Wrong. I explained my position and I also gave you a source, the NIV Study Bible.
Wrong? How?
Your post>=
You don’t really seem to understand the point of this interpretation which many trinitarian scholars agree with.
This argument is a logical fallacy. Fallacy of Anonymous Authority.
“When an unspecified sources are used as evidence for the claim. This is commonly indicated by the phrases such as “they said, that it has been said, I heard that, studies show’ or generalize groups such as ‘scientists say’. When we fail to specify a source of the authority we cannot verify the source, thus the credibility of the argument. Appeals to anonymous sources are more often than not either a way to fabricate, exaggerate, or misrepresent facts in order to deceive others into accepting a claim.” [Logically Fallacious]
False again. No analogy has to be alike in all aspects, that’s why it’s called an analogy. You might want to learn the definition of analogy.
Read again, there is a difference between alike in all aspects vs alike in trivial ways.
Analogy = a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.
The only thing your 'pie' example and Gen 1:26-27 have in common is 'let's make'.
If we only had v.26 then you might have a point but unfortunately for you, there’s more like for example, v. 27.
Vs. 27 does not help your argument, in fact it disproves it.
Try to follow the trail. Whoever created in vs 27 [God] is the 'Us', 'Our' in vs 26 [God].
Correct. This is how we know that even though God spoke to others he acted alone.
Following the sentence structure and grammar you are wrong.
Notice what God said, "Us make..." " Our image", " Our likeness". If God was speaking to the angles then God would have created man in the image of God and angles, whether or not it was God alone or with the angels. Vs.27 states that God created man in His image and likeness alone. Whoever "Us" is, is the one that man was made in the image and likeness of. vs27 =YHWH alone.
The way plural pronouns like “us” and “our” work is that they refer to the one speaking and to others. Since we know it was Elohim (YHWH) speaking then it logically follows he was speaking to others besides himself yet still he acted alone as v. 27 and the rest of scriptures state.
“Context rules”. Meaning “that which goes with the text.” When you interpret Scripture it must always be considered in light of the surrounding verses and chapters, the book in which it is found, and the entire word of God, in such order.
Interpreting vs 26 while ignoring vs 27 is bad scholarship.
Vs 26 creation is a future event by X , in the image and likeness of X. Vs 27 creation is a past event, man is made in the image and likeness of X. Who is X by name? Elohim.
You can define who "Us" is by the immediate text, but you cannot interpret the immediate text by your idea of who "Us" is.
So no, there isn’t a “plurality and singularity when it comes to God” as you keep falsely asserting.
Wave you hand all you want, vs 26 and 27 you have God being addressed in plurality and singularity.
Both God and Jesus are our Saviors because it is God who saves us through Jesus Christ. Paul always distinguishes between Jesus and God yet you want to ignore that when it comes to 2:13.
It's literal or figurative, but not both. Notice how you accept every verse as literal with the exception of 2:13 which you have to explain. Note, you explanation of 2:13 disagrees with the grammar of 2:13.
1:3 according to the commandment of God our Savior; = God is our Savior.
1:4 God the Father and [
a]the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior. = The Father is God and Jesus is our Savior.
2:10...the doctrine of God our Savior ... =God is our Savior
2:13...our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,...Jesus is identified as God and Savior.
3:4...God our Savior...
3:6...Jesus Christ our Savior...
Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either the above is literal or non-literal, but not both.
Also, Paul is not saying that both God and Jesus are going to appear but rather the glory of God and Jesus Christ. We know this is true because Jesus himself said it in Matt. 16:27, Luke 9:26 and Mark 8:38.
That would work if the text read. "looking for the blessed hope and appearing of our great God's glory and Savior Jesus Christ,"
Sorry, the grammatical structure and rules does not support this.
Ti 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης
ἐλπίς καί ἐπιφάνεια ὁ δόξα
hope and appearance of the splendor
We are looking for the “glorious appearance” not the “appearance of glory” and the grammatical basis for this view is the widely acknowledged fact that a descriptive noun in the genitive [glory] following another noun[appearance] may exhibit an attributive use of the genitive, in which the noun functions as a description of the preceding(or “head”) noun. In this view, glory is what characterizes the appearance.
First, please explain why translators don’t apply this rule consistently in 2 Thes. 1:12 where Paul uses that exact same grammatical construction:
τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
I doubt you’ll be able to explain it but I’ll be happy to.
Child's play.
Grammatically Sharp's rule is solid. One must argue solely on theological grounds against these passages. There is truly no real grammatical objection that can be raised.
In 2 Thes 1:12 we could argue for "our God and Lord Jesus Christ" if we were arguing the grammar only and ignore the immediate text. The grammar does support it. But against the background of the chapter 'our God and the Lord Jesus Christ' fits best.
2 The 1:2 "
Grace and peace to you from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
1:12 that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and you in Him, according t
o the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Also according to Sharpe's rule
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*.
1:12 that
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and you in Him, according to the grace of our God and the
Lord Jesus Christ.
'Lord Jesus Christ' is a common tittle found in the epistles, thus partaking of the properties of a proper name, Sharpe's rule does not apply.
The reason is that God is never actually referred to by his proper name YHWH in the NT.
'YHWH' is Hebrew. 'Theos' or 'ho theos' is Greek
The majority of the time he is simply referred to as God (over 1,300 times) or Father (about 250 times). So although “God” is technically a title, it’s used as if it were a proper name for YHWH most of the time, including in all of Paul and Peter’s epistles (over 550 instances).
If God is a proper noun then I do not need a definite article, for the proper noun identifies Theos as YHWH. Therefore John 1:1c 'And the Logos was YHWH". See the position you placed yourself in. Either Theos is a proper name or not. If a proper name then 2 Pe 1:1 speaks of two individuals and John 1:1c identifies Jesus as YHWH. If not a proper name then John 1:1c does not explicitly identify Jesus as God, but 2 Pe 1:1 does.
Pick you poison.
But still, even if Jesus is called “God” as he is in Heb. 1:8, it still doesn’t follow that he is God as in YHWH is God because Jesus has a God and YHWH doesn’t.
Jesus is not just called God 'theos' but 'ho theos' = the God. =YHWH. If Jesus is called God and is not YHWH we have polytheism.
You seem to be hung up on "God your God" in the verse.
Question: Would two individuals being equal in quality and quantity negate them from mutual admiration or a relationship? I a human have a father/son relationship with another man. Jesus who is deity has a Father/Son relationship with another deity. If I a human man can hold another human man in reverence as human; why can't Jesus who is deity hold another deity in reverence as deity ?
Note the following.
John 20:17 "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" According to Jesus He returned to His God and to our God, He returned to His Father and our Father. But who did He return to? Who is Jesus' Father vs our Father? Who is Jesus' God vs. our God?
This is because of the relationship between Jesus and God vs. humanity and God. If Jesus is a created being should have addressed it as our God and our Father. Jesus said this because He is God’s Son by nature vs. humanity being God’s children by creation.