titus 2:13 does not follow the rule!"

When out of an entire book, one exception is found, in a translation of another language, in a poetic book, and then to try to use the exception itself as the rule, is purely wishful thinking and deceptive reasoning (you are not only trying to fool us, but fool yourself).

What you are doing is like taking the grammatical rule that says in the English language when a word starts with Q it will be followed by the letter U, and you find ONE exception in some translation of a book of German poetry into English and then claim that disproves the rule. It's silly.

[NonTrinitarian]

LOL. to me THAT sounds like wishful thinking on YOUR Part. You don't even understand what he is talking about. Have you even read the work?


You can't just point to ONE exception of a rule, in a translation, and say "see? that proves that titus 2:13 does not follow the rule!"

When out of an entire book, one exception is found, in a translation of another language, in a poetic book, and then to try to use the exception itself as the rule, is purely wishful thinking and deceptive reasoning (you are not only trying to fool us, but fool yourself).

What you are doing is like taking the grammatical rule that says in the English language when a word starts with Q it will be followed by the letter U, and you find ONE exception in some translation of a book of German poetry into English and then claim that disproves the rule. It's silly.

Yeah, that is silly. That's why numerous grammarians have wrangled over those verses for decades. They're all just silly.

[Sparko]

Yeah, that is silly. That's why numerous grammarians have wrangled over those verses for decades. They're all just silly.

actually all real "grammarians" (is that a word?) all agree that Titus 2:13 is saying Jesus is God. Only a very, very, few anitrinitarian "grammarians" even try to argue against it.

[anewlife]

What? That's ridiculous! If it's GREEK grammar rule then it's a greek grammar rule. You don't just say 'Well I don't want to consider anyother verse than yada yada.' It has the SAME greek structure as the other verses. Article-noun-kai-noun. And where in Sharp's rule does it say it only applies to deity? My argument is that Sharp's rule was not a rule in ancient greek and that the greeks did not feel obligated to hold to his theory. Daniel Wallace said there have been no examples where Sharp's rule fails and I say Prov 24:21 is one as it's clear that even though it has the same construction as Titus 2:13, it is also equally clear that two persons are spoken of.

Actually no... Prov verse has nothing to do with deity of Christ (as the OP implies about Titus 2:13 pointing to deity). The verse in comparison is not in the same literary form nor would the author be implying deity within Prov verse. We need to also focus on the author's intended meaning here you know the theological process steps...:wink:

Do we have any Greek scholars in the house? If so please feel free to comment.

Again, I have to agree with Sparko here. No need for emotions to take control here... The Textual Critics of the NET Bible (not Wallace alone) are in agreement over this verse being Jesus=God. We can argue semantics all you like--but the fact remains Titus 2:13 is undisputed thus far.

credo quia absurdum!!!

This also occurs when using Colwell’s Rule for certain passages within the NWT translation... the problem is inconsistancy within the rules. We are not saying the rules are not being abused as much as they are just mis-applied to fit one's theology. I feel it works both ways, nonetheless I still say Titus 2:13 creates a problem for unitarians.

[NonTrinitarian]

actually all real "grammarians" (is that a word?) all agree that Titus 2:13 is saying Jesus is God. Only a very, very, few anitrinitarian "grammarians" even try to argue against it.

Whatever. I have a few popular bible translations translated by real grammarians that would disagree with you. See also Murray Harris' "Jesus as God" for a list of respectable grammarians who are not so certain it calls Jesus God.

You talk out of ignorance

[NonTrinitarian]

Actually no... Prov verse has nothing to do with deity of Christ (as the OP implies about Titus 2:13 pointing to deity). The verse in comparison is not in the same literary form nor would the author be implying deity within Prov verse. We need to also focus on the author's intended meaning here you know the theological process steps...:wink:
I'm sorry, did I miss the part where Granville said his rule only applies to discussions on deity? It is the same grammatical construction, which is what Sharp's rule covers. Not deity.


Again, I have to agree with Sparko here. No need for emotions to take control here... The Textual Critics of the NET Bible (not Wallace alone) are in agreement over this verse being Jesus=God. We can argue semantics all you like--but the fact remains Titus 2:13 is undisputed thus far.
undisputed? I have quite a few translations that say otherwise.

[Sparko]

Nontrin, you have a habit of referring to evidence that you happen to have somewhere, or that you read of someplace else but just can't recall exactly where right now, and seem to expect us to go "Oh gee, I guess if he has read something somewhere that refutes our evidence, then I guess that just blows us out of the water."

But instead, our reaction is: :lmbo:


But hey, if that is how you think then maybe it will work for me...

I can disprove every claim you make. I have this book I read somewhere that refutes with absolute unrefutable evidence everything you believe. I just can't remember where I put it. So you will just have to take my word for it. It really exists. Yep. So please take this statement as proof and go away now.

[anewlife]

I'm sorry, did I miss the part where Granville said his rule only applies to discussions on deity? It is the same grammatical construction, which is what Sharp's rule covers. Not deity.

Yes you missed the part of the topic being Titus 2:13 which is undisputed. (the question isn't about Granville's rule applying only to Deity, that may have been your personal view. We must stay on topic here as it concerns Deity).


undisputed? I have quite a few translations that say otherwise.

Ok so let's see how you dispute Titus 2:13, this should prove quite interesting.

[Topherlee]

Yes you missed the part of the topic being Titus 2:13 which is undisputed. (the question isn't about Granville's rule applying only to Deity, that may have been your personal view. We must stay on topic here as it concerns Deity).



Ok so let's see how you dispute Titus 2:13, this should prove quite interesting.

That is easy...
1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also there are other verses that say the same.

If Jesus has a God, not just a Father mind you, but a God, how can Jesus also be God? And should I say, if Jesus is not the Father. Because if I count here, there would be two.

[Sparko]

That is easy...
1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also there are other verses that say the same.

If Jesus has a God, not just a Father mind you, but a God, how can Jesus also be God? And should I say, if Jesus is not the Father. Because if I count here, there would be two.

Is it that easy, topherlee? Didn't Peter also say:

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Which is a direct parallel to Titus 2:13. He is calling Jesus our God and Savior. Same rule applies, the Granville Sharpe rule.

When the Father is called the God of Jesus it is speaking from the view of Jesus the man who humbled himself to the Father on earth. It doesn't mean that they are different Gods or that the Father is God and Jesus is not. Remember all scripture has to reconcile. If you have a contradiction in scripture then you know you are interpreting something wrong.

If you see the bible calling Jesus God in several places and the Father God in several places you have a contradiction if you believe BOTH are different Gods. There is only one God. Only the doctrine of the Trinity adequately explains such verses in the scripture. Everything else leads to polytheism. You end up making Jesus some lesser god.

[Topherlee]

Sparko Is it that easy, topherlee? Didn't Peter also say:

You must be reading from a newer version of the bible. Look and see.

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

2 Peter 1:1 ...of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. Let's look at the word and here. You seem to think that the verse implies that Jesus is God. Well keep reading. I will show you how two identities are being spoken of using practical wisdom..

Which is a direct parallel to Titus 2:13. He is calling Jesus our God and Savior. Same rule applies, the Granville Sharpe rule.

Granville Sharp rule, blah, blah, blah... Whatever. You guys clearly cannot think for yourselves.

When the Father is called the God of Jesus it is speaking from the view of Jesus the man who humbled himself to the Father on earth. It doesn't mean that they are different Gods or that the Father is God and Jesus is not. Remember all scripture has to reconcile. If you have a contradiction in scripture then you know you are interpreting something wrong.

Well if you have a father and a son, you have two distinct identities which is in contradiction to the one. You speak of Jesus humbling himself. What do you mean by this? Did he discontinue to be God? Or do you believe in a man-god? Yes, all scripture has to reconcile in the FACT, not interpretation, that there is one God.
The fact that you claim Christ to be the Almighty is in contradiction to scripture. Jesus always pointed to his Father as being God, being greater. If the Father is greater than the Son, how is it that they are coequal?

If you see the bible calling Jesus God in several places and the Father God in several places you have a contradiction if you believe BOTH are different Gods. There is only one God. Only the doctrine of the Trinity adequately explains such verses in the scripture. Everything else leads to polytheism. You end up making Jesus some lesser god.

If you read 2 Peter 1:1 and continue to read verse 2 it says "Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord," Again we see and here. Keep reading.

In Col 1:3 it says "1:3 We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,. This is in direct parallel to 1 Pet 1:3 and many other verses.
Again, these verses are clear to note that God is not only the Father of Jesus, but a God to Jesus (of).
This is also in direct parallel to 1 Cor 11:3 which says; "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." Again, if Christ is God, how can God be the head of himself?
As Moses was made a god to Pharoah in the Book of Exodus by God himself:
Exod 7:1 And the YHVH said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
God made Christ a god to us which is in direct parallel to Exod 7:1 and 1 Cor 11:3. It is your inability to understand the true monotheistic representation.

Titus 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

If you do the work of God, does this not make you Godly?

Jesus said; John 14:31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

[JAY-PC]

You must be reading from a newer version of the bible. Look and see.



2 Peter 1:1 ...of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. Let's look at the word and here. You seem to think that the verse implies that Jesus is God. Well keep reading. I will show you how two identities are being spoken of using practical wisdom..



Granville Sharp rule, blah, blah, blah... Whatever. You guys clearly cannot think for yourselves.



Well if you have a father and a son, you have two distinct identities which is in contradiction to the one. You speak of Jesus humbling himself. What do you mean by this? Did he discontinue to be God? Or do you believe in a man-god? Yes, all scripture has to reconcile in the FACT, not interpretation, that there is one God.
The fact that you claim Christ to be the Almighty is in contradiction to scripture. Jesus always pointed to his Father as being God, being greater. If the Father is greater than the Son, how is it that they are coequal?



If you read 2 Peter 1:1 and continue to read verse 2 it says "Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord," Again we see and here. Keep reading.

In Col 1:3 it says "1:3 We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,. This is in direct parallel to 1 Pet 1:3 and many other verses.
Again, these verses are clear to note that God is not only the Father of Jesus, but a God to Jesus (of).
This is also in direct parallel to 1 Cor 11:3 which says; "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." Again, if Christ is God, how can God be the head of himself?
As Moses was made a god to Pharoah in the Book of Exodus by God himself:
Exod 7:1 And the YHVH said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
God made Christ a god to us which is in direct parallel to Exod 7:1 and 1 Cor 11:3. It is your inability to understand the true monotheistic representation.

Titus 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

If you do the work of God, does this not make you Godly?

Jesus said; John 14:31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.


Greater has reference to position not equality as the president of a country is greater than the Joe on the street (with reference to his office or position) but as to his nature he is equal.

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
(Heb 1:3 ESV)

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 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.
(Col 1:15-16 ESV)

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
(Col 1:19 ESV)

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(Phi 2:6 ESV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Joh 1:1 ESV)

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
(Joh 1:18 ESV)


The husband is the head of his wife but again this has to do with position and to equality. Women are not less human than their husbands but they have a head. So if you are saying because Jesus is said to have a head that this makes him unequal by nature to the Father then you would have to conclude that women are not really humans but subhuman.


What do you think?

[anewlife]

I do not believe anyone here thinks of Jesus as the Father, nor would any orthodox Christian. The translations of the new (Bibles) actually are translated from more manuscripts (over 5,300) as compared to the earlier versions of the Bible. Let's put things in true perspective here with the recent developments and findings. (without anachronistic fallacies)

I do find the unitarians in general cannot fully articulate the true meaning of the triunity of God. The JW's really do not think for themselves or do any scholarly research merely claim it as a Pagan belief, when they themselves are not true scholars of comparative religions.

You can throw whatever you like into the mix, but if you want to dispute manuscripts (all of them) and textual criticism, maybe we should start a new thread.

Geneva Bible 1587:

2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter a seruant and an Apostle of Iesus Christ, to you which haue obteined like precious faith with vs by the righteousnesse of our God and Sauiour Iesus Christ:


:eek:

[Sparko]

not to mention that in the greek manuscripts it says "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" no matter what any english translation might say.

[Topherlee]

JAY-PC, Greater has reference to position not equality as the president of a country is greater than the Joe on the street (with reference to his office or position) but as to his nature he is equal.

There are no positions of being God. God is Almighty, God is not lesser than this in position. To give God positions, you will have created more than one God which is contradiction to scripture. Nowhere in scripture does it say that there is a family of gods.
Again, God is not in nature God. This is doctrine of man to illicit a position of the gods. John 4:24 says that God is a Spirit.


The husband is the head of his wife but again this has to do with position and to equality. Women are not less human than their husbands but they have a head. So if you are saying because Jesus is said to have a head that this makes him unequal by nature to the Father then you would have to conclude that women are not really humans but subhuman.

What do you think?

Your are comparing equality to flesh and not in spirit. If we are to be godly, we are to think godly - in spirit. Jesus is the Son of God. Are not sons servants to their fathers? Honor thy father and thy mother. Jesus is a servant to his Father and our Father. This is evident in scripture. So how can he be Almighty? Jesus always says that his Father is greater than he. And he also says that his Father is our Father. How is it that we are bretheren of Jesus?

Are you a child (son) of God? Are you a son of the Son or a son of the Father?

Jesus is considered a god according to God himself (see Exod 7:1). Jesus is not perfect by our standards, but by God's law. A prime example of what the Pharisees did not understand when Jesus performed miracles on the Sabbath. They were still under the laws of Moses but failed to recognize the Messiah as written in prophecy.

[Sparko]

Jesus is considered a god according to God himself (see Exod 7:1).

Gee sounds like you are a polytheist. If Jesus is a God, and Moses is a God and God is a God and all the other judges are Gods then you have lots of Gods.

I rather believe in ONE God than in the whole slew of Gods that you believe in, you polytheist. You are a pagan. Repent.


See? We can use your exact argument against the trinity right back at you. And it is far more accurate in this case since you actually believe that Jesus is not the same God as the Father.

When you try to use that argument on Trinitarians, it falls flat on it's face since we believe Jesus is God, but the SAME God as the Father. three persons, ONE God.

[Topherlee]

Gee sounds like you are a polytheist. If Jesus is a God, and Moses is a God and God is a God and all the other judges are Gods then you have lots of Gods.

I rather believe in ONE God than in the whole slew of Gods that you believe in, you polytheist. You are a pagan. Repent.


See? We can use your exact argument against the trinity right back at you. And it is far more accurate in this case since you actually believe that Jesus is not the same God as the Father.

When you try to use that argument on Trinitarians, it falls flat on it's face since we believe Jesus is God, but the SAME God as the Father. three persons, ONE God.

I do not know if it is you ignorance or your arrogance that clouds your thought. It is not I that calls Jesus or Moses a god. It is God himself that does so. Look in your bible or do you posses a fruitless mind. But we know that they are referred to as gods because they do the work of the One True God. Not that they are trully the one God. Do you not work to be godly?

You said it yourself, three gods (persons) but one God. What lack of intellect.

[Sparko]

I do not know if it is you ignorance or your arrogance that clouds your thought. It is not I that calls Jesus or Moses a god. It is God himself that does so. Look in your bible or do you posses a fruitless mind. But we know that they are referred to as gods because they do the work of the One True God. Not that they are trully the one God. Do you not work to be godly?

You said it yourself, three gods (persons) but one God. What lack of intellect.

first, I just want to point out that it was you who started the insults. having said that, Topherlee, ask anyone else and they will tell you the overall IQ of a thread drops by 30 points as soon as you join in. Your arguments are off the wall and illogical. Half the time nobody can even follow what you are going on about because it is just so much drivel. Instead of answering or discussing a verse that is under discussion in a thread, you completely ignore it and throw out some other verse as if you were playing biblical ping pong. Well the problem is, all of the bible is true, so you can't just ignore the parts you don't like.

Second, I see you are saying that Jesus is a God. In fact you are saying that God calls him a God. I agree with that but with one caveat. God the Father calls Jesus God and states that there is only ONE God.
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10).

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.
Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 7 In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."


If God says there is only ONE God and says Jesus is God, which God is Jesus?

If you say YHWH you get the brownie points.


But enough of this side track. You are as bad as pythagoras. Sticking to the issue, titus 2:13 clearly says that Jesus is our God and Savior. 2 Peter 1:1 also says that. You can dig up as many bad english translations as you want, but the Greek says that "God and Savior" refer to one person, Jesus.

If you don't believe me, go to the Biblical Languages forum here on TWEB and ask the language experts what Titus 2:13 is saying in the greek.

[Topherlee]

Sparko first, I just want to point out that it was you who started the insults. having said that, Topherlee, ask anyone else and they will tell you the overall IQ of a thread drops by 30 points as soon as you join in. Your arguments are off the wall and illogical. Half the time nobody can even follow what you are going on about because it is just so much drivel. Instead of answering or discussing a verse that is under discussion in a thread, you completely ignore it and throw out some other verse as if you were playing biblical ping pong. Well the problem is, all of the bible is true, so you can't just ignore the parts you don't like.

Show me where I played biblical ping-pong. You want to discuss Titus 2:13 and how you interpret it. How can you prove your theory by not referring to other verses. You say you cannot understand me but you understand that three distinct persons (individuals) make up one Almighty God. Go figure?! I have not run from anything you have laid before me. I suggest you go back and re-evaluate this and any other thread.

Second, I see you are saying that Jesus is a God. In fact you are saying that God calls him a God. I agree with that but with one caveat. God the Father calls Jesus God and states that there is only ONE God.

No, you call Jesus God, you call the Father God and you call the Holy Spirit God. Hmmm? Jesus is not a god by our will, he is considered a god by the works he has done. None of which were his own, but of his Fathers. Listen this time because apparently you have not heard.

John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

Do you not work to be godly?
Titus 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

Moses is even made a god to Pharoah;
Exodus 7:1 And YHVH said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
How is Moses made a god to Pharoah if there is only one God? Answer.


"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10).

Jesus is not he, if this is your point. Jesus is also a witness.
Rev 3:14 ...These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness... I am not playing biblical ping-pong. Just referring to scripture to help you understand.

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

YHVH says he is the first and the last, YHVH Almighty. I know your response.

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 7 In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."


If God says there is only ONE God and says Jesus is God, which God is Jesus?

If you say YHWH you get the brownie points.

It is your interpetation that YHVH is saying Jesus is God. The Hebrews verse you've listed is not consistent with scripture in total. To the Son God says "thy throne of God" is consistent with scripture.

Not playing biblical ping-pong.
How can God have a God? If anything, answer this one.
1 Peter says "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
Col 1:3 says "We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,

These verses are clear to note that God is not only a Father to Christ, but a God to Christ. Get your language experts working on that. Also, from the words of Jesus himself. He says that he has a God.
John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

If Jesus has a God, how can he be God?


But enough of this side track. You are as bad as pythagoras. Sticking to the issue, titus 2:13 clearly says that Jesus is our God and Savior. 2 Peter 1:1 also says that. You can dig up as many bad english translations as you want, but the Greek says that "God and Savior" refer to one person, Jesus.

Titus does not say Jesus is God. The keyword to note is the word "and". If it were to be more clearly stated that Jesus is God, it would have said "of the great Saviour Jesus Christ our God". The bible never refers to Jesus as being the Almighty God. Jesus himself teaches that he is subjective to God. He (Jesus) always points to the Father as being greater.


One more question for you. What is the Father's name? exod 3:14, exod 6:3, jeremiah 16:21, john 17:25,26, matt 6:9.

[Sparko]

Topher, start over reading the thread from the begining. Everything you ask has been answered previously and every claim you made has been already refuted. I am not about to start all over again to hold your hand in this matter. Go read for yourself. If you cannot bother to read the discussion that has already gone on in a thread, then you should not jump in after over 100 posts.

[Topherlee]

Topher, start over reading the thread from the begining. Everything you ask has been answered previously and every claim you made has been already refuted. I am not about to start all over again to hold your hand in this matter. Go read for yourself. If you cannot bother to read the discussion that has already gone on in a thread, then you should not jump in after over 100 posts.

Well Sparko,
I have gone to the beginning of this thread and have found no reference to what I have asked you.

If Jesus is God. How is it that Jesus has a God?

If the Father is greater than the Son, how are they coequal?

If Jesus is indeed God, why would he need to be anointed by the Holy Spirit?

How can YHVH God make Moses a god to Pharoah when there is only one God? Do you understand?

If Jesus is God, why does he not say that I am your God?

Exod 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD (YHVH) God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

John 17:25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
17:26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

How many times have you declared YHVH's name as Jesus has?

The bible is very clear to say that YHVH is the Father. Deut 6:4 is clear when it says that not only is there one God, but YHVH is the one God.

Jesus is always referred to as our Lord. He says we are his bretheren. Listen.

Oh! Am I playing biblical ping-pong again?

[apostoli]

Hi Topherlee & Sparko,

There is a premise in the Nicene Creed that Jesus has been appointed as God over us. This aligns with biblical ANF and Jewish Talmadic (angel of the Lord) belief. As the Messenger of the Lord and the Messenger of the Covenent.

The ANF support this view rather strongly. 14th-16th century opinion and critics of the 18th/19th century have distorted the simple position = Jesus is not God of himself = Jesus is truely the Son of God, deriving all that he is from the Father. This is not a modernist/rationalist position but the emphatic testimony of the first six centuries of the church.

Of concern is the medieval mystic tradition that makes the Son paramount to the Family which modern day Sabellianists (oneness believers) have locked into.

In the OT context YHWH sets himself apart from the gods that others believe in. In the NT context Jesus sets a definition that God is not a concept but a reality, "god" is His Father (first person, present case) and our Father, His God (first person, present case) and our God. It is something to think about.

The Nicene creed begins "We believe in one God, the Father, and...". There is indeed one source and cause of all that is, the Father, but in his love there are participants in his love. Augustine takes this idea to the extreme but the thoughts are worth considering.

Care needs to be taken in metaphysical contemplations (unbiblical & philosophical considerations of how God exists/subsists/consists/persists = the ontology of god) and the reality. Given modern scepticism, and breakdown of society, can we truely perceive the relationship of the Father and the Son through either the inspired writers, through philosophy/theosophy or through reason? Have our current concerns been resolved by the ANF and those that followed in the immediate aftermath?

Do JWs teach a partiality of the essential truth, fully supported by the ANF - the first three centuries of the church. I leave that to all to pray and study upon.

I perceive the average JW (and most evengelicals/catechists/fundementalists) has a learned knosis (knowledge) but lacking epignosis (full and accurage knowledge) as Jn 17:3 would encourage.

All the best.

[Oldmonk]

Oh wow. We don't know who the translators are? In fact, that has been kept somewhat secretive.

Maybe you should write the WT and find out who the translators were and what their credentials were.


I think it can be summed up in one name Fred Franz

Oh By the way Franz in a court room was woefully lacking in Greek expertise as the transcripts show:lol:

[Oldmonk]

I don't really see a need. It is not a perfect translation, but none are. It is just as reliable as anything else I've found.

That assertion cannot be supported. They distort Hebrew words...though not as often as the Greek. I will give you an example. In Numbers we are told that each tribe stood by its degel( standard, FLAG) where the Watchtower in their NWT...not liking the word FLAG puts "Three tribe division".

In the New Testament they distort many passages that actually support the notion of a triune God. The addition of "Other in Colossians 1 for instance. They translate "a god" in John 1:1 Yet fail to keep consitant and translate God in John 1:6,18 where both of these cases also lack the definate article.I contend that besides their translation conforming to the "Spiritualists" Johannas Greber that it puts their position in the area of Polytheism and not Monotheism. To have a BIG GOD AND a lesser or "Little" "a god" is one God too many to be monotheistic. Actually Arius's position was that Jesus was a Demi-God or a God UNDER YHWH.
If you look at my post in the Michael thread you will see about 8-9 verses treated very badly in the NWT.

[Pythagoras]

HiOldmonk,

Actually Arius's position was that Jesus was a Demi-God or a God UNDER YHWH.
.... etc

You're really going off the deep end, aren't you?

best wishes nonetheless,

[Oldmonk]

HiOldmonk,



You're really going off the deep end, aren't you?

best wishes nonetheless,


NO. That IS the historic position of Arius.

[Pythagoras]

NO. That IS the historic position of Arius.

Judaism teaches Moses was a God under Yhwh. Read Ex. 7:1.

What say?

[Oldmonk]

Judaism teaches Moses was a God under Yhwh. Read Ex. 7:1.

What say?


NO!!! "...LIKE GOD" . To be LIKE something does not mean that you have the actual nature of that something!!!In fact it implies that you DON'T!!! NOTE also that he was LIKE GOD ONLY TO PHARAOH. A FAR cry from Jesus who DEMONSTRATED by his actions and what he said to BE GOD.Your whole premise is shown faulty by your quote of that verse.

BTW PY something for you to think about;
find it rather amusing that the Witnesses quote from A Manual Grammar Of The Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey [ see Kingdom Interlinear of the Greek Scriptures ( mine is the 1969 edition ) pp. 1158 – 1159. To show this deception I will quote from the SAME BOOK

“ The use of the articular and anarthrous constructions of theos is hightly instructive. A study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Geden’s Concordance convinces one that without the article theos signifies divine essence, while with the article divine personality is chiefly in view… The use of theos in Jn. 1:1 is a good example. Pros ton theon points to Christ’s fellowship with the person of the Father; theos en ho logos emphasizes Christ’s participation in the essence of the divine nature. The former clearly applies to personality, while the latter applies to character. This distinction is in line with the general force of the article.” Pp. 139-140


“ With the subject in a copulative sentence. The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon’s Anabasis 1:4:6, emporion d en to chiorion , and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1 , kia theos en ho logos, and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were used with theos .As it stands , the other persons of the trinity may be implied in theos.” Pp. 148-149

[NonTrinitarian]

NO!!! "...LIKE GOD" . To be LIKE something does not mean that you have the actual nature of that something!!!In fact it implies that you DON'T!!! NOTE also that he was LIKE GOD ONLY TO PHARAOH. A FAR cry from Jesus who DEMONSTRATED by his actions and what he said to BE GOD.Your whole premise is shown faulty by your quote of that verse.

So Moses was only a false god to Pharoah, Topherlee. And Aaron was his false prophet. Funny, I don't see the word "like" in my Bible. What about yours? OM is right about one thing though. Moses is a far cry from Jesus. But then I don't think anyone was arguing to the contrary.

I wonder who he thinks the Israelite kings and judges were gods to (John 10:34-36)?

[JAY-PC]

So Moses was only a false god to Pharoah, Topherlee. And Aaron was his false prophet. Funny, I don't see the word "like" in my Bible. What about yours? OM is right about one thing though. Moses is a far cry from Jesus. But then I don't think anyone was arguing to the contrary.

I wonder who he thinks the Israelite kings and judges were gods to (John 10:34-36)?



So are you saying Moses was a god (that his nature was that of a god) and the judges were gods (by nature)? No I don't think you are saying that or maybe you are and you are a polytheist.

Moses was likened unto a god, and the judges were those who brought the word of God or they were God's representatives.

If you want to say Jesus is a god like these men were that's fine but tell me what kind of gods were they. Real gods by nature or false gods, or not really gods but kind of like God, or something else.

I say Jesus is God by nature (Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, Phi 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.)


Is Jesus a god, false god, God by nature, or just a man who is said to be like god unto a people?

[NonTrinitarian]

So are you saying Moses was a god (that his nature was that of a god) and the judges were gods (by nature)? No I don't think you are saying that
You are correct. Very good.

the judges were those who brought the word of God or they were God's representatives.
Brought the word of God, you say? God's representative huh?

does this sound familiar?
"The sayings I bring are not mine, but have been given to me by my Father... What I teach is not mine but belongs to him who sent me...Do you condemn me, a man who tells you the truth I heard from the Father?"

Do you think I can quote scripture where Jesus is called God's "representative"? You're not building a very good case here so far.

If you want to say Jesus is a god like these men were that's fine but tell me what kind of gods were they. Real gods by nature or false gods, or not really gods but kind of like God, or something else.
You already answered the question above. They represent God. Jesus is said to "represent" God. If you already answered it above, why ask the question again? Do you not like your own answer?

I say Jesus is God by nature (Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, Phi 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.)
Well you can say what you want. I say Jesus' being a reflection of God, or an imprint, clearly shows he is not the original. He is just that. A reflection or an imprint. Just as the imprint of an insignant ring is not the insignant ring itself. God's form is that of a spirit. Angels are in God's form. Humans who go to heaven will partake of the divine nature. The word was a god.

Is Jesus a god, false god, God by nature, or just a man who is said to be like god unto a people?
Do you like asking the same question three different ways? Let me quote a so called expert on it. This is what I believe of Jesus being called god.

"the judges were those who brought the word of God or they were God's representatives"

Replace "the judges were those" with "Jesus was the one" and the word "they were" with "he was" and "representatives" with "representative."

[JAY-PC]

You are correct. Very good.


Brought the word of God, you say? God's representative huh?

does this sound familiar?
"The sayings I bring are not mine, but have been given to me by my Father... What I teach is not mine but belongs to him who sent me...Do you condemn me, a man who tells you the truth I heard from the Father?"

Do you think I can quote scripture where Jesus is called God's "representative"? You're not building a very good case here so far.


You already answered the question above. They represent God. Jesus is said to "represent" God. If you already answered it above, why ask the question again? Do you not like your own answer?


Well you can say what you want. I say Jesus' being a reflection of God, or an imprint, clearly shows he is not the original. He is just that. A reflection or an imprint. Just as the imprint of an insignant ring is not the insignant ring itself. God's form is that of a spirit. Angels are in God's form. Humans who go to heaven will partake of the divine nature. The word was a god.


Do you like asking the same question three different ways? Let me quote a so called expert on it. This is what I believe of Jesus being called god.

"the judges were those who brought the word of God or they were God's representatives"

Replace "the judges were those" with "Jesus was the one" and the word "they were" with "he was" and "representatives" with "representative."



Tell me what is God's nature? Is it Spirit, all powerful, all knowing?
If I had the exact nature of God would I be God?

[Pythagoras]

Hi Oldmonk,



NO!!! "...LIKE GOD" . To be LIKE something does not mean that you have the actual nature of that something!!!In fact it implies that you DON'T!!! NOTE also that he was LIKE GOD ONLY TO PHARAOH. A FAR cry from Jesus who DEMONSTRATED by his actions and what he said to BE GOD.Your whole premise is shown faulty by your quote of that verse.




Unfortunately for you the literal Hebrew does not say Moses was "like God to Pharaoh" . The literal Hebrew can be correctly rendered as God to Pharaoh, a God to Pharaoh or the God of Pharaoh . Does that mean Moses was God?



Hebrew Transliterated
7:1 VY'aMUr YHVH 'aL-MShH Ur'aH NThThYK 'aLHYM LPhUr'yH V'aHUrN 'aChYK YHYH NBY'aK.



Latin Vulgate
7:1 dixitque Dominus ad Mosen ecce constitui te Deum Pharaonis Aaron frater tuus erit propheta tuus



King James Version
7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.







Darby's English Translation
7:1 And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.



Douay Rheims Bible
7:1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.



Noah Webster Bible
7:1 And the LORD said to Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.



Young's Literal Translation
7:1 And Jehovah saith unto Moses, `See, I have given thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother is thy prophet;

But the poorly translated trinitarian NIV says this , for obvious reasons:

"Then the Lord said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet."..


best wishes,

[JAY-PC]

Hi Oldmonk,






Unfortunately for you the literal Hebrew does not say Moses was "like God to Pharaoh" . The literal Hebrew can be correctly rendered as God to Pharaoh, a God to Pharaoh or the God of Pharaoh . Does that mean Moses was God?



Hebrew Transliterated
7:1 VY'aMUr YHVH 'aL-MShH Ur'aH NThThYK 'aLHYM LPhUr'yH V'aHUrN 'aChYK YHYH NBY'aK.



Latin Vulgate
7:1 dixitque Dominus ad Mosen ecce constitui te Deum Pharaonis Aaron frater tuus erit propheta tuus



King James Version
7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.







Darby's English Translation
7:1 And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.



Douay Rheims Bible
7:1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.



Noah Webster Bible
7:1 And the LORD said to Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.



Young's Literal Translation
7:1 And Jehovah saith unto Moses, `See, I have given thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother is thy prophet;

But the poorly translated trinitarian NIV says this , for obvious reasons:

"Then the Lord said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet."..


best wishes,



How about all of these Translations and versions?


Exo 7:1

(ACV) And LORD said to Moses, See, I have made thee as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

(AMP) THE LORD said to Moses, Behold, I make you as God to Pharaoh [to declare My will and purpose to him]; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.

(ASV) And Jehovah said unto Moses, See, I have made thee as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

(CJB) But ADONAI said to Moshe, "I have put you in the place of God to Pharaoh, and Aharon your brother will be your prophet.

(CLV) Yahweh said to Moses: See, I appoint you as Elohim to Pharaoh; and Aaron, your brother, shall come to be your prophet.

(ERV) The Lord said to Moses, “I will be with you. You will be like a great king [52] to Pharaoh. And Aaron will be your official speaker. [53]

(ESV) And the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.

(GNB) The LORD said, "I am going to make you like God to the king, and your brother Aaron will speak to him as your prophet.

(HCSB) The LORD answered Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother will be your prophet.

(HNV) The LORD said to Moshe, "Behold, I have made you as God to Par`oh; and Aharon your brother shall be your prophet.

(JB2000) ¶ The LORD said unto Moses, See, I have constituted thee as god unto Pharaoh; and Aaron, thy brother, shall be thy prophet.

(LB) Then the Lord said to Moses, "See, I have appointed you as my ambassador to Pharaoh, and your brother, Aaron, shall be your spokesman.

(MSG) GOD told Moses, "Look at me. I'll make you as a god to Pharaoh and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.

(NAB D) The LORD answered him, "See! I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall act as your prophet.

(NASB) Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.

(NET.) So the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.

(NJB) Yahweh then said to Moses, 'Look, I have made you as a god for Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron is to be your prophet.

(NKJV) Moses Before Pharaoh
So the LORD said to Moses: "See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.

(NLT) Aarons Staff Becomes a Snake
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Pay close attention to this. I will make you seem like God to Pharaoh. Your brother, Aaron, will be your prophet; he will speak for you.

(NLV) Aaron Speaks For Moses
The Lord said to Moses, " See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh. Your brother Aaron will be the one who speaks for you.

(NRS) The Lord said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.

(RSV) And the LORD said to Moses, "See, I make you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.

(UPDV-2.09) And Yahweh said to Moses, See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother will be your prophet.

(VW-Edition) And Jehovah said to Moses: See, I have made you as a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.

(WEB) Yahweh said to Moses, "Behold, I have made you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Jay-Pc,

How about all of these Translations and versions?....


.

These versions are not literal translations. The Hebrew literally says Moses was God unto Pharaoh. You can ask a Hebrew speaker to verify.

best wishes,

[NonTrinitarian]

Tell me what is God's nature? Is it Spirit, all powerful, all knowing?
If I had the exact nature of God would I be God?

God's nature is spirit. Angels have that nature right now. All powerful and knowing are attributes, not nature.

[Oldmonk]

So Moses was only a false god to Pharoah, Topherlee. And Aaron was his false prophet.. What about yours? OM is right about one thing though. Moses is a far cry from Jesus. But then I don't think anyone was arguing to the contrary.

I wonder who he thinks the Israelite kings and judges were gods to (John 10:34-36)?



Funny, I don't see the word "like" in my Bible

Well if you look at my post about the verses DISTORTED by the NWT you will get your answer why!!![LOOK in your own KIT and SEE the DELIBERATE DISTORTIONS for yourself!!!] NOW to the point!!! Yes they are called Gods...but in what way??? Let us look at Psalms 82:6-7

6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

THIS is how Moshe was "God". Proof: HE DIED.
The NIV inserted the word "like" to reflect this reality in Scripture. Isn't it funny that the Mormons also use this scripture in the same way as you are suggesting to support their view that they themselves can be Gods. Thanks for showing the simularities between your position and the Mormons :blush:
Let us look at a FEW inconsistancies within the NWT that point to a trinitarian view IN SCRIPTURE!!! JW's can check them out in their own "Kingdon Interlinear" (KIT)

Collossians 2:9 ; The Greek says "thotetos" and under that is the litteral translation GODSHIP. The NWT translation says "divine quality" . This is to undermind the strength that this verse has. I ask you simply does "divine quality " mean the same as "GODSHIP"??? We may say that a blond woman has the QUALITY of Brass in her hair... Does this mean that she HAS brass in her hair??? Does having the quality of an author mean you HAVE AUTHORSHIP???

Collossians 1:16-17 ; I have already stated that the word "OTHER" is NOT in the Greek and again is used in the NWT to SUBSTANTIALLY change the meaning of the verse. If the verses is viewed without the "IMPOSED" "OTHER" we see that JESUS created ALL THINGS. And since this doesn't sit well with those of the Witness faith it HAD to be altered to escape the fact that if Jesus created ALL things he MUST BE GOD!!! I refer you to Isaiah Where it states that YHWH created ALL things BY HIMSELF and ALONE.

Galatians 2:20 ; The word "union " is added to escape the fact that Christ lives inside of the believer. How , may I ask is this possiable , if Jesus is anything but God??? Again a DISTORTION of the text to prop up witness preconcieved notions of the nature of Jesus.


2 Corinthians 5:21 ; The NWT says "BY MEANS OF HIM" where as the Greek says "IN HIM". So again a distortion of the text to try to hide the fact that GOD was IN CHRIST. Why is this??? Because what mere perfect man can contain DEITY??? What , may I ask can contain the FULLNESS of Deity but DEITY???

John 8:58 ; "I AM" has been changed to "I HAVE BEEN". Now the Watchtower as I have stated in a previous post invented a new Greek tense for this one..."perfict indefinate". When this was pointed out to be the sham it was they changed it in the KIT ( By the way without admitting they were WRONG). This was really done to hide the allussion to Ex.3:14 [ Which they do ANYWAY in their NWT Reference bible]. Why isn't the blind mans ego emi changed also to I HAVE BEEN in the next chapter ( 9:9 )??? Because it would make NO SENSE as it doesnt in the verse being discussed. By the way WHY did they fall down when Jesus says "I AM HE" and NOT when the blind man says it???

Hebrews 9:27 ; They change what the Greek says from "ONCE" to "ONCE FOR ALL TIME". This I think is done to try to show that a BODILY ressurrection of Jesus was not possiable. Show me another kind of RESSURRECTION!!! Heck even the "mystics" say as the JW's do that we return in SPIRIT.

Philippians 2:9 Again the word "OTHER" is inserted [ NOTE this time NOT in brackets] to try and show that Jesus's name is not ABOVE EVERY NAME.

1 Corinthians 10:4 ; "WAS CHRIST" is changed to "MEANT CHRIST" . If I MEANT to cry does that = I WAS CRYING??? I will let YOU decide that one!!!


Acts 10:36 ;AGAIN the word "OTHER" is inserted and found NOWHERE IN THE GREEK TEXT [ As their OWN KIT shows]. This is done for OBVIOUS theological reasons... Ie if JESUS is LORD of ALL then he must be DEITY [ NOTE I said DEITY and not the FATHER]!!!


Revelations 3:14 ; The NWT says "..the beginning of the creaton BY God." Where as the Greek says the creation "OF God". NOT the SAME THING!!!

[Sparko]

Funny, I don't see the word "like" in my Bible

Well if you look at my post about the verses DISTORTED by the NWT you will get your answer why!!![LOOK in your own KIT and SEE the DELIBERATE DISTORTIONS for yourself!!!] NOW to the point!!! Yes they are called Gods...but in what way??? Let us look at Psalms 82:6-7

6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

THIS is how Moshe was "God". Proof: HE DIED.
The NIV inserted the word "like" to reflect this reality in Scripture. Isn't it funny that the Mormons also use this scripture in the same way as you are suggesting to support their view that they themselves can be Gods. Thanks for showing the simularities between your position and the Mormons :blush:


Nontrin knows that when they use the word "elohim" in the OT, it could refer to judges and men as well as to the almighty God. He also knows that when they use the word to refer to men it does NOT equate them to almighty God, just like when it uses "elohim" to refer to idols it doesn't mean that the idols are litrally real gods either.

They always bring up moses and the "ye are gods" verses as red herrings to try to distract people. The New Testament not only calls Jesus God, but it equates him with YHWH himself in passages like Titus 2:13, and in John 1:1, and other places. It says he created everything and that nothing that was made was made without him making it. It never said that Moses created anything, and in the passage where it says "ye are gods" God is chastising them, not praising them or elevating them to god status. He is saying they abused the authority he gave them. They were false to him.

So don't let nontrin, et al, lead you down a rabbit trail. they only do that becuase they have no other recourse. If they actually stuck to the topic they know they have no case, so they must distract. Pythagoras and Topherlee are also pretty good at that tactic. It must be something they teach them in JW 101 school: "if someone brings up something you can't answer, ignore them and throw out some other verses to them to distract them and confuse the issue"

[Oldmonk]

Hi Oldmonk,






Unfortunately for you the literal Hebrew does not say Moses was "like God to Pharaoh" . The literal Hebrew can be correctly rendered as God to Pharaoh, a God to Pharaoh or the God of Pharaoh . Does that mean Moses was God?



Hebrew Transliterated
7:1 VY'aMUr YHVH 'aL-MShH Ur'aH NThThYK 'aLHYM LPhUr'yH V'aHUrN 'aChYK YHYH NBY'aK.



Latin Vulgate
7:1 dixitque Dominus ad Mosen ecce constitui te Deum Pharaonis Aaron frater tuus erit propheta tuus



King James Version
7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.







Darby's English Translation
7:1 And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.



Douay Rheims Bible
7:1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.



Noah Webster Bible
7:1 And the LORD said to Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.



Young's Literal Translation
7:1 And Jehovah saith unto Moses, `See, I have given thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother is thy prophet;

But the poorly translated trinitarian NIV says this , for obvious reasons:

"Then the Lord said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet."..


best wishes,
PY: Ahhhh.... Long time no see!!! Note however that GOD "MADE" Moses a god. My quote of Psalms 82:6-7 shows how they were made gods.

[JAY-PC]

God's nature is spirit. Angels have that nature right now. All powerful and knowing are attributes, not nature.


If I had the Exact nature of God would I be God or just a god, another god, one of many?

See, here is the problem I have the nature of a human, trees are trees by nature, God is God by nature, essence. So my question is if Jesus is said to have the "exact nature" of God doesn’t that make him God?

Not like Moses who was “like a god” to Pharaoh because Moses was not God by nature yet Jesus is by nature God.

Reread Hebrews were it says he has the exact nature of God.


Nature
1 a : the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : ESSENCE
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nature

Essence
1 a : the permanent as contrasted with the accidental element of being b : the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as opposed to its existence c : the properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/essence


Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

[Oldmonk]

Nontrin knows that when they use the word "elohim" in the OT, it could refer to judges and men as well as to the almighty God. He also knows that when they use the word to refer to men it does NOT equate them to almighty God, just like when it uses "elohim" to refer to idols it doesn't mean that the idols are litrally real gods either.

They always bring up moses and the "ye are gods" verses as red herrings to try to distract people. The New Testament not only calls Jesus God, but it equates him with YHWH himself in passages like Titus 2:13, and in John 1:1, and other places. It says he created everything and that nothing that was made was made without him making it. It never said that Moses created anything, and in the passage where it says "ye are gods" God is chastising them, not praising them or elevating them to god status. He is saying they abused the authority he gave them. They were false to him.

So don't let Pythagoras lead you down a rabbit trail. He only does that becuase he has no other recourse. If he actually stuck to the topic he knows he has no case, so he must distract. Pythagoras and Topherlee are also pretty good at that tactic. It must be something they teach them in JW 101 school: "if someone brings up something you can't answer, ignore them and throw out some other verses to them to distract them and confuse the issue"


Sparko: Point well taken my friend :teeth:

[NonTrinitarian]

Funny, I don't see the word "like" in my Bible

Well if you look at my post about the verses DISTORTED by the NWT you will get your answer why!!![LOOK in your own KIT and SEE the DELIBERATE DISTORTIONS for yourself!!!] NOW to the point!!! Yes they are called Gods...but in what way??? Let us look at Psalms 82:6-7

6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

THIS is how Moshe was "God". Proof: HE DIED.
The NIV inserted the word "like" to reflect this reality in Scripture. Isn't it funny that the Mormons also use this scripture in the same way as you are suggesting to support their view that they themselves can be Gods. Thanks for showing the simularities between your position and the Mormons :blush:
Let us look at a FEW inconsistancies within the NWT that point to a trinitarian view IN SCRIPTURE!!! JW's can check them out in their own "Kingdon Interlinear" (KIT)

You need to read "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" by Brian Holt to clarify your distorted viewpoint on the other verses you mentioned.

You are the one who stressed "Like God" though the Hebrew doesn't have the word "like" in it. It's the NIV that has distorted God's word to hide the fact people are called god because of their relative authority. So show me where the NWT distorts the verse where Moses is called elohim.

(The irony of this is the crazy guy rants on how the NIV inserts the word "like" to reflect their "idea" of what God meant but then he turns around in the same posts and criticizes the NWT for inserting "other". What a hypocrite.)

[NonTrinitarian]

If I had the Exact nature of God would I be God or just a god, another god, one of many?

See, here is the problem I have the nature of a human, trees are trees by nature, God is God by nature, essence. So my question is if Jesus is said to have the "exact nature" of God doesn’t that make him God?

Not like Moses who was “like a god” to Pharaoh because Moses was not God by nature yet Jesus is by nature God.

Reread Hebrews were it says he has the exact nature of God.

Well, for one thing, you've distorted Hebrews. Raped it more like it. Hebrews doesn't say Jesus had the exact nature of God. Says he is the reflection of God. You're so desperate to uphold your viewpoint you misquote scripture.

[JAY-PC]

Well, for one thing, you've distorted Hebrews. Raped it more like it. Hebrews doesn't say Jesus had the exact nature of God. Says he is the reflection of God. You're so desperate to uphold your viewpoint you misquote scripture.


(Hebrews 1:3 ESV) He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

(Hebrews 1:3 NWT) He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places.


:smile:

[NonTrinitarian]

:smile:

Well, your quotes didn't copy over on this reply but most of the Bibles I looked at do not say nature at Heb 1:3. I will review the greek when I have the time to see the difference and why a relatively few Bibles say "nature" rather than something else. Thus far I have not seen anything that says nature all the attributes of God unless Christians will have those same attributes too since they will become partakers of the divine nature when they enter heaven, according to Peter. But I concede that at least some bibles do say "nature" at Heb 1:3

If nature means all the attributes of God then maybe the Mormons are on to something when they say they will become gods. Otherwise becoming partakers of the divine nature simply means they will be spirits, like the angels, like God.

[Sparko]

Well, your quotes didn't copy over on this reply but most of the Bibles I looked at do not say nature at Heb 1:3. I will review the greek when I have the time to see the difference and why a relatively few Bibles say "nature" rather than something else. Thus far I have not seen anything that says nature all the attributes of God unless Christians will have those same attributes too since they will become partakers of the divine nature when they enter heaven, according to Peter. But I concede that at least some bibles do say "nature" at Heb 1:3

If nature means all the attributes of God then maybe the Mormons are on to something when they say they will become gods. Otherwise becoming partakers of the divine nature simply means they will be spirits, like the angels, like God.

he quoted you the watchtower bible that said it!!!

[NonTrinitarian]

he quoted you the watchtower bible that said it!!!

No he didn't, you goober. He quoted the ESV that said "nature" and the NWT that reads as "being", along with just about every other Bible out there that also doesn't say "nature".

I was trying to copy his quotes over into my reply so I could reference them but they didn't copy over. That's why I said they didn't copy over. Get with the program

[JAY-PC]

Well, your quotes didn't copy over on this reply but most of the Bibles I looked at do not say nature at Heb 1:3. I will review the greek when I have the time to see the difference and why a relatively few Bibles say "nature" rather than something else. Thus far I have not seen anything that says nature all the attributes of God unless Christians will have those same attributes too since they will become partakers of the divine nature when they enter heaven, according to Peter. But I concede that at least some bibles do say "nature" at Heb 1:3

If nature means all the attributes of God then maybe the Mormons are on to something when they say they will become gods. Otherwise becoming partakers of the divine nature simply means they will be spirits, like the angels, like God.


Here is some info on this.

And He is the radiance541 of His glory1391 and the exact5481 representation5481 of His nature5287, and upholds5342 all3956 things3956 by the word4487 of His power1411. When He had made4160 purification2512 of sins266, He sat2523 down2523 at the right1188 hand1188 of the Majesty3172 on high5308,
(Heb 1:3 NASB+)


G5287
hupostasis
Thayer Definition:
1) a setting or placing under
1a) thing put under, substructure, foundation
2) that which has foundation, is firm
2a) that which has actual existence
2a1) a substance, real being
2b) the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing
2c) the steadfastness of mind, firmness, courage, resolution
2c1) confidence, firm trust, assurance
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a compound of G5259 and G2476
Citing in TDNT: 8:572, 1237
(Thayer's)


G5287
ὑπόστασις
hupostasis
hoop-os'-tas-is
From a compound of G5259 and G2476; a setting under (support), that is, (figuratively) concretely essence, or abstractly assurance (objectively or subjectively): - confidence, confident, person, substance.
(Strong's)

G5287
ὑπόστασις
hupóstasis; gen. hupostáseōs, fem. noun from huphístēmi (n.f.), to place or set under. In general, that which underlies the apparent, hence, reality, essence, substance; that which is the basis of something, hence, assurance guarantee, confidence (with the obj. sense).
(I) The ground of confidence, assurance, guarantee, or proof; not fides but fiducia (Heb_3:14, our confidence or first hope in Christ; 1Ti_5:12 [cf. Heb_10:35]; Heb_11:1, "faith is confidence in the things hoped for" [a.t.], standing in parallel to élegchos (G1650), certainty, proof, demonstration; Sept.: Rth_1:12; Psa_39:8; Eze_19:5).
(II) Metonymically of that quality which leads one to stand under, endure, or undertake something, firmness, boldness, confidence (2Co_9:4 [TR]; 2Co_11:17, "in this confident boasting" [a.t.], this boldness of boasting).
(III) Substance, what really exists under any appearance, reality, essential nature (Heb_1:3, "the express image" or exact expression of God's essence or being, i.e., of God Himself). Here it approximates ousía (G3776), existence, substance, and phúsis (G5449), nature. One must be careful to remember that some Latin Fathers rejected the rendering substantia because it was distinct from essentia which they felt conveyed unequivocally the notion of hupóstasis. However, the word "substance" as used in English is quite suitable since it does not bear the subtle difference of the original Latin.
Syn.: ousía (G3776), existence, substance; phúsis (G5449), nature; élegchos (G1650), certainty, proof, demonstration.
Ant.: phántasma (G5326), a phantasm or phantom, apparition, something which has no reality; pneúma (G4151), spirit as lacking corporeal reality.
(WordStudy Dictionary)


2. Hebrews.
The passages in which ὑπόστασις is used in Hb. (1:3; 3:14; 11:1) are essentially
much more difficult to assess. This is especially so in view of the fact that the word
has usually been given different meanings and translations in the three, e.g., “essence”
in 1:3, “steadfastness” in 3:14, and “standing” in 11:1.123
A more or less fixed and developed usage is plainest in 1:3:124 ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασµα
τη̂ς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τη̂ς ὑποστάσεως αὐτου̂. Here ὑπόστασις is parallel to δόξα.
Both words are obviously describing God’s essence → IV, 339, n. 5. It is thus
inadvisable to render ὑπόστασις specifically by “essence.” The translation should
rather express the degree to which δόξα and ὑπόστασις denote two special qualities in
God’s nature that are both present in the Son as their ἀπαύγασµα (→ I, 508, 13 ff.)
and → χαρακτήρ.
(TDNT)


Heb 1:3
(ACV) Who, being the radiance of his glory, and the exact image of his essence, and upholding all things by the word of his power, having made purification of our sins through himself, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in the

(ALT) who being [the] outshining of His glory and [the] exact expression of His essence, and sustaining all the [things] by the word of His power, having Himself made by Himself a purification [or, purgation] of our sins, sat down at [the] right hand of the Majesty on high,

(AMP) He is the sole expression of the glory of God [the Light-being, the [3]out-raying or radiance of the divine], and He is the perfect imprint and very image of [God's] nature, upholding and maintaining and guiding and propelling the universe by His mighty word of power. When He had by offering Himself accomplished our cleansing of sins and riddance of guilt, He sat down at the right hand of the divine Majesty on high,

(ASV) who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

(BBE) Who, being the outshining of his glory, the true image of his substance, supporting all things by the word of his power, having given himself as an offering making clean from sins, took his seat at the right hand of God in heaven;

(Darby) who being the effulgence of his glory and the expression of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, having made by himself the purification of sins, set himself down on the right hand of the greatness on high,

(ELG-NT) The Son is the radiance of his Father's splendor, and the exact expression of the Father's nature. The Son bears up the universe by his mighty word. After the Son had made a cleansing of sins, he sat at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

(Diaglott-NT) who (being an effulgence of the glory and an exact impress of the substance of him, sustaining and the things all by the word of the power of himself,) through himself a purification have made of the sins of us, sat down at right of the majesty in high places;

(ESV) He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

(HCSB) He is the radiance of His glory, the exact expression of His nature, and He sustains all things by His powerful word. After making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

(LB) God's Son shines out with God's glory, and all that God's Son is and does marks him as God. He regulates the universe by the mighty power of his command. He is the one who died to cleanse us and clear our record of all sin, and then sat down in highest honor beside the great God of heaven.

(LITV) who being the shining splendor of His glory, and the express image of His essence, and upholding all things by the Word of His power, having made purification of our sins through Himself, He sat down on the right of the Majesty on high, Psa. 110:1

(MSG) This Son perfectly mirrors God, and is stamped with God's nature. He holds everything together by what he says--powerful words! After he finished the sacrifice for sins, the Son took his honored place high in the heavens right alongside God,

(NAB D) who is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word. When he had accomplished purification from sins, he took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

(NET.) The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

(RKJV-NT) He is the brightness of his glory, and the exact representation of his nature, upholding all things by the word of his power. When he had purged our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high;

(RNT) who is the reflection of his glory and the expression of his nature and sustains all things by his word of power, and who, when he had made purification from sins, took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

(Rotherham) Who, being an eradiated brightness of his glory, and an exact representation of his very being, also bearing up all things by the utterance of his power, purification of sins, having achieved, sat down on the right hand of the majesty in high places:

(RSV) He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

[Sparko]

No he didn't, you goober. He quoted the ESV that said "nature" and the NWT that reads as "being", along with just about every other Bible out there that also doesn't say "nature".

I was trying to copy his quotes over into my reply so I could reference them but they didn't copy over. That's why I said they didn't copy over. Get with the program

LOL!!!

So

(Hebrews 1:3 NWT) He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places.

isn't saying that he has the very nature of God? He is the EXACT representation of his very BEING.

What do you think "his nature" means???? It means "his very being and essence"

It's hilarious that you reject your own crappy translation when the watchtower screws up and lets something like that slip through the cracks of their editing commitee. Oh well, maybe they will fix it in the next edition.

[Pythagoras]

PY: Ahhhh.... Long time no see!!! Note however that GOD "MADE" Moses a god. My quote of Psalms 82:6-7 shows how they were made gods.

This presupposes that Christ is not made, which is arguing in circles in order to prove your point. On it's own verses like Ex. 7:1 show that just because an entity is called God does not mean it's God Almighty.

Besides, the literal Hebrew doesn't say God made Moses God. It simply says Moses is appointed God to Pharaoh. Using trinitarian type eisegesis I could argue Moses is functionally not ontologially inferior his to God :

Douay Rheims Bible
7:1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

[JAY-PC]

I will review the greek when I have the time to see the difference and why a relatively few Bibles say "nature" rather than something else.


I found 2 more

ὑπόστασις

Substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. (BAGD 2nd edition page 847)

God's substantial nature real being, essence.
(Analytical Lexicon page 393)

[JAY-PC]

Besides, the literal Hebrew doesn't say God made Moses God. It simply says Moses is appointed God to Pharaoh.



Exo 7:1 Then the LORD3068 said559 to Moses4872, "See7200, I make5414 you as God430 to Pharaoh6547, and your brother251 Aaron175 shall be your prophet5030. (NASB+)



H5414
נתן
nâthan
BDB Definition:
1) to give, put, set
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to give, bestow, grant, permit, ascribe, employ, devote, consecrate, dedicate, pay wages, sell, exchange, lend, commit, entrust, give over, deliver up, yield produce, occasion, produce, requite to, report, mention, utter, stretch out, extend
1a2) to put, set, put on, put upon, set, appoint, assign, designate
1a3) to make, constitute
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be given, be bestowed, be provided, be entrusted to, be granted to, be permitted, be issued, be published, be uttered, be assigned
1b2) to be set, be put, be made, be inflicted
1c) (Hophal)
1c1) to be given, be bestowed, be given up, be delivered up
1c2) to be put upon
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1443
(BDB)



1443 - natan
Hebrew Word: natan
Strong's Cross Reference: 5414
The three broad areas of meaning of the verb ndtan are 1) give, 2) put or set, and 3) make or constitute. The other terms used in translation are extensions or variations of these. For example, give may be anything from physically handing a present, reward, person, or doctrine nt to another to the less tangible granting or bestowal of blessing, compassion, permission, and the like. Inanimate objects may also "give"-as tree or land yielding fruit; birds, lions, and clouds "utter" their appropriate sounds; even the wine "sparkles" in the cup (lit., "gives its eye"). God himself is often the giver: of rain (Lev_26:4, Deu_11:14), of grass for cattle (Deu_11:15), as well as granting preservation of life (as a "prize of war" Jer_45:5, RSV) or sending the plague of hail on Egypt (Exo_9:23). The infrequent synonym yahab means "give, " but it too connotes "place, " "Put" when used of David's orders concerning Uriah (2Sa_11:15). in Hebrew this verb yahab is only used in the Qal impv., more broadly in Aram.
(TWOT)

:smile:

[NonTrinitarian]

:smile:

I stand corrected. I was confusing that point with Exodus 4:16 where "made" does not appear. But that was not referring to Moses being God to Pharoah, it is where he would serve as God to Aaron.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Jay-Pc,

:smile:

As I pointed out earlier to argue that Jesus is "God" in a different sense than Moses is "God" because Moses is "made" whereelse Jesus isn't is circular reasoning as it presupposes Jesus isn't "made".

At face value the notion of "God" in biblical verses which proclaim Moses and Jesus "God" is to be construed identically.

Can't you trinitairans follow a logical train of thought?

best wishes,

[Oldmonk]

You need to read "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" by Brian Holt to clarify your distorted viewpoint on the other verses you mentioned.

You are the one who stressed "Like God" though the Hebrew doesn't have the word "like" in it. It's the NIV that has distorted God's word to hide the fact people are called god because of their relative authority. So show me where the NWT distorts the verse where Moses is called elohim.

(The irony of this is the crazy guy rants on how the NIV inserts the word "like" to reflect their "idea" of what God meant but then he turns around in the same posts and criticizes the NWT for inserting "other". What a hypocrite.)



NON: Isn't it funny that you should call me that!!!! WOW... I am not the one that predicted the end of the world 15-20 times in the last 100 or so and then condems those that do that!!! Okay let us look at the TRUTHFULNESS of YHWH'S ONLY prophet;





1931 "There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah's faithful ones on earth concerning the years 1917, 1918, and 1925, which disappointment lasted for a time...and they also learned to quit fixing dates." Vindication, page 338.


Okay here they admit to setting those dates and say the result is that they learned NOT to set dates





1941 "Receiving the gift, the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord's provided instrument for most effective work in

the remaining months before Armageddon
." The Watchtower, 9/15/41, page 288.



OOOOPS there AT IT AGAIN!!! Lost what they learned!!!








1968 "True, there have been those in times past who predicted an ‘end to the world', even announcing a specific date. Yet nothing happened. The ‘end' did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing?.. Missing from such people were God's truths and evidence that he was using and guiding them." Awake, 10/8/68.


Now I WONDER WHO COULD HAVE MADE PERDICTIONS LIKE THAT!!!???
BROOKLYN!!!!






1968 "Why are you looking forward to 1975?" The Watchtower, 8/15/68, page 494.



Yet ANOTHER DATE... Oh well if theykeep on maybe they will get lucky huh???

Bring on Brian Holt ( The way you talk about him he should just about walk on water huh??? New idol for the Watchtower???) At any rate you will have to choose who is right the GREEK TEXT of the NWT.ANY English translation adds words for clarity... The NWT adds words to MAKE the text say EXACTLY OPPOSITE of what it actually says. They also do this with the Greek scholars such as Dana and Mantey . I find it rather amusing that the Witnesses quote from A Manual Grammar Of The Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey [ see Kingdom Interlinear of the Greek Scriptures ( mine is the 1969 edition ) pp. 1158 – 1159. To show this deception I will quote from the SAME BOOK

“ The use of the articular and anarthrous constructions of theos is hightly instructive. A study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Geden’s Concordance convinces one that without the article theos signifies divine essence, while with the article divine personality is chiefly in view… The use of theos in Jn. 1:1 is a good example. Pros ton theon points to Christ’s fellowship with the person of the Father; theos en ho logos emphasizes Christ’s participation in the essence of the divine nature. The former clearly applies to personality, while the latter applies to character. This distinction is in line with the general force of the article.” Pp. 139-140


“ With the subject in a copulative sentence. The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon’s Anabasis 1:4:6, emporion d en to chiorion , and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1 , kia theos en ho logos, and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were used with theos .As it stands , the other persons of the trinity may be implied in theos.” Pp. 148-149

By the way I only mentioned a FEW of the DELIBERATE DISTORTIONS ... Not ALL by a long shot!!!! I trust the Book of Mormon to its original text than the NWT to its... The Book of Mormon only has about 2000 errors in it!!!

"In the beginning..." Here John starts and takes us back as Moshe did in Genesis ...Back when ALL that existed was GOD. Moshe moves forward from here and relates the making of existance as we know it. John has another idea however. He shows us before the time of creation. He show that at THAT TIME the LOGOS was "WITH THE GOD""[ note the personhood nature of the title "the God"]. The next statment by John...and HERE is where we must strive to keep the aim of John's words before us...we have "and God was the logos. [ Please note the swith of the definate article from God to Logos] . The English switches this around to say "and the word was god". Now this word god is where we have problems. Note however that in this case we are not talking PERSONHOOD but ESSENCE as indicated by the shift in the definate article. We later go on and see that this Logos creats ALL and there was NOTHING CREATED THAT HE [ie.LOGOS] DID NOT CREATE. This fits rather nicely with Collossians 1 where it says that Jesus created ALL things.
Thus we see that John a JEWISH person relates Jesus to YHWH [ NOT the FATHER...that is another part of YHWH]. We could go on and relate how Jesus is the glory of the Father , the Light of the world,etc.But I think that is enough to think about for now.
As for your comment about doctrine I quite agree with you. Judaism doesn't have in a strict sense a coherent theology. This can be seen by the disagreement amungst the rabbis themselves. A Jewish person has basically two tenant; There is a God and HE is ONE... LOL the rest is up to debate
May HaShem always light and guide your path. BTW my knowledge of L'shon HaKoddesh is limited. I wish it were better than it is but I hope to work at it whenever I can

ADDENDUM: This is what Ignatius has to say;


2. The Christology of Ignatius is exceedingly clear as to both, the divinity and humanity of Christ:

There is only one physician both carnal and spiritual, born and unborn …, God becomes man, true life in death, sprung both from Mary and from God…, first subject to suffering, and then incapable of it – Jesus Christ our Lord (Eph. 7.2)

He is really of the line of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God by the will and power of God; was really born of a Virgin, and baptized by John in order to comply with every ordinance (Smryn. 1.1)

Christ is timeless … and invisible…
Look for Him who is above time – the Timeless, the Invisible, who for our sake became visible, the Impassible, who became subject to suffering onour account and for our sake endured everything (Pol. 3.2)
At the same time he attacks the form of heresy called Docetism, which denied a human nature and especially suffering to Christ:
But, if, as some atheists, that is, unbelievers, say, His suffering was but a make-believe – when in reality they themselves are make-believe – then why am I in chains? Why do I even pray that I may fight with the beasts? In vain, then do I die! My testimony is, after all, but a lie about the Lord! Shun these wildlings, then, which bear but deadly fruit, and when one tastes it, he is outright doomed to die. (Trall. 10-11.1).
From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead. And so, those who question the gift of God perish in their contentiousness. It would be better for them to have love, so as to share in the resurrection. It is proper, therefore, to avoid associating with such people and not to speak about them either in private or in public, but to study the prophets attentively and especially the Gospel, in which the Passion is revealed to us and the Resurrection shown in its fulfillment (Smyrn. 7, ACW).
All in all, the foundation of Ignatius’ Christology is St. Paul, but influenced and enriched by the theology of St. John.

From;http://www.goarch.org/en/multimedia...%20Antioch.html

Ignatius was 1st century so there goes the Witness contention of NICEA being the birth of the doctrine of the Trinity.

[Oldmonk]

This presupposes that Christ is not made, which is arguing in circles in order to prove your point. On it's own verses like Ex. 7:1 show that just because an entity is called God does not mean it's God Almighty.

Besides, the literal Hebrew doesn't say God made Moses God. It simply says Moses is appointed God to Pharaoh. Using trinitarian type eisegesis I could argue Moses is functionally not ontologially inferior his to God :

Douay Rheims Bible
7:1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.


PY: MOSHE said that a GREATER prophet than himself would come... It is JESUS as we can see the Apostles applied the verse to Jesus. If you would just let the prolog in John 1:1 say what it says and not read your own views into it you would be much better off. There IS a science of language....called GRAMMER that Witness and Arians tend to neglect or disregard. My view of John 1:1 is thus:
"In the beginning..." Here John starts and takes us back as Moshe did in Genesis ...Back when ALL that existed was GOD. Moshe moves forward from here and relates the making of existance as we know it. John has another idea however. He shows us before the time of creation. He show that at THAT TIME the LOGOS was "WITH THE GOD""[ note the personhood nature of the title "the God"]. The next statment by John...and HERE is where we must strive to keep the aim of John's words before us...we have "and God was the logos. [ Please note the swith of the definate article from God to Logos] . The English switches this around to say "and the word was god". Now this word god is where we have problems. Note however that in this case we are not talking PERSONHOOD but ESSENCE as indicated by the shift in the definate article. We later go on and see that this Logos creats ALL and there was NOTHING CREATED THAT HE [ie.LOGOS] DID NOT CREATE. This fits rather nicely with Collossians 1 where it says that Jesus created ALL things.
Thus we see that John a JEWISH person relates Jesus to YHWH [ NOT the FATHER...that is another part of YHWH].

[Pythagoras]

Hi Oldmonk,

PY: MOSHE said that a GREATER prophet than himself would come...

Greater prophet does not mean that prophet is God.


If you would just let the prolog in John 1:1 say what it says and not read your own views into it you would be much better off. There IS a science of language....called GRAMMER



Exactly, which trinitarians constantly ignore. The anarthrous Theos in john 1:1 shows Logos to not be God.


Now this word god is where we have problems. Note however that in this case we are not talking PERSONHOOD but ESSENCE as indicated by the shift in the definate article. We later go on and see that this Logos creats ALL and there was NOTHING CREATED THAT HE [ie.LOGOS] DID NOT CREATE...etc.


This is 4th century trinitarian eisegeising. There's absolutely nothing in the prologue of John to indicate that the word is God Almighty. Infact the opposite view is to be reached if we follow grammar and proper exegesis.

best wishes,

[Yakkity Yak]

Hi Oldmonk,

Greater prophet does not mean that prophet is God.

Hi, :hi:

Now, jumping in here, but Moses predicted that one would arrive greater than himself, yet the Bible claims [Deut. 29, 30] that there will never be another like Moses?

Who was greater than Moses? A Man, or god? God/man dual in nature? Jesus or Mohammed?

He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26Did not the Christ[Messiah] have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Quoting from forward:

44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

Next:

The Prophet

14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so. 15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. 16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die."

17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

Exactly, which trinitarians constantly ignore. The anarthrous Theos in John 1:1 shows Logos to not be God.

The Father is obviously called God as seen throughout the Bible. No one will argue that point. So there is one member of the Trinity, the Father. Jesus the Son, is a separate person but He is also called God. John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (See below the JW heresy explained.)

Titus 2:13 says, "Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus." So here we see clearly, the Son is also called God.

'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'

Yet, behold the plural nature of God is NOT limited, as Jesus said: John 10:30 - “I and the Father are one.”

Explaining the JW Heresy:

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-john1-1.htm

Comments:

It is important to note that our position is the only position that defines the word "God" [theos] in John 1:1-2 with the identical definition throughout (God, as a class of being, not as a name).

The word "God" is used in two ways. First "God" is used many places as the generic "class of being" definition as in Gen 1:1 and John 1:1. Second, "God" is used in specific personal reference to the Father as in Eph 4:4.

The use of "God" as a class of being in John 1:1, mirrors Gen 1:1 where "God" as a class of being created and made "man in our image". In fact, the only formal personal proper noun/name for God is "Jehovah", not "God". Just as the entire first chapter of Genesis refers to God as "God" (noun/class of being, not personal proper noun/name) and it isn't until Gen 2:4 that God is referred to as "Jehovah" (the formal personal proper noun/name), so also in John 1:1-13, "God" is used in the "class of being" sense and it isn't until John 1:14 that the Father is specifically identified!

Jehovah's Witnesses (Arians), on the other hand, define the first "theos" [God] as a personal proper noun/name for the Father and the second exactly like we do, as a "class of being". The difference is that JW's define Jesus as a lesser class of being, and we, defining the two occurrences of God identically, as an equal class of being! Our position is irrefutably solid and the only consistent one.

etc., etc.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Yakkity,

Hi, :hi:

Now, jumping in here, but Moses predicted that one would arrive greater than himself, yet the Bible claims [Deut. 29, 30] that there will never be another like Moses?

.

I could argue the same against you. If Jesus is God then he's certainly greater than Moses, but the bible says there will never be another like Moses. So obviously Jesus cannot be God. He must be of the same essence as Moses, a man.Infact the bible calls Jesus the Second adam.

You just shot yourself in the foot.

[Oldmonk]

Hi Oldmonk,



Greater prophet does not mean that prophet is God.




Exactly, which trinitarians constantly ignore. The anarthrous Theos in john 1:1 shows Logos to not be God.



This is 4th century trinitarian eisegeising. There's absolutely nothing in the prologue of John to indicate that the word is God Almighty. Infact the opposite view is to be reached if we follow grammar and proper exegesis.

best wishes,

PY: You said;

Exactly, which trinitarians constantly ignore. The anarthrous Theos in john 1:1 shows Logos to not be God


I find it rather amusing that the Witnesses quote from A Manual Grammar Of The Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey [ see Kingdom Interlinear of the Greek Scriptures ( mine is the 1969 edition ) pp. 1158 – 1159. To show this deception I will quote from the SAME BOOK

“ The use of the articular and anarthrous constructions of theos is hightly instructive. A study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Geden’s Concordance convinces one that without the article theos signifies divine essence, while with the article divine personality is chiefly in view… The use of theos in Jn. 1:1 is a good example. Pros ton theon points to Christ’s fellowship with the person of the Father; theos en ho logos emphasizes Christ’s participation in the essence of the divine nature. The former clearly applies to personality, while the latter applies to character. This distinction is in line with the general force of the article.” Pp. 139-140


“ With the subject in a copulative sentence. The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon’s Anabasis 1:4:6, emporion d en to chiorion , and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1 , kia theos en ho logos, and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were used with theos .As it stands , the other persons of the trinity may be implied in theos.” Pp. 148-149


So tell me if you have the qualifications to refute these learned men???

This is 4th century trinitarian eisegeising. There's absolutely nothing in the prologue of John to indicate that the word is God Almighty. Infact the opposite view is to be reached if we follow grammar and proper exegesis.

Again the same question. Show your qualifications.

[Oldmonk]

Hi Yakkity,



I could argue the same against you. If Jesus is God then he's certainly greater than Moses, but the bible says there will never be another like Moses. So obviously Jesus cannot be God. He must be of the same essence as Moses, a man.Infact the bible calls Jesus the Second adam.

You just shot yourself in the foot.



PY: COME ON!!!! Moshe GREATER than MESSIAH?!?!? NOT a CHANCE!!!! You REALLY NEED to do some serious study my friend!!! Show me from Rabbinic litterature, if you can, where MOSHE is GREATER than MESSIAH!!! Moshe brought down writen law carved in stone; Messiah will write the law in the heart. Moshe brought Israel to the "promised land"( on EARTH); Messiah will bring Israel to a BETTER land . MOSHE chould not attone for sin; MESSIAH DID. NEED I GO ON???
You still got a foot to shhot though :sigh:

Besides the Diatessaron shows that the Logos was not "a god" but "God".

[Yakkity Yak]

Hi Yakkity,

I could argue the same against you. If Jesus is God then he's certainly greater than Moses, but the bible says there will never be another like Moses. So obviously Jesus cannot be God. He must be of the same essence as Moses, a man.Infact the bible calls Jesus the Second adam.

You just shot yourself in the foot.

Au contraire! Jesus is not just a "prophet".

While Moses offered to himself to die for the sins of the people, Jesus actually DID DIE for the people - all the people.

"Now it came to pass on the next day that Moses said to the people, 'You have committed a great sin. So now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.' Then Moses returned to the LORD and said, 'Oh, these people have committed a great sin, and have made for themselves a god of gold! Yet now, if You will forgive their sin--but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written.' And the LORD said to Moses, 'Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book. (Exodus 32:30-33)"

[Pythagoras]

Hey Stupid,

PY: COME ON!!!! Moshe GREATER than MESSIAH?!?!? NOT a CHANCE!!!! You REALLY NEED to do some serious study my friend!!! Show me from Rabbinic litterature, if you can, where MOSHE is GREATER than MESSIAH!!! Moshe brought down writen law carved in stone; Messiah will write the law in the heart. Moshe brought Israel to the "promised land"( on EARTH); Messiah will bring Israel to a BETTER land . MOSHE chould not attone for sin; MESSIAH DID. NEED I GO ON???
You still got a foot to shhot though :sigh:

Besides the Diatessaron shows that the Logos was not "a god" but "God".

I was just arguing Yakkati Yak's argument to it's logical conclusion:

"Now, jumping in here, but Moses predicted that one would arrive greater than himself, yet the Bible claims [Deut. 29, 30] that there will never be another like Moses?"

best wishes nonetheless,

[Pythagoras]

Hi,



Au contraire! Jesus is not just a "prophet".

While Moses offered to himself to die for the sins of the people, Jesus actually DID DIE for the people - all the people.

"Now it came to pass on the next day that Moses said to the people, 'You have committed a great sin. So now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.' Then Moses returned to the LORD and said, 'Oh, these people have committed a great sin, and have made for themselves a god of gold! Yet now, if You will forgive their sin--but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written.' And the LORD said to Moses, 'Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book. (Exodus 32:30-33)"

Here you were arguing just the opposite.

"Now, jumping in here, but Moses predicted that one would arrive greater than himself, yet the Bible claims [Deut. 29, 30] that there will never be another like Moses?"

Or else what's your point?

[Yakkity Yak]

Hi,

Here you were arguing just the opposite.

"Now, jumping in here, but Moses predicted that one would arrive greater than himself, yet the Bible claims [Deut. 29, 30] that there will never be another like Moses?"

Or else what's your point?

There never has been one like Moses!

Jesus is God!


Deuteronomy 34

10 Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, 11 who did all those miraculous signs and wonders the LORD sent him to do in Egypt—to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. 12 For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel. (www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=34&version=31)

[Pythagoras]

There never has been one like Moses!

Jesus is God!

This is retarded. No one has ever been like Moses.

[Yakkity Yak]

This is retarded. No one has ever been like Moses.

Exactly right! (And, I bet Joshua was encouraged to hear that!)

He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26Did not the Christ[Messiah] have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Quoting from forward:

44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

Additional thought and verse to ponder:

“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I AM!” At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

(Emphasis mine)

[Pythagoras]

Hi Yakkity Yak,

You're not making any sense at all.

[Oldmonk]

Hey Stupid,



I was just arguing Yakkati Yak's argument to it's logical conclusion:

"Now, jumping in here, but Moses predicted that one would arrive greater than himself, yet the Bible claims [Deut. 29, 30] that there will never be another like Moses?"

best wishes nonetheless,




PY: Sling all the mud you like... Won't help your blindness though....or your non-existant arguments. If you ACTUALLY heard what YAKKATI was saying you wouldn't have jumped to the confussion that you did!!

I also note that you didn't reply to my post. Sucks when you been shown wrong huh and that your argument has no backing.

[Yakkity Yak]

Hi Yakkity Yak,

You're not making any sense at all.

Who was greater than Moses? Mohammed? Or, Jesus?

Or, is it better asked, who was "Like unto Moses"?

Oh, and I stand corrected, you will note, the verse I was thinking of was in Deut. 34, not 29, or 30.

Now, where does that leave you? :dizzy:

Titus 2:13. Grammatically and contextually, this is one of the strongest proof-texts for the deity of Christ. Sharp's first rule, properly understood, proves that the text should be translated "our great God and Savior" (cf. same construction in Luke 20:37; Rev. 1:6; and many other passages).

[Oldmonk]

Who was greater than Moses? Mohammed? Or, Jesus?

Or, is it better asked, who was "Like unto Moses"?

Oh, and I stand corrected, you will note, the verse I was thinking of was in Deut. 34, not 29, or 30.

Now, where does that leave you? :dizzy:

Titus 2:13. Grammatically and contextually, this is one of the strongest proof-texts for the deity of Christ. Sharp's first rule, properly understood, proves that the text should be translated "our great God and Savior" (cf. same construction in Luke 20:37; Rev. 1:6; and many other passages).

Yakkity Yak: Nice stuff!!! :ahem:And yes I think PY cannot understand your point so is probably seeing stars. If you corner him he has a tendency to not respond however.

[Sparko]

Sure is strange that pythagoras did not respond to Old Monk's post about the grammar of John 1:1 - that tells me that he KNOWS that Jesus is called God, but he is being rebellious on purpose. He says "Lord, Lord".. well you know the rest.

[Oldmonk]

Sure is strange that pythagoras did not respond to Old Monk's post about the grammar of John 1:1 - that tells me that he KNOWS that Jesus is called God, but he is being rebellious on purpose. He says "Lord, Lord".. well you know the rest.


Sparko: I am used to it. He would not say if the verses I quoted as distortions of the Greek by the Watchtower were distortions either. All of us know the answer and that PY would have to actually change if he answered my question. Py likes making statments that have no basis in fact ....thus his non answer.

[Pythagoras]

Sparko,

Sure is strange that pythagoras did not respond to Old Monk's post about the grammar of John 1:1 - that tells me that he KNOWS that Jesus is called God, but he is being rebellious on purpose. He says "Lord, Lord".. well you know the rest.

It's just that I've gone through the "grammar of John 1:1" so many times to the point of redundancy.. Most would agree there is nothing there to make Jesus God Almighty.Infact the reverse is likely true. Here's one thread, read post 27 etc.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=67874&page=2&pp=16

[JAY-PC]

Thus far I have not seen anything that says nature all the attributes of God unless Christians will have those same attributes too since they will become partakers of the divine nature when they enter heaven, according to Peter.
If nature means all the attributes of God then maybe the Mormons are on to something when they say they will become gods. Otherwise becoming partakers of the divine nature simply means they will be spirits, like the angels, like God.



I just wanted to point out that Peter uses a different word than the one used by the writer of Hebrews.


(Hebrews 1:3) He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

G5287
ὑπόστασις
hupostasis
hoop-os'-tas-is
From a compound of G5259 and G2476; a setting under (support), that is, (figuratively) concretely essence, or abstractly assurance (objectively or subjectively): - confidence, confident, person, substance.
(Strong’s)

(2 Peter 1:4) by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.

G5449
φύσις
phusis
foo'-sis
From G5453; growth (by germination or expansion), that is, (by implication) natural production (lineal descent); by extension a genus or sort; figuratively native disposition, constitution or usage: - ([man-]) kind, nature ([-al]).
(Strong’s)

God bless
JAY-PC

[Cal_Minian]

According to the NWT in Titus 2:13

"While we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] savior of us Christ Jesus.

First off, it's interesting that the WT says that if you don't have the article in John 1:1 it should be translated as "a god" but right here where there is no article, it's perfectly acceptable to add the word "the" and it's not theological bias.

Secondly and a question that I think seems more glaring....

Where do you ever read anything where Jesus talks about God the Father appearing at the Second Coming? Especially since JWs make it clear that no one can see God and live. If the Father isn't coming at the Second Coming, then the text can only refer to the coming of Jesus and address him as our God and Savior.

ApologiaNick,
How are your Greek studies going? You fail to distinguish between the use and non-use of the article in different Greek syntax. In John 1:1 the anarthrous QEOS in found in a PVAPN (Preverbal Anarthrous Predicate Nominative). This is not the case in Titus 2:13.

Please see my research on BDAG and this verse in my signature.

[Sparko]

yeah and if one reads the whole thread of the posts you link in your sig, cal, instead of the single posts you link to, he finds that people like Jaltus who actually KNOW greek, have repudiated your 'studies' thoroughly. Nice try though.

[Cal_Minian]

yeah and if one reads the whole thread of the posts you link in your sig, cal, instead of the single posts you link to, he finds that people like Jaltus who actually KNOW greek, have repudiated your 'studies' thoroughly. Nice try though.

Actually, Jaltus (whom I respect) did not respond to that thread, see below. So _nice try_ back to you!

[Sparko]

Actually, Jaltus (whom I respect) did not respond to that thread, see below. So _nice try_ back to you!

see your link to John 1:1 and read the whole thread.

[Cal_Minian]

see your link to John 1:1 and read the whole thread.

I did, and Jaltus did not add anything which refuted me. My post is the last one in the thread.

[Anarthrous]

Does anyone here think it would be beneficial to the discussion to examine other verses written by Paul? Other verses may reflect on what Paul meant in Titus 2:13.

Are there other verses in the many letters of Paul where he reveals the same supposed meaning that ApologiaNick is asserting?

If on the other hand, there are many verses that flatly repudiate the meaning ApologiaNick is asserting, is it logical to conclude that Nick is still correct anyways?

Otherwise, it seems this is just another 'debate about words' which furnish nothing good

[Cal_Minian]

Does anyone here think it would be beneficial to the discussion to examine other verses written by Paul? Other verses may reflect on what Paul meant in Titus 2:13.

Are there other verses in the many letters of Paul where he reveals the same supposed meaning that ApologiaNick is asserting?

If on the other hand, there are many verses that flatly repudiate the meaning ApologiaNick is asserting, is it logical to conclude that Nick is still correct anyways?

Otherwise, it seems this is just another 'debate about words' which furnish nothing good

Yes,
There is a great deal of value in looking at what a particular writer wrote on the same subject, in context. What do you have in mind (and good to meet you!)

BTW see the link in my .sig for Titus 2:13 in BDAG

Regards,
Cal Minian

[Anarthrous]

Yes,
There is a great deal of value in looking at what a particular writer wrote on the same subject, in context. What do you have in mind (and good to meet you!)

BTW see the link in my .sig for Titus 2:13 in BDAG

Regards,
Cal Minian

Nice to meet you too.
I was thinking (from NIV):
1 Cor 8:5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

1 Cor 11:3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Heb 2:11Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers. (If the Trinity is true, then we are brothers of God, who do we worship then? maybe ourselves...hmmm)

Heb 5:7During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

Jude 25to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

[FlimFlamboyant]

Does anyone here think it would be beneficial to the discussion to examine other verses written by Paul? Other verses may reflect on what Paul meant in Titus 2:13.

Are there other verses in the many letters of Paul where he reveals the same supposed meaning that ApologiaNick is asserting?
I was thinking more along the lines of going elsewhere. There are a lot of pages in this thread, and I appologize if this has been dealt with already, but:

(Isa 43:11) I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

(Isa 45:21) Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Compared with:

(Tit 2:13) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

[Cal_Minian]

I was thinking more along the lines of going elsewhere. There are a lot of pages in this thread, and I appologize if this has been dealt with already, but:

(Isa 43:11) I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

(Isa 45:21) Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Compared with:

(Tit 2:13) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Dear Flim,
The Father is the source or creator of salvation and the Son is his means of saving. -- NRS 1 John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world.

God has sent others in the past who also were called savior such as Ehud -- ASV Judges 3:15 But when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, Jehovah raised them up a saviour, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a man left-handed. And the children of Israel sent tribute by him unto Eglon the king of Moab.

But please to not call Ehud God.... Ehud was the instrument of God in Salvation.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[FlimFlamboyant]

Dear Flim,
The Father is the source or creator of salvation and the Son is his means of saving. -- NRS 1 John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world.
Unfortunately, that's not Titus 2:13, which comes straight out and calls Jesus Christ "our savior". As far as that goes, John 4:14 is saying the same thing. I wonder, why is it appropriate to call God (Jehovah) our savior on the basis of verses like this:

(Tit 1:3) But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

... But not ok to call Jesus our savior in the same sense on the basis of verses like this:

(Tit 1:4) To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

?

Why couldn't I use your logic and (borrowing some foolishness from modern atheist pop-culture) say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is our saviour, and Jehovah is just the means by which he saves us?

How do you make a distinction if you don't go in to it with the preconceived notion that Jesus is not God in flesh?

God has sent others in the past who also were called savior such as Ehud -- ASV Judges 3:15 But when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, Jehovah raised them up a saviour, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a man left-handed. And the children of Israel sent tribute by him unto Eglon the king of Moab.
The same question would apply here. Jesus is said to be our savior, but not only that, but our redeemer, the King of Israel, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. That's quite a job description for a guy who's simply "a means".

[Sparko]

Flim Flam, I said much the same to Cal in another thread and even gave him a list of verses that showed that God in the OT made exclusive claims to certain titles and functions of himself (Savior, Judge, Shepherd, First and Last, etc) and that the NT shows being assigned to Jesus, thereby equating the two.

He merely ignored them.

see: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1539210&postcount=160

[FlimFlamboyant]

Flim Flam, I said much the same to Cal in another thread and even gave him a list of verses that showed that God in the OT made exclusive claims to certain titles and functions of himself (Savior, Judge, Shepherd, First and Last, etc) and that the NT shows being assigned to Jesus, thereby equating the two.

He merely ignored them.

see: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1539210&postcount=160
Ah yes, that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? I certainly don't see the need to add anything to that. The response is quite telling.

[Cal_Minian]

Unfortunately, that's not Titus 2:13, which comes straight out and calls Jesus Christ "our savior". As far as that goes, John 4:14 is saying the same thing. I wonder, why is it appropriate to call God (Jehovah) our savior on the basis of verses like this:

(Tit 1:3) But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

... But not ok to call Jesus our savior in the same sense on the basis of verses like this:

(Tit 1:4) To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

?

Why couldn't I use your logic and (borrowing some foolishness from modern atheist pop-culture) say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is our saviour, and Jehovah is just the means by which he saves us?

How do you make a distinction if you don't go in to it with the preconceived notion that Jesus is not God in flesh?


The same question would apply here. Jesus is said to be our savior, but not only that, but our redeemer, the King of Israel, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. That's quite a job description for a guy who's simply "a means".

Both Trinitarians and JWs distinguish between the roles of Father and Son.
========================================================

But you are failing to distinguish between the roles of Father and Son in the same manner as do Oneness Pentecostals. In the OT it is Jehovah who provides another person as a savior. In the NT it is the Father who provides another person as a savior. This identifies Jehovah as the Father.

The Father sent his Son as the Savior -- NRS 1 John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world.

The Father exalted the Son which resulted him in being Savior. -- NRS Acts 5:31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

The Father is the source of Salvation -- NRS 1 Corinthians 1:29 so that no one might boast in the presence of God. 30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, [Of this verse BDAG says "DIKAIOSUHN - 1 Cor 1:30 of Christ as instrument of God’s gift of d.; ]

Therefore the Son is the instrument of Salvation, not the author of Salvation. The Father sends the Son in the context of Salvation which does not mean equality, it means as the one sent he is the servant and his Father is the master. Jesus explained it this way:

NRS John 13:16 Very truly, I tell you, servants are not greater than their master, nor are messengers greater than the one who sent them.

New Topics you introduced with no proof.
===================================

If you wish to make a case for the title "first and last" making Jesus God, go for it. You have not done so and from what I can see you ignore the contexts.

As for the King, it is the Father who appointed him King. No equality there.

And you have not proven that the Son is the Alpha and Omega. Again without seeing more I cannot say for sure because you have not even begun to argue for this.... but from experience I can say in advance that you ignore the context and grammar of the passages in question.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[FlimFlamboyant]

Both Trinitarians and JWs distinguish between the roles of Father and Son.
Certainly there are some differences there, yes.

But you are failing to distinguish between the roles of Father and Son in the same manner as do Oneness Pentecostals. In the OT it is Jehovah who provides another person as a savior. In the NT it is the Father who provides another person as a savior. This identifies Jehovah as the Father.
I never claimed that the Son is the Father.

The Father sent his Son as the Savior -- NRS 1 John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world.

The Father exalted the Son which resulted him in being Savior. -- NRS Acts 5:31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.
No problems there.

The Father is the source of Salvation -- NRS 1 Corinthians 1:29 so that no one might boast in the presence of God. 30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, [Of this verse BDAG says "DIKAIOSUHN - 1 Cor 1:30 of Christ as instrument of God’s gift of d.; ]

Therefore the Son is the instrument of Salvation, not the author of Salvation. The Father sends the Son in the context of Salvation which does not mean equality, it means as the one sent he is the servant and his Father is the master.
I think you're confusing the fleshly Jesus with the spirit that inhabited him. Is the fleshly man, Jesus, the "Alpha and Omega"? No. That didn't even exist before he popped out of Mary. But the Word that was made flesh most certainly is. That is how he could claim pre-existance to Abraham despite the fact that he inhabited a temporal, fleshly body at the time.

If you wish to make a case for the title "first and last" making Jesus God, go for it. You have not done so and from what I can see you ignore the contexts.
I guess I don't see why I would need to, beings that Sparko did so already in another thread that he references up above, and you supplied no rebuttal to any of the points he brought up, apparently under the assumption that a rebuttal to a point that he didn't even make would suffice.

[Cal_Minian]

Certainly there are some differences there, yes.


I never claimed that the Son is the Father.

no problems there.


I think you're confusing the fleshly Jesus with the spirit that inhabited him. Is the fleshly man, Jesus, the "Alpha and Omega"? No. That didn't even exist before he popped out of Mary. But the Word that was made flesh most certainly is. That is how he could claim pre-existance to Abraham despite the fact that he inhabited a temporal, fleshly body at the time.


I guess I don't see why I would need to, beings that Sparko did so already in another thread that he references up above, and you supplied no rebuttal to any of the points he brought up, apparently under the assumption that a rebuttal to a point that he didn't even make would suffice.

No, Sparko did NOT exegete those texts even though he added them to a thread on another subject in the Biblical Languages section.

If someone does not exegete the Greek/Hebrew when they post in that section I figure that it is off-topic.

That being said, if I recall, he did not do more than quote the Scriptures and assume he was right, just like you did.

As for your other comments, I know that you do not identify the Father as the same person as the Son but your arguments are no different than Oneness Pentecostal. They say the Father is Savior and the Son is Savior and so they are both God. The difference is that in their case they are arguing correctly for their position.

They do not need to distinguish between the one who is the source of salvation and the one who is the means of salvation because to them the Father and Son are the same person.

Therefore while you protest that you are a Trinitarian who does not identify the Father and Son as being the same person, you do mix the personal functions of the one who sends and the one who is the instrument of salvation, so the end result is the same.

You might want to attend a few Oneness Pentecostal meetings because from what I see so far you will like what you hear.

Do you speak in tongues yet?



:cheers:

[FlimFlamboyant]

No, Sparko did NOT exegete those texts even though he added them to a thread on another subject in the Biblical Languages section.

If someone does not exegete the Greek/Hebrew when they post in that section I figure that it is off-topic.
Ok. Would you like to do it here instead?

That being said, if I recall, he did not do more than quote the Scriptures and assume he was right, just like you did.
Just like everyone does.

As for your other comments, I know that you do not identify the Father as the same person as the Son but your arguments are no different than Oneness Pentecostal. They say the Father is Savior and the Son is Savior and so they are both God. The difference is that in their case they are arguing correctly for their position.
I am not familiar with the Oneness Pentecostal position, so I can't comment.

Therefore while you protest that you are a Trinitarian who does not identify the Father and Son as being the same person, you do mix the personal functions of the one who sends and the one who is the instrument of salvation, so the end result is the same.
:shrug: Again, I'm not familiar enough with their position to have an opinion on that.

You might want to attend a few Oneness Pentecostal meetings because from what I see so far you will like what you hear.

Do you speak in tongues yet?
Nah, tongues (and other such gifts designed to help the early church) were discarded when the Body of Christ became a mature, self-sustaining entity (1 Cor 13, Eph 4).

[Sparko]

Cal's error is in assuming trinitarians think of "God" as some container for three beings, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We don't.

God is the supreme BEING who is revealed in three persons. So when God says he alone is saviour that doesn't mean that only one of the three persons of the trinity can be Savior, it means all three are. The Father is Savior, The Son is Savior, and the Holy Spirit is Savior and still God is savior alone.

So his argument that Jesus is not God because the Father saves through Jesus is nonsensical to a trinitarian. Same with his argument against Jesus being creator.

[FlimFlamboyant]

So his argument that Jesus is not God because the Father saves through Jesus is nonsensical to a trinitarian. Same with his argument against Jesus being creator.
Yeah, I guess I'm a bit perplexed by that as well.

[Cal_Minian]

Yeah, I guess I'm a bit perplexed by that as well.

That is not my argument at all. I do not argue that Jesus is not one person of a Triune God because he was sent by the Father to save.

May I remind you that it is your (modalistic!) argument that Jesus is God because both the Father and Son are called savior?

Therefore you have the burden of proof, this being your proof text.

My point is that they are not savior in the same way and also that the Father also sent other saviors like Ehud, albeit to save different people from a different fate, but called savior in Scripture, nonetheless.



:cheers: