YHWH PIERCED = JESUS PIERCED

So YHWH is YHWH’s shepherd?? This is blatant polytheism.

Zech. 12:10 clearly distinguishes “ME” and “HIM” so YHWH isn’t the one pierced in Zech. 12:10 or in John 19:37, Jesus is. This verse, the next chapter and the rest of the Bible distinguishes YHWH and Jesus.
“Whom they have pierced” , is defining or clarifying who “Me”is. It’s hard to get around it. Outside the Trinity it’s polytheism.
 
Neither Gen 3:22 nor 11:7 mentions any council or heavenly court.

Isaiah 6:8 No mention of a heavenly council or court. Note again prophets only represent God, not angels.
Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying:
“Whom shall I send,
And who will go for Us?”
Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.”

1 Ki 22:19-23 does mention a heavenly court.

Job 15:8 and Jer 23:18 refer to counsel, not a council.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness..."
Notice the plurality = Us and Our. Following your reasoning to a logical conclusion, the image and likeness that man is made in is the image and likeness of God and/or His heavenly court.
Is that the case?
Vs 26 "Let Us make..." Future event.
Vs 27 "So God created" past event.
Notice vs 27 does not mention any angles or council but God alone created in His image and His likeness.
vs 27"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
You don’t really seem to understand the point of this interpretation which many trinitarian scholars agree with. God was speaking to the angels which we know were present at creation (Job 38:4-7) yet he acted on his own as v. 27 makes quite clear. It’s like if I say to my family, ‘let’s make a pie for dessert tonight’ yet in the end I’m the only one who actually makes it. So even though God included the angels when announcing it, he is the one actually did the creating by himself and in his own image. The rest of scriptures, including Jesus in Matt. 19:4, leave no doubt that only one person is the creator, alone. I can cite many more verses if you need.

2 Pe 1:1 ...by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
Ti 2:13 ...our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
“appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Paul echos Jesus words in Matt. 16:27 “For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father

2 Pet. 1:1 “through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him {Jesus}, “My Lord and my God!”
Thomas saw both Jesus and the Father who dwells in through the work of the resurrection just as Jesus said in John 14 “the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

This is exactly what Thomas believed.
But to the Son He says:

“Your throne, O God [ho theos], is forever and ever;

A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;

Therefore God [ho theos], Your God [ho theos], has anointed You

With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
I’m glad you quoted both verses because it clearly shows that Jesus has a God which clearly proves that θεος does not apply to Jesus as it does to YHWH because YHWH does NOT have a God, Jesus does.
The Father uses ho thoes to identify Himself as the true God, and uses the same ho thoes to identify the Son as the true God. Following logic and reason if ho theos does not identify the Son as the True God, then ho theos does not identify the Father as the True God.
“True God” isn’t mentioned in this verse. If you’re implying that having the article “ὁ” present means it refers to the “true God” then it proves you don’t understand Greek.
Jn 14:26 But the [a]Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

Notice Jesus identifies the HS as someone separate from the Father. How does 'interchangeably' apply here?
How can the HS be a separate, cognitive, consciousness separate from the Father if it is the Father?
It’s called personification, YHWH interacts and works through his spirit which we see throughout the Bible.
"Ho Theos" refers to YHWH with the exception where it is heavily modified to identify someone else.
2 Cor 4:4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded...
Satan is identified as "ho theos tou aionos" =the god of this age. ..

I said, “You are [a]gods,
And all of you are children of the Most High.
But you shall die like men,
Elohym carries several meanings including + rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power:
I’m glad you’re aware of the different meanings Elohim/Theos has so it should not come as a surprise when Jesus is called Elohim/Theos since he is God’s representative.

Notice
“Elowahh” [singular] translates to God 52 times and its plural form “elohiym” is used 2347 times referring to Jehovah God.
Why would God inspire the authors to write confusion? Why inspire to use the plural form when the singular form exists? Because God is a unity of plurality.
Wrong, Elohim (plural) is used to refer to a false god as well like we see in Jud. 8:33/11:24 1 Sam. 5:7.

There is no confusion on why Elohim is used of and by YHWH. Eloah, though used a few times in scriptures, is not the common way to refer to any god by anyone in Hebrew, it’s just how that language works.

If the plural had some hidden or special meaning like you’re trying to assert then the biblical authors would’ve used the plural form of θεος (θείος) for God in the NT as well but they didn’t, not once.
YHWH Elohym YHWH alone? You just argued that He operates with His heavenly council.
Yes, YHWH alone is God, not his council. Not sure what the confusion is.
There is no need to translate ehad as alone.
Note.
Is 37:20 Now therefore, O Lord our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that You are the Lord, You alone.
Alone is a correct interpretation because that is what the verse is saying, YHWH is our God, YHWH alone. The Jews had a bad habit of turning to other gods so YHWH had them recite this every day and night and their children as well so that they don’t forget who alone is their God. Unfortunately, they continued making the same mistake.
Read again. John wrote that Isaiah saw Jesus' glory when Isaiah wrote either or both chapters 6 and 53.
This is where you are mistaken, John is not referring to Isaiah seeing YHWH in 6:1-5 and then writing all of chapter 6 and 53. John is simply pointing to the fact that Isaiah the prophet saw, as all prophets do, Jesus’ glory and wrote about it.

Isaiah wrote a lot of prophecies about Jesus but John singled out two of them because these two were specifically being fulfilled at that moment.

And in chapter 6 Isaiah saw the glory of God. Nothing in John's text states that John saw the future glory of Jesus.
Future glory of the Messiah from Isaiah perspective but present in John’s time when he saw those prophecies fulfilled.
Also the NIV is not a good translation to use.
All the scholars are still trinitarian and agree that Gen. 1:26 is about God and his heavenly court. I myself have issues with all translations done by trinitarians because their bias is clearly seen in many verses but it doesn’t mean they’re always biased.
 
“Whom they have pierced” , is defining or clarifying who “Me”is. It’s hard to get around it.
No need to get around anything. Whom they have pierced refers to “him” not “Me”. YHWH was not pierced, YHWH did not and cannot die, Jesus did.
Outside the Trinity it’s polytheism.
The trinity is polytheism no matter how fervently trinitarians refuse to accept it. There’s only one true God, YHWH and he is Jesus’ God and Father. Belief in any other God aside from Jesus’ God is polytheism
 
Last edited:
So YHWH is YHWH’s shepherd?? This is blatant polytheism.

Zech. 12:10 clearly distinguishes “ME” and “HIM” so YHWH isn’t the one pierced in Zech. 12:10 or in John 19:37, Jesus is. This verse, the next chapter and the rest of the Bible distinguishes YHWH and Jesus.
God ALONE is The Good and Great Shepherd of the sheep.
There is NO other.
 
You don’t really seem to understand the point of this interpretation which many trinitarian scholars agree with. God was speaking to the angels which we know were present at creation (Job 38:4-7) yet he acted on his own as v. 27 makes quite clear. It’s like if I say to my family, ‘let’s make a pie for dessert tonight’ yet in the end I’m the only one who actually makes it. So even though God included the angels when announcing it, he is the one actually did the creating by himself and in his own image. The rest of scriptures, including Jesus in Matt. 19:4, leave no doubt that only one person is the creator, alone. I can cite many more verses if you need.


“appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Paul echos Jesus words in Matt. 16:27 “For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father

2 Pet. 1:1 “through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”


Thomas saw both Jesus and the Father who dwells in through the work of the resurrection just as Jesus said in John 14 “the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

This is exactly what Thomas believed.

I’m glad you quoted both verses because it clearly shows that Jesus has a God which clearly proves that θεος does not apply to Jesus as it does to YHWH because YHWH does NOT have a God, Jesus does.

“True God” isn’t mentioned in this verse. If you’re implying that having the article “ὁ” present means it refers to the “true God” then it proves you don’t understand Greek.

It’s called personification, YHWH interacts and works through his spirit which we see throughout the Bible.

I’m glad you’re aware of the different meanings Elohim/Theos has so it should not come as a surprise when Jesus is called Elohim/Theos since he is God’s representative.


Wrong, Elohim (plural) is used to refer to a false god as well like we see in Jud. 8:33/11:24 1 Sam. 5:7.

There is no confusion on why Elohim is used of and by YHWH. Eloah, though used a few times in scriptures, is not the common way to refer to any god by anyone in Hebrew, it’s just how that language works.

If the plural had some hidden or special meaning like you’re trying to assert then the biblical authors would’ve used the plural form of θεος (θείος) for God in the NT as well but they didn’t, not once.

Yes, YHWH alone is God, not his council. Not sure what the confusion is.

Alone is a correct interpretation because that is what the verse is saying, YHWH is our God, YHWH alone. The Jews had a bad habit of turning to other gods so YHWH had them recite this every day and night and their children as well so that they don’t forget who alone is their God. Unfortunately, they continued making the same mistake.

This is where you are mistaken, John is not referring to Isaiah seeing YHWH in 6:1-5 and then writing all of chapter 6 and 53. John is simply pointing to the fact that Isaiah the prophet saw, as all prophets do, Jesus’ glory and wrote about it.

Isaiah wrote a lot of prophecies about Jesus but John singled out two of them because these two were specifically being fulfilled at that moment.


Future glory of the Messiah from Isaiah perspective but present in John’s time when he saw those prophecies fulfilled.

All the scholars are still trinitarian and agree that Gen. 1:26 is about God and his heavenly court. I myself have issues with all translations done by trinitarians because their bias is clearly seen in many verses but it doesn’t mean they’re always biased.
Man is made in the image of God, NOT angels. Thus The us and our of Gen. 1:26 CANNOT possibly refer to angels.
In Isaiah 6 Isaiah sees the glory of God. John 12:41 says he saw the glory of Jesus. And nothing in Isaiah 6 states anything concerning the future glory of anyone.
NO representative of God is EVER called God. Was Moses, Joshua, the prophets, the apostles????
 
So YHWH is YHWH’s shepherd?? This is blatant polytheism.

Zech. 12:10 clearly distinguishes “ME” and “HIM” so YHWH isn’t the one pierced in Zech. 12:10 or in John 19:37, Jesus is. This verse, the next chapter and the rest of the Bible distinguishes YHWH and Jesus.
Why do the grammatical rules apply when you think it's in your favor, but not otherwise. Following the sentence structure and grammatical rules {how אֵ ת applies }, 'whom they have pierced' defines and clarifies who "Me" is.

Does the Bible distinguish between YHWH and Jesus?

Implicit vs explicit. Read several post implicitly promoting the idea that more than one individual [in Scripture] is addressed as God. Since explicit trumps implicit, I submit the following. Below is Isaiah 44:6 were two individuals are identified as YHWH, = YHWH the King of Israel and YHWH the Lord of Host, both claiming to be First and Last and claiming singularity by addressing themselves as “Me”.

Isaiah 44:6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And His Redeemer, the Lord of host, :I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God. {NKJV}

In the original “Lord” is translated from YHWH therefore this verse reads. “Thus says YHWH, the King of Israel, and His Redeemer, YHWH, Lord of host, I am the First and I am the Last, Besides Me the is no God.


כה thus --- אמר he said -- יהוה: Yahweh -- מלך king of-- ישׂראל: Israel-- ו: and-- גאל redeemer

הוא his/him-- יהוה: Yahweh of-- צבא hosts-- אני I-- ראשׁון first-- ו: and-- אני I-- אחרון: last—

ו: and--- מן from--- בלעדי: without-- אני me-- אין does not exist-- אלהים: God
 
Why do the grammatical rules apply when you think it's in your favor, but not otherwise. Following the sentence structure and grammatical rules {how אֵ ת applies }, 'whom they have pierced' defines and clarifies who "Me" is.
You didn’t answer the question, do you believe YHWH is YHWH’s shepherd?

You’re the one applying grammatical rules where you please while ignoring the context.

I’ve clearly shown that in context there is a distinction between YHWH “me” and “him” the one whom they pierced and whom they will mourn for. You just ignore this because you think YHWH died which is absurd.
Does the Bible distinguish between YHWH and Jesus?
Yes, explicitly so and here are just 3 verses but there are hundreds more.

Psalm 2:7 “I will surely tell of the decree of YHWH: He said to me, ‘you are my son, today I have begotten you.

Is. 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord YHWH is upon me, Because YHWH has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted.”

Ezek. 34:23 “Then I will set over them one shepherd, My servant David, and he will feed them; he will feed them himself and be their shepherd. “And I, YHWH, will be their God, and My servant David will be prince among them; I YHWH have spoken.”
Implicit vs explicit. Read several post implicitly promoting the idea that more than one individual [in Scripture] is addressed as God.
Elohim is a title that can and does apply to others apart from YHWH but YHWH is still the only true God.
Since explicit trumps implicit,
I hope you don’t ignore the explicit verses I cited above that undeniably distinguishes YHWH from Jesus. But just in case here’s another verse spoken by Jesus himself.

“Believe in God; believe also in me”

So tell me, which God was he referring to here, YHWH or the trinity?

I submit the following. Below is Isaiah 44:6 were two individuals are identified as YHWH, = YHWH the King of Israel and YHWH the Lord of Host, both claiming to be First and Last and claiming singularity by addressing themselves as “Me”.

Isaiah 44:6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And His Redeemer, the Lord of host, :I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God. {NKJV}

In the original “Lord” is translated from YHWH therefore this verse reads. “Thus says YHWH, the King of Israel, and His Redeemer, YHWH, Lord of host, I am the First and I am the Last, Besides Me the is no God.


כה thus --- אמר he said -- יהוה: Yahweh -- מלך king of-- ישׂראל: Israel-- ו: and-- גאל redeemer

הוא his/him-- יהוה: Yahweh of-- צבא hosts-- אני I-- ראשׁון first-- ו: and-- אני I-- אחרון: last—

ו: and--- מן from--- בלעדי: without-- אני me-- אין does not exist-- אלהים: God
Thus says YHWH, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, YHWH of hosts:

There aren’t two individuals being identified as YHWH here. Isaiah is simply referring to YHWH in 3 different ways.

1. The King of Israel
2. His (Israel’s) Redeemer
3. YHWH of hosts

Then Isaiah quotes what YHWH says:

“I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.”

If you’re not aware “me” is a singular personal pronoun which indicates one single individual.
 
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]
God was speaking to the angels which we know were present at creation (Job 38:4-7) yet he acted on his own as v. 27 makes quite clear. It’s like if I say to my family, ‘let’s make a pie for dessert tonight’ yet in the end I’m the only one who actually makes it. So even though God included the angels when announcing it, he is the one actually did the creating by himself and in his own image. The rest of scriptures, including Jesus in Matt. 19:4, leave no doubt that only one person is the creator, alone. I can cite many more verses if you need.
Fallacy of false analogy = just because the issues at hand are alike in trivial ways it does not make it relevant to the conclusion.
The only thing your 'pie' example and Gen 1:26-27 have in common is 'let's make'.

Let's put your example to the test.
Then JNelson said, “Let Us make a pie in Our image, according to Our likeness...7 So JNelson created a pie in His own image; in the image of JNelson He created a pie...

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 make in the image and likeness of. vs27 =YHWH alone.
Notice here you have plurality and singularity when it comes to God.
“appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Paul echos Jesus words in Matt. 16:27 “For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father
Pay attention to the grammar because it does not agree.
appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ =two individuals will appear God AND our Savior...
Matt. 16:27 “For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father”...The Father does not appear only Jesus [with his angels].

You are identifying one individual as God and another as Lord and Savior. This might pass if held in isolation. But if we read Titus in its entirety we see a different picture.
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...
2 Pet. 1:1 “through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”
Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

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.

The same rule is followed in 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, and 3:18 and is accepted, but for some unknown reason 1:1 is debated heavily.
1:1: tou theou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou
1:11: tou kuriou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou
Thomas saw both Jesus and the Father who dwells in through the work of the resurrection just as Jesus said in John 14 “the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
Jesus states that no one has seen or heard The Father.
Jn 6:46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.
Jn 5:37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nnor seen His form.

Now you write that Thomas saw the Father, but we have nothing from the NT authors or ECF that support your statement.

28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
Who was Thomas speaking to? Jesus. What did Thomas say to Jesus. "The Lord of me and the God of me." Thomas said to Jesus "ho theos' identifying Jesus as YHWH.

This is exactly what Thomas believed.
Chapter and verse please.
 
I’m glad you quoted both verses because it clearly shows that Jesus has a God which clearly proves that θεος does not apply to Jesus as it does to YHWH because YHWH does NOT have a God, Jesus does.
Again you leave a can of worms open. How does 'ho theos' apply to Jesus? It is not heavily modified to mean anything else than God or in your case a god, which puts your argument in polytheism.
“True God” isn’t mentioned in this verse. If you’re implying that having the article “ὁ” present means it refers to the “true God” then it proves you don’t understand Greek.
Care to prove your point?

Greek 101 The Greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into English as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of. "Ho Theos" refers to YHWH with the exception where it is heavily modified to identify someone else.

It’s called personification, YHWH interacts and works through his spirit which we see throughout the Bible.
Personification assets human characteristics onto an inanimate object to better describe it. Is the HS now considered an inanimate object if it is the spirit of God?

With the above in mind. What human attribute did Jesus 'personify' when He said.
Jn 14:26 But the [a]Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
I don't see it.
I’m glad you’re aware of the different meanings Elohim/Theos has so it should not come as a surprise when Jesus is called Elohim/Theos since he is God’s representative.
Again you are missing the main piece. "Ho Theos" refers to YHWH with the exception where it is heavily modified to identify someone else.
Wrong, Elohim (plural) is used to refer to a false god as well like we see in Jud. 8:33/11:24 1 Sam. 5:7.
Seems I forgot to continue to labor this issue with you. I posted several times when elohym is used to identify something other than YHWH it is modified in order to do so. Since we agree on this topic are we able to move on?

There is no confusion on why Elohim is used of and by YHWH. Eloah, though used a few times in scriptures, is not the common way to refer to any god by anyone in Hebrew, it’s just how that language works.
I agree there is no confusion. Elohim describes YHWH best. A plurality and singularity. Your god seems to be confused as to how he wants to be known. A singularity that insists on being addressed as a plurality while at the same time punishing anyone who believes in polytheism.
If the plural had some hidden or special meaning like you’re trying to assert then the biblical authors would’ve used the plural form of θεος (θείος) for God in the NT as well but they didn’t, not once.
There was no need for that. The NT authors identified Jesus as God.
And that is supported by the ECF
Just on Jn 1:1
Irenaeus Against Heresies. Book I. Chap. VIII.
5. And he expresses himself thus: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... for He was the beginning; “and the Word was God,”

Irenaeus Against Heresies. Book III.Chap. IX. . But Matthew says that the Magi, coming from the east, exclaimed “For we have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship Him;”... and frankincense, because He was God, who also “was made known in Judea,” (Psa_76:1) and was “declared to those who sought Him not.”20


Theophilus to Autolycus. Book II. Chap. XXII
And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” (Joh_1:1)... The Word, then, being God...


Clement of Alexander The Instructor. [Paedagogus.] Book I. Chap. VIII
Nothing, then, is hated by God, nor yet by the Word. For both are one - that is, God. For He has said, “In the beginning the Word was in God, and the Word was God.” (Joh_1:1)

Tertullian Part Second - Anti-MarcionVII. Against Praxeas Chap. XV
Now the Word of life became flesh, and was heard, and was seen, and was handled, because He was flesh who, before He came in the flesh, was the “Word in the beginning with God” the Father,... ( For although the Word was God, yet was He with God, because He is God of God; and being joined to the Father, is with the Father.80 “

Hippolytus The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus. Part II. –
14. These things then, brethren, are declared by the Scriptures. And the blessed John, in the testimony of his Gospel, gives us an account of this economy (disposition) and acknowledges this Word as God, when he says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” If, then, the Word was with God, and was also God, what follows?


A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity. Chap. XVII.
He shows that in the beginning the Word was, and that this Word was with the Father, and besides that the Word was God, and that all things were made by Him. Moreover, this “Word was made flesh and dwelt among us,” (Joh_1:14) - to wit, Christ the Son of God;...to be the Word of God, and God,


Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John. Book II.
1., “And the Word was God.” The arrangement of the sentences might be thought to indicate an order; we have first “In the beginning was the Word,” then, “And the Word was with God,” and thirdly, “And the Word was God,” so that it might be seen that the Word being with God makes Him God.


Alone is a correct interpretation because that is what the verse is saying, YHWH is our God, YHWH alone. The Jews had a bad habit of turning to other gods so YHWH had them recite this every day and night and their children as well so that they don’t forget who alone is their God. Unfortunately, they continued making the same mistake.
Do you know of any translation that uses alone vs one in Deut 6:4? Otherwise your idea is unsubstantiated.
This is where you are mistaken, John is not referring to Isaiah seeing YHWH in 6:1-5 and then writing all of chapter 6 and 53. John is simply pointing to the fact that Isaiah the prophet saw, as all prophets do, Jesus’ glory and wrote about it.
Isaiah wrote a lot of prophecies about Jesus but John singled out two of them because these two were specifically being fulfilled at that moment.
Yes John wrote about the fulfillment then he added that Isaiah saw Jesus glory when he {Isaiah} wrote X. Again nothing in the text agrees with the above fabrication. Notice, what you write. What is written cannot be understood literally, but there is always another meaning, something missing that you only know about, regardless that nothing in the immediate text agrees with you.

Future glory of the Messiah from Isaiah perspective but present in John’s time when he saw those prophecies fulfilled.
Do you check your work before you post?
Isa 6 For my eyes have seen the King, The Lord of hosts.”

Notice "have seen" past tense, not any future event.
All the scholars are still trinitarian and agree that Gen. 1:26 is about God and his heavenly court. I myself have issues with all translations done by trinitarians because their bias is clearly seen in many verses but it doesn’t mean they’re always biased.
Fallacy of appealing to authority.
 
You didn’t answer the question, do you believe YHWH is YHWH’s shepherd?

You’re the one applying grammatical rules where you please while ignoring the context.

I’ve clearly shown that in context there is a distinction between YHWH “me” and “him” the one whom they pierced and whom they will mourn for. You just ignore this because you think YHWH died which is absurd.

Yes, explicitly so and here are just 3 verses but there are hundreds more.

Psalm 2:7 “I will surely tell of the decree of YHWH: He said to me, ‘you are my son, today I have begotten you.

Is. 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord YHWH is upon me, Because YHWH has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted.”

Ezek. 34:23 “Then I will set over them one shepherd, My servant David, and he will feed them; he will feed them himself and be their shepherd. “And I, YHWH, will be their God, and My servant David will be prince among them; I YHWH have spoken.”

Elohim is a title that can and does apply to others apart from YHWH but YHWH is still the only true God.

I hope you don’t ignore the explicit verses I cited above that undeniably distinguishes YHWH from Jesus. But just in case here’s another verse spoken by Jesus himself.

“Believe in God; believe also in me”

So tell me, which God was he referring to here, YHWH or the trinity?


Thus says YHWH, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, YHWH of hosts:

There aren’t two individuals being identified as YHWH here. Isaiah is simply referring to YHWH in 3 different ways.

1. The King of Israel
2. His (Israel’s) Redeemer
3. YHWH of hosts

Then Isaiah quotes what YHWH says:

“I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.”

If you’re not aware “me” is a singular personal pronoun which indicates one single individual.
I believe I can answer all these questions by addressing Isaiah 44:6

Redeemer carries a pronominal suffix. In Hebrew, pronominal suffixes are possessive and objective pronouns that are suffixed on nouns, prepositions, and the definite direct object marker.
The pronominal suffix 'His' modifies 'redeemer' as a possession of "YHWH King of Israel" and not "Israel". Why? Because Israel is part of the tittle "King of Israel" and not the subject in the verse.
REDEEMER =גאל
PRONOMINAL SUFFIX =הוא
As it appears in the text = צְבָא֑וֹת

So based on Isaiah 44:6 where we have two individuals identified as YHWH the King of Israel and YHWH of hosts,
YHWH can have a shepherd who is not Him,
called YHWH.
 
This argument is a logical fallacy. Fallacy of Anonymous Authority.
Wrong. I explained my position and I also gave you a source, the NIV Study Bible.
Fallacy of false analogy = just because the issues at hand are alike in trivial ways it does not make it relevant to the conclusion.
The only thing your 'pie' example and Gen 1:26-27 have in common is 'let's make'.
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.
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.
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 states that God created man in His image and likeness alone.
Correct. This is how we know that even though God spoke to others he acted alone.
Whoever "Us" is, is the one that man was make in the image and likeness of. vs27 =YHWH alone.
Notice here you have plurality and singularity when it comes to God.
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.

So no, there isn’t a “plurality and singularity when it comes to God” as you keep falsely asserting.
Pay attention to the grammar because it does not agree.
appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ =two individuals will appear God AND our Savior...
Matt. 16:27 “For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father”...The Father does not appear only Jesus [with his angels].

You are identifying one individual as God and another as Lord and Savior. This might pass if held in isolation. But if we read Titus in its entirety we see a different picture.
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...
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.

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.
Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

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.

The same rule is followed in 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, and 3:18 and is accepted, but for some unknown reason 1:1 is debated heavily.
1:1: tou theou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou
1:11: tou kuriou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou
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.

The reason is that God is never actually referred to by his proper name YHWH in the NT. 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).

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 states that no one has seen or heard The Father.
Jn 6:46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.
Jn 5:37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nnor seen His form.

Now you write that Thomas saw the Father, but we have nothing from the NT authors or ECF that support your statement.

28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
Who was Thomas speaking to? Jesus. What did Thomas say to Jesus. "The Lord of me and the God of me." Thomas said to Jesus "ho theos' identifying Jesus as YHWH.


Chapter and verse please.
You just don’t understand what Thomas is believing at that moment. Thomas never believed that Jesus was God incarnate and the clearest proof is that he refused to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

When he finally does see Jesus, alive, he knows that he has seen the work of God and thus he believes in the way that Jesus said they should if they didn’t believe his words, “Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.”

Some how you think that Thomas who didn’t believe a dead man could have risen from the dead is all of a sudden God instead of what scriptures actually says.
 
Again you leave a can of worms open. How does 'ho theos' apply to Jesus? It is not heavily modified to mean anything else than God or in your case a god, which puts your argument in polytheism.
What can be more modifying than Jesus having a God?

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever… therefore God, your God, has anointed you

Now let’s take a look at who is Jesus’ God who anointed him.

“The Spirit of the Lord YHWH is upon me, because YHWH has anointed me

So now that we have irrefutably confirmed that YHWH is Jesus’ God who anointed him we know for a fact that “God” is not used of Jesus as it is used of YHWH who, once again, does not and cannot have a God.
Care to prove your point?

Greek 101 The Greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into English as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of. "Ho Theos" refers to YHWH with the exception where it is heavily modified to identify someone else.
Simple, the article being present or not has no bearing on whether it refers to YHWH. The fact is that θεος (with or without the article) refers to YHWH over 98% of the time in the NT.

But if you still require that it be “heavily modified” well then the fact that Jesus has a God named YHWH over him is more than enough to show ό θεος is heavily modified in Heb. 1:8-9 as proven above.
Personification assets human characteristics onto an inanimate object to better describe it. Is the HS now considered an inanimate object if it is the spirit of God?
Personification also applies to abstract qualities like we see in Prov. 8 where God’s wisdom is personified.
With the above in mind. What human attribute did Jesus 'personify' when He said.
Jn 14:26 But the [a]Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
I don't see it.
God’s spirit.
Again you are missing the main piece. "Ho Theos" refers to YHWH with the exception where it is heavily modified to identify someone else.
Refer back to Heb. 1:8-9 where ό θεος refers to two different individuals, Jesus who has a God and YHWH who can’t have a God and is also the God of Jesus.
Seems I forgot to continue to labor this issue with you. I posted several times when elohym is used to identify something other than YHWH it is modified in order to do so. Since we agree on this topic are we able to move on?
Yes.
I agree there is no confusion. Elohim describes YHWH best. A plurality and singularity.
So then Elohim must also best describe Dagon, the god of the Philistines. He must also have been a plurality and singularity.
Your god seems to be confused as to how he wants to be known. A singularity that insists on being addressed as a plurality while at the same time punishing anyone who believes in polytheism.
Apparently you still don’t understand. Elohim, though plural in form, is still singular in meaning when used of not only YHWH but of other single false gods as well. The plural form has nothing to do with YHWH being a plurality. With that argument you are simply proving that trinitarianism is polytheistic.
There was no need for that. The NT authors identified Jesus as God.
He was called God once, in Heb. 1:8 and the very next verse proves he is not YHWH.
And that is supported by the ECF
The so called early church fathers were 1. not inspired by God so what they wrote is not proof of anything and 2. The so called ECF did not believe in the trinity as it was later formulated in the 4th-8th century, they were mostly subordinationists. In fact here is what Tertullian said:

-The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God.

So clearly the majority of believers were not even close to being trinitarian in the 2nd and 3rd century.
Do you know of any translation that uses alone vs one in Deut 6:4? Otherwise your idea is unsubstantiated.
I don’t need to cite a translation for it to be substantiated because the Hebrew grammar is enough but if you absolutely need it then here you go.

New Living Translation (NLT)
“Listen, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.”

International Standard Version (ISV)
"Listen, Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.”

New American Bible (NAB)
“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone!”

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.
Yes John wrote about the fulfillment then he added that Isaiah saw Jesus glory when he {Isaiah} wrote X. Again nothing in the text agrees with the above fabrication. Notice, what you write. What is written cannot be understood literally, but there is always another meaning, something missing that you only know about, regardless that nothing in the immediate text agrees with you.
Nothing is “missing that only I know about”. John simply never cites Isaiah 6:1-5 and much less does he apply it to Jesus. You just keep forcing your presuppositions here it’s completely absent.
Do you check your work before you post?
Isa 6 For my eyes have seen the King, The Lord of hosts.” Notice "have seen" past tense, not any future event.
This is not what John cited or is even referring to.
Fallacy of appealing to authority.
I don’t need their authority, I already proved your view is false with the biblical context itself. YHWH alone created, the very same YHWH who is the God of Jesus.
 
I believe I can answer all these questions by addressing Isaiah 44:6

Redeemer carries a pronominal suffix.
Correct.
In Hebrew, pronominal suffixes are possessive and objective pronouns that are suffixed on nouns, prepositions, and the definite direct object marker.
Correct.
The pronominal suffix 'His' modifies 'redeemer' as a possession of "YHWH King of Israel" and not "Israel". Why? Because Israel is part of the tittle "King of Israel" and not the subject in the verse.
This is where we disagree.

YHWH, who is the king of Israel is also Israel’s Redeemer and the Lord of hosts. From v. 1-5 Israel has been the subject of who YHWH is speaking to and who YHWH chose and who YHWH poured his spirit over and who YHWH blessed.
REDEEMER =גאל
Correct
PRONOMINAL SUFFIX =הוא
As it appears in the text = צְבָא֑וֹת
Incorrect. The suffix ‘his’ is found in the word redeemer “וְגֹאֲל֖וֹ” (in red). What you cited above is the word ‘host’
So based on Isaiah 44:6 where we have two individuals identified as YHWH the King of Israel and YHWH of hosts,
As shown above, King of Israel, his redeemer and Lord of hosts all refer to YHWH, the God and Father of Jesus Christ.
YHWH can have a shepherd who is not Him,
called YHWH.
That’s two YHWHs which is polytheism and unbiblical.

Also, you never answered this question

“Believe in God; believe also in me”

When Jesus uttered these words which God was he referring to here, YHWH or the trinity?

Nor did you address my point about the singular personal pronoun “me” which clear indicates one single individual.
 
You didn’t answer the question, do you believe YHWH is YHWH’s shepherd?

You’re the one applying grammatical rules where you please while ignoring the context.

I’ve clearly shown that in context there is a distinction between YHWH “me” and “him” the one whom they pierced and whom they will mourn for. You just ignore this because you think YHWH died which is absurd.

Yes, explicitly so and here are just 3 verses but there are hundreds more.

Psalm 2:7 “I will surely tell of the decree of YHWH: He said to me, ‘you are my son, today I have begotten you.

Is. 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord YHWH is upon me, Because YHWH has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted.”

Ezek. 34:23 “Then I will set over them one shepherd, My servant David, and he will feed them; he will feed them himself and be their shepherd. “And I, YHWH, will be their God, and My servant David will be prince among them; I YHWH have spoken.”

Elohim is a title that can and does apply to others apart from YHWH but YHWH is still the only true God.

I hope you don’t ignore the explicit verses I cited above that undeniably distinguishes YHWH from Jesus. But just in case here’s another verse spoken by Jesus himself.

“Believe in God; believe also in me”

So tell me, which God was he referring to here, YHWH or the trinity?


Thus says YHWH, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, YHWH of hosts:

There aren’t two individuals being identified as YHWH here. Isaiah is simply referring to YHWH in 3 different ways.

1. The King of Israel
2. His (Israel’s) Redeemer
3. YHWH of hosts

Then Isaiah quotes what YHWH says:

“I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.”

If you’re not aware “me” is a singular personal pronoun which indicates one single individual.
His refers to God, NOT to Israel, and The Redeemer is God.
Two Persons clearly in view in this passage.
BTW Jesus Christ is The King of Israel.
 
What can be more modifying than Jesus having a God?

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever… therefore God, your God, has anointed you

Now let’s take a look at who is Jesus’ God who anointed him.

“The Spirit of the Lord YHWH is upon me, because YHWH has anointed me

So now that we have irrefutably confirmed that YHWH is Jesus’ God who anointed him we know for a fact that “God” is not used of Jesus as it is used of YHWH who, once again, does not and cannot have a God.

Simple, the article being present or not has no bearing on whether it refers to YHWH. The fact is that θεος (with or without the article) refers to YHWH over 98% of the time in the NT.

But if you still require that it be “heavily modified” well then the fact that Jesus has a God named YHWH over him is more than enough to show ό θεος is heavily modified in Heb. 1:8-9 as proven above.

Personification also applies to abstract qualities like we see in Prov. 8 where God’s wisdom is personified.

God’s spirit.

Refer back to Heb. 1:8-9 where ό θεος refers to two different individuals, Jesus who has a God and YHWH who can’t have a God and is also the God of Jesus.

Yes.

So then Elohim must also best describe Dagon, the god of the Philistines. He must also have been a plurality and singularity.

Apparently you still don’t understand. Elohim, though plural in form, is still singular in meaning when used of not only YHWH but of other single false gods as well. The plural form has nothing to do with YHWH being a plurality. With that argument you are simply proving that trinitarianism is polytheistic.

He was called God once, in Heb. 1:8 and the very next verse proves he is not YHWH.

The so called early church fathers were 1. not inspired by God so what they wrote is not proof of anything and 2. The so called ECF did not believe in the trinity as it was later formulated in the 4th-8th century, they were mostly subordinationists. In fact here is what Tertullian said:

-The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God.

So clearly the majority of believers were not even close to being trinitarian in the 2nd and 3rd century.

I don’t need to cite a translation for it to be substantiated because the Hebrew grammar is enough but if you absolutely need it then here you go.

New Living Translation (NLT)
“Listen, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.”

International Standard Version (ISV)
"Listen, Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.”

New American Bible (NAB)
“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone!”

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.

Nothing is “missing that only I know about”. John simply never cites Isaiah 6:1-5 and much less does he apply it to Jesus. You just keep forcing your presuppositions here it’s completely absent.

This is not what John cited or is even referring to.

I don’t need their authority, I already proved your view is false with the biblical context itself. YHWH alone created, the very same YHWH who is the God of Jesus.
Total head in the sand response. John 12:41 is a citation of Isaiah 6, wherein Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 1:8 refers to Christ's Deity; 1:9 to His humanity.
Case closed.
 
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 to 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.

 
You just don’t understand what Thomas is believing at that moment.
Neither you nor I were there to have a first hand account of what Thomas believed or not. What we can only go by is what is recorded by John. John records Thomas saying, 'The Lord of me and The God of me" = The God of me = Ho theos.
Thomas never believed that Jesus was God incarnate and the clearest proof is that he refused to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
When he finally does see Jesus, alive, he knows that he has seen the work of God and thus he believes in the way that Jesus said they should if they didn’t believe his words, “Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.”
Yes, and this is true, Thomas did not believe that a man who was publicly excecated in the way Jesus was would ever come back to life let alone be God incarnate. But that was before Jesus appeared to him. Read the narrative.

20:29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Thomas who was convinced that Jesus was dead did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God. Notice Jesus accepts the words and praises Thomas for so doing.
Some how you think that Thomas who didn’t believe a dead man could have risen from the dead is all of a sudden God instead of what scriptures actually says.
How do you come to such a conclusion from the narrative? From the narrative we can conclude that Thomas believed that Jesus was Lord and God until Jesus death. Seems he could not reconcile the deity of Jesus and Jesus being dead and buried , until Jesus appeared to Thomas. The Resurrection demonstrated that Jesus' claims were true, His resurrection, He being sent by God, His deity etc..
 
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
I cited the NIV Study Bible previously as well which was worked on by trinitarian scholars.
Read again, there is a difference between alike in all aspects vs alike in trivial ways
You don’t like the analogy, I get it but it doesn’t make my argument wrong. If you want another trinitarian “authority” you can read Michale Heiser’s book The Unseen Realm. He also has articles and a YT channel.
Try to follow the trail. Whoever created in vs 27 [God] is the 'Us', 'Our' in vs 26 [God].
Then you believe in multiple gods and creators which contradicts the entire Bible.

You are trying to interpret the majority of scriptures in light of one verse instead of that one verse in light of all scriptures.

You invent this “plurality and singularity” nonsense to justify it but it’s not supported by scriptures.
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.
That’s your opinion but God can include and address others yet still do the creating himself in his own image as scriptures clearly state.

There’s also an argument that angels were made in God’s image since they are called sons of God but since scriptures doesn’t say it outright I’m not dogmatic about it nor do I find it necessary in order to under Gen. 1:26.
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.
His image refers to Elohim not the “us”. Again, in v.26 the “us” is Elohim and others.
“Context rules”.
I agree which is why I use all scriptures to interpret v. 26 instead of using v. 26 to interpret the rest of scriptures.
You can define who "Us" is by the immediate text, but you cannot interpret the immediate text by your idea of who "Us" is.
The immediate context doesn’t say who the others are apart from Elohim. It’s only by looking at other scriptures like Job 38:4-7 that we know that it was the angels (sons of God) who were with Elohim at creation.
Wave you hand all you want, vs 26 and 27 you have God being addressed in plurality and singularity.
That is just a false statement. The us is Elohim plus others.
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.
Sorry, how exactly am I not taking the verse literal?
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.
yep. Jesus and God are called Savior.
2:10...the doctrine of God our Savior ... =God is our Savior
Right.
2:13...our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,...Jesus is identified as God and Savior.
Now you’re conflating God and Jesus which Paul clearly distinguishes in all his epistles including Titus
3:4...God our Savior...
3:6...Jesus Christ our Savior...

“But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 HE saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to HIS own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom HE poured out on us richly THROUGH Jesus Christ our Savior.”

When you read more than just the two phrase you cited it’s more than clear that the passage refers to both God and Jesus. It also proves that both God and Jesus are called Savior as it is God who saves us through Jesus.
That would work if the text read. "looking for the blessed hope and appearing of our great God's glory and Savior Jesus Christ,"
Greek doesn’t have the possessive apostrophe like English to so in order to say God’s glory it would be τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ as we see in Rom. 3:23 and many other places.
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.
The key phrase here is “may exhibit an attributive use…” so context determines when.

Many translations have it as “appearing of the glory of…” (NIV, ASV, ESV, NASB, HCSB etc.) not the “glorious appearing”.
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.
Just as the grammar supports it in Titus 2:13 as well as the context.
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.

Why do you say that “Sharp’s rule” applies in Titus 2:13 but not 2 Thes. 1:12? The grammar is exactly the same so you are just showing your bias.
Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names
2 Thes. 1:12 uses two nouns that are not proper names so obviously “Sharp’s rule” doesn’t apply here because the title God is clearly used as a proper noun in the NT.
'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.
I agree and “God” also partakes the properties of a proper name in the NT.
'YHWH' is Hebrew. 'Theos' or 'ho theos' is Greek
ό θεος is not the equivalent of YHWH, it’s the equivalent of Elohim אֱלֹהִ֑ים
If God is a proper noun then I do not need a definite article, for the proper noun identifies Theos as YHWH.
This is simply wrong. Whether or not θεος has an article doesn’t change the fact that θεος is equivalent to אֱלֹהִ֑ים
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.
Just because it’s used as a proper in many instances doesn’t mean it now has to be taken as a proper name every single time. Context determines when it is and isn’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.
wrong.
You seem to be hung up on "God your God" in the verse.
Jesus has a God so he is clearly not YHWH.
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.
Yep and that makes two men.
Jesus who is deity has a Father/Son relationship with another deity.
And that makes two gods which is polytheism.
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 ?
Because there’s only one true true God and Jesus’ God and Father is that one true 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?
Are you implying that we have a different God and a different Father than Jesus does??
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.
This is a bad argument because there you can say the same thing in different ways. This is normal in language
 
Neither you nor I were there to have a first hand account of what Thomas believed or not. What we can only go by is what is recorded by John. John records Thomas saying, 'The Lord of me and The God of me" = The God of me = Ho theos.
John also records a lot more, like 14:10-11 which you seem to want to ignore.
Yes, and this is true, Thomas did not believe that a man who was publicly excecated in the way Jesus was would ever come back to life let alone be God incarnate. But that was before Jesus appeared to him. Read the narrative.
Jesus never said that him resurrecting world prove he is God but he did say:

“The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does HIS WORKS. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.”

I can point to Jesus’ own words which support my view that Thomas truly believed that God was in Christ because of God’s work, the resurrection.

Show me a verse where Jesus says the resurrection is proof that he is God.
20:29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Yes, Thomas saw him alive after he was dead which is clear evidence of “the Father who dwells in me does his works”. Many others believe the work God did without seeing the Jesus resurrected so they are blessed.
How do you come to such a conclusion from the narrative? From the narrative we can conclude that Thomas believed that Jesus was Lord and God until Jesus death.
No , it doesn’t. The narrative shows that Thomas believed Jesus was the Messiah until he died but then believed again when the work of God who dwelt in Jesus raised him up.
The Resurrection demonstrated that Jesus' claims were true, His resurrection, He being sent by God,
Yep, he claimed to be the Messiah, the son of God as John wrote just a few verses later “but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name”.

If you say that John’s gospel was written to show that Jesus was God then you are going against what John himself said his reason was for writing the gospel.
 
I cited the NIV Study Bible previously as well which was worked on by trinitarian scholars.

You don’t like the analogy, I get it but it doesn’t make my argument wrong. If you want another trinitarian “authority” you can read Michale Heiser’s book The Unseen Realm. He also has articles and a YT channel.

Then you believe in multiple gods and creators which contradicts the entire Bible.

You are trying to interpret the majority of scriptures in light of one verse instead of that one verse in light of all scriptures.

You invent this “plurality and singularity” nonsense to justify it but it’s not supported by scriptures.

That’s your opinion but God can include and address others yet still do the creating himself in his own image as scriptures clearly state.

There’s also an argument that angels were made in God’s image since they are called sons of God but since scriptures doesn’t say it outright I’m not dogmatic about it nor do I find it necessary in order to under Gen. 1:26.

His image refers to Elohim not the “us”. Again, in v.26 the “us” is Elohim and others.

I agree which is why I use all scriptures to interpret v. 26 instead of using v. 26 to interpret the rest of scriptures.

The immediate context doesn’t say who the others are apart from Elohim. It’s only by looking at other scriptures like Job 38:4-7 that we know that it was the angels (sons of God) who were with Elohim at creation.

That is just a false statement. The us is Elohim plus others.

Sorry, how exactly am I not taking the verse literal?


yep. Jesus and God are called Savior.

Right.

Now you’re conflating God and Jesus which Paul clearly distinguishes in all his epistles including Titus


“But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 HE saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to HIS own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom HE poured out on us richly THROUGH Jesus Christ our Savior.”

When you read more than just the two phrase you cited it’s more than clear that the passage refers to both God and Jesus. It also proves that both God and Jesus are called Savior as it is God who saves us through Jesus.

Greek doesn’t have the possessive apostrophe like English to so in order to say God’s glory it would be τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ as we see in Rom. 3:23 and many other places.

The key phrase here is “may exhibit an attributive use…” so context determines when.

Many translations have it as “appearing of the glory of…” (NIV, ASV, ESV, NASB, HCSB etc.) not the “glorious appearing”.

Just as the grammar supports it in Titus 2:13 as well as the context.


Why do you say that “Sharp’s rule” applies in Titus 2:13 but not 2 Thes. 1:12? The grammar is exactly the same so you are just showing your bias.

2 Thes. 1:12 uses two nouns that are not proper names so obviously “Sharp’s rule” doesn’t apply here because the title God is clearly used as a proper noun in the NT.

I agree and “God” also partakes the properties of a proper name in the NT.

ό θεος is not the equivalent of YHWH, it’s the equivalent of Elohim אֱלֹהִ֑ים

This is simply wrong. Whether or not θεος has an article doesn’t change the fact that θεος is equivalent to אֱלֹהִ֑ים

Just because it’s used as a proper in many instances doesn’t mean it now has to be taken as a proper name every single time. Context determines when it is and isn’t.


wrong.

Jesus has a God so he is clearly not YHWH.

Yep and that makes two men.

And that makes two gods which is polytheism.

Because there’s only one true true God and Jesus’ God and Father is that one true God.

Are you implying that we have a different God and a different Father than Jesus does??

This is a bad argument because there you can say the same thing in different ways. This is normal in language
Indeed, God is our ONE and ONLY Savior.
And that ONE and ONLY Savior is Jesus Christ.
Only ONE Father, thus The SAME Father is our God, as well as Jesus' God.
However OUR God(NOT His)includes The Son and The Holy Spirit.
 
Back
Top