Deal with Titus 2:13.

[Yahchristian]

two singular nouns are referring to the same person when they share a common article.

I do believe the words “God” and “Savior” in Titus 2:13 refer to the same person, and there is no need to change “the” to “our”.

But using “our” instead of “the”…

Which is the precise meaning of Titus 2:13?

Translation #1: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ;

Translation #2: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great Godhead member and Savior Jesus Christ;

 

[Theo1689]

I do believe the words “God” and “Savior” in Titus 2:13 refer to the same person, and there is no need to change “the” to “our”.

But using “our” instead of “the”…

Well, that tells me that you don't understand Greek.

Tit. 2:13 ... τῆς δόξης ... τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ...
..................of-the glory of-the great ... God and Saviour of-us ...

The Greek, "ημων" means "of-us", or "our".
It's a direct translation.

Translation #2: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great Godhead member and Savior Jesus Christ;

This is another indication that you don't understand Greek.
There would be absolutely NO reason to translate it that way.

Would you suggest translating Rom. 1:7 like this?:

Rom. 1:7 ... Grace to you and peace from our Godhead member our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Theo1689]

I do believe the words “God” and “Savior” in Titus 2:13 refer to the same person, and there is no need to change “the” to “our”.

But using “our” instead of “the”…

You bring up an interesting point...

... τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ...

When we recognize the TSKS construction, the unit is "the God and Saviour", and that is modified by "megalou" ("great") and "hemon" ("our").

So we end up with, "our great" God-and-Saviour.

But the way the KJV renders it, we have "the" great God, and "our" Saviour.

So how come the Saviour is ours, but God isn't ours, He's simply a generic "the" great God? That makes no sense.

 

[shroom]

No, "of our great God and Saviour" is here attributive to "of the glory".

"the glory of a fine wife-and-mother, Gloria."

It can be translated like this:
13 while we wait for the blessed hope and appearing of our great God and Savior’s glory—Jesus Christ,

 

[Theo1689]

It can be translated like this:
13 while we wait for the blessed hope and appearing of our great God and Savior’s glory—Jesus Christ,

Well, while that is technically a valid translation, it seems to me to be an inferior and unnecessarily awkward one, for a couple of reasons:

1) it unnecessarily separates the identity of "Jesus Christ" being the "God and Saviour", by artificially inserting "glory" inbetween the two phrases.

2) It goes against the word order of the underlying Greek. And while it is not strictly necessary to hold to exact word order in the translation (since Greek is inflected, and word order serves other purposes, such as emphasis), there is an argument for holding to the same word order as much as possible.

I think that when the majority of Greek scholars all translate this verse in the exact same way, we should probably pay attention to that.

 

[shroom]

Well, while that is technically a valid translation,

Yes.

it seems to me to be an inferior and unnecessarily awkward one, for a couple of reasons:

1) it unnecessarily separates the identity of "Jesus Christ" being the "God and Saviour", by artificially inserting "glory" inbetween the two phrases.

Jesus isn’t God (John 8:40; 17:3; many more).

2) It goes against the word order of the underlying Greek. And while it is not strictly necessary to hold to exact word order in the translation (since Greek is inflected, and word order serves other purposes, such as emphasis), there is an argument for holding to the same word order as much as possible.

Debatable.

I think that when the majority of Greek scholars all translate this verse in the exact same way, we should probably pay attention to that.

The majority of Greek scholars are Trinitarian.

 

[Theo1689]

Jesus isn’t God (John 8:40; 17:3; many more).

None of your proof-texts say, "Jesus isn't God".
You simply ASSUME unitarianism.

Jesus IS God (Isa. 9:6, John 1:1,14, 20:28, Acts 20:28, Rom. 9:5, Phil. 2:5-6, Col. 2:9, Tit. 2:13, Heb. 1:8, 2 Pet. 1:1; many more).

The majority of Greek scholars are Trinitarian.

... ONLY because that's what the Greek New Testament TEACHES.

It's also what the 1st century Christians believed.
And what the 2nd century Christians believed.
And what the 3rd century Christians believed.
And what the 4th century Christians believed.
And what the 5th century Christians believed.
And what the 6th century Christians believed.
And what the 7th century Christians believed.
And what the 8th century Christians believed.
And what the 9th century Christians believed.
etc.
etc.
etc.

 

[cjab]

OUR Great God AND Savior, Jesus Christ.
ONE God, ONE Savior.
Case closed.

Subversion of scripture. Case closed

 

[cjab]

You know, I find the attempts to deny the GS rule in passages like Tit. 2:13 amusing, since they always come up with different rationalizations (no consistency), yet they always refer to the same conclusion. This simply proves the bias in their methodology, as they start out by asserting it CANNOT mean wha it plainly says, so they have to come up with reasons to explain why.

It doesn't plainly offer the Trinitarian rendition, due to the conjunction usage of καί (external relation) rather than τε (internal relation).

Per Hermann, "καί conjungit (connects), τε adjungit (adds)."

The Trinitarian reading would demand the use of τε, because it is adding internal information regarding "the glory of the great God" (such is undeniable).

The non-Trinitarian reading demands καί because it is connecting the appearing of the glory of the great God to the appearing of Jesus, and the two objects of appearing, although manifested in the same person, are not homogenous, as one pertains to God, the other to Jesus.

Winer / English 542 THE CONJUNCTIONS. [PART III.
______
In the Ν. T., as well as in classical Greek, τε thus indicates
an addition, complement, explanation,—something which flows out
of what has preceded, or is some detail belonging to it (Rost
p. 728); see Jo. vi. 18, A. ii. 33, 37, iv. 33, v. 42, vi. 7, viii. 13,
28, 31, x. 28, 48, xi. 21, xii. 6, xv. 4, 39, xix. 12, xx. 7, xxi. 18,
Rom. xvi. 26.

καί is used for that which is not homogeneous with what has preceded.

________________________________

And yet Trinitarians are seeking to say that "of the great God" is entirely homogenous with "our Savior Jesus Christ." So the grammar supports only the non-Trinitarian rendition.

Secondly, the epexegetic καί i.e. "even", "namely", "that is to say," is perfectly natural here, and such would dictate a conjunction of glory and savior.

"appearing of the glory of the great God, even/namely our savior Jesus Christ."

Thirdly, the "also" meaning of καί is apposite here, and again dictates a conjunction of glory and savior.

"appearing of the glory of the great God, also our savior Jesus Christ."

Then why is it that no Greek scholar agrees with you?
I mean, you could simply write them all off as "biased Trinitarians", after all, that's very easy, convenient, and not really falsifiable.

There are plenty of Greek scholars who deny the Trinitarian rendition of Titus 2:13. It's just that you ignore them.

The premature application of Sharp's rule, before any other rules of grammar, is perverse. Sharp's rule must be the very last rule to be applied here, just because it is the most nebulous and because it is predicated on all other rules of grammar being observed.

Moreover, as I have said before "God" is not synonymous with "our Savior Jesus Christ" Titus 1:4, and that also precludes the Trinitarian application of Sharp's rule.

Or, we could simply explain your disagreement with them based on (1) your particular bias, and (2) your ignorance of how Greek works.

So you claim the proper way to interpret the verse is to assume that the two nouns connected by "kai" are "glory" and "saviour".
Well, that's interesting, as well as novel.
Is this an original argument by you, or did you find it professed by someone else?

So here is the text:

... ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν

So you interpret this passage as the saints waiting for the appearing of:
1) a glory;
2) a saviour;
So you're waiting for a thing, and a person.

So I have to wonder what evidence you have to suggest that we should interpret the text that way. Because not only are you kind of IGNORING "tou theou" here, but you are ignoring the fact that there is an actual Sharp construct here (which you denying for doctrinal reasons).

So here is the text, with the Sharp construct bolded:

... ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

So the two nouns most proximal to the "kai" are "theou" and "sOteros", and so that would be the natural conjunction to recognize.

Proximity to καί is displaced due to a genitive construction, and because KAI indicates an external relation.

καί can connect sentences and phrases and constructs. It doesn't only connect individual words, as you infer. You have jumped to the unsupportable conclusion that καί is intended to connect mere words in Titus 2:13, where it is obvious that it is intended to connect phrases/constructs of multiple words.

So what are the saints waiting for?
They're waiting for an appearing of something.
What will be appearing?
A glory... THE glory.
Whose glory will be appearing?
The glory is of "our God and Saviour".
Who is our God and Saviour?
Jesus Christ.

It flows so easily and so naturally, and takes into account the GS construct.

... ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης (τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος) ἡμῶν
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

What is bracketed above is the "unit" that is described by the GS construct. The presence of the article beofre "theou" and its absence before "sOteros" shows that they are referring to the same person. But that doesn't fit with your theology, so you basically have to reject it.

A perfect alternate example is found in 2 Pet. 1:

1:1 ... ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
........ by righteousness of God our and saviour, Jesus Christ.

1:11 ... βασιλείαν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
.............. kingdom of ... Lord ... our and saviour, ... Jesus Christ.

Even if they were comparable, the same arguments as I have used above would apply. Yet that they are not identical is obvious:

ἡμῶν

appears with the first noun, and not the second, which is significant, because when ἡμῶν conditions the entire construction, then the reference can be made specific to the headship of Christ over man, (cf. John 20:28, 1 Cor 11:3), for then the construction excludes the Father, who is also the God of Christ (John 20:17, 1 Cor 11:3).

So this would void any comparison with Titus 2:13, where "the great God" is spoken of, and not "our God."

These two passages have identical constructs, except for the presence of "theou" in v.1, and "kuriou" in v.11. Yet you would insist on them being interpreted COMPLETELY differently, with "our God and Saviour" referring to two people, while "our Lord and Saviour" referring to ONE person


This is inconsistent.
The only reason for it is your religious bias.
At the very least, you would have to admit that this is a valid possible interpretation. But your bias prevents you from being wililng to do this.



That's your opinion.
And that ignores the GS construct in the verse.
And that ignores the fact that "theou" is right next to "kai", and "doxEs" isn't.


Okay, I wasn't sure whether you were trying to apply the GS rule to your interpretation, but clearly you are. And by doing so, you demonstrate that you do NOT even understand the rule!

Here is Sharp's rule #1:

"When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle ..."​

Well, I said "if there is any application of Sharp's rule" in my original thesis, and so it appears that there isn't. But I would question whether Sharp's rule is correctly defined anyway in respect of genitive constructions and even whether it has any application to them at all.

The grammatical issues are all yours: there is nothing which can justify Trinitarians changing the word order of this sentence, and thus re-writing the sentence, to make it affirm Trinitarianism.

 

[Runningman]

I do believe the words “God” and “Savior” in Titus 2:13 refer to the same person, and there is no need to change “the” to “our”.

But using “our” instead of “the”…

Which is the precise meaning of Titus 2:13?

Translation #1: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ;

Translation #2: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great Godhead member and Savior Jesus Christ;

God and Jesus are clearly two different persons throughout the Bible. There are some verses like Titus 2:13 where if one were so motivated they could make an argument for the Great God being the Savior Jesus, but the grammar doesn’t force this into the verse; Great God and Savior Jesus are two different persons and this is fine because this can be found throughout the Bible in too many places to list here.

Another problem with making Jesus God is that it creates hundreds of Biblical contradictions. Titus 2:13 has been dealt with. Now I want you to deal with the entire Bible where God and Jesus are not the same person.

Start here:

John 17
3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

Acts 3
13The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus.

1 Tim 2
5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

 

[Yahchristian]

So we end up with, "our great" God-and-Saviour.

In that case………

Which is the precise meaning of Titus 2:13?

Translation #1: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ;

Translation #2: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great Godhead member and Savior Jesus Christ;

 

[shroom]

None of your proof-texts say, "Jesus isn't God".
You simply ASSUME unitarianism.

Jesus said his Father is "the only true God."
Paul said that for us "there is but one God, the Father."

Jesus IS God (Isa. 9:6, John 1:1,14, 20:28, Acts 20:28, Rom. 9:5, Phil. 2:5-6, Col. 2:9, Tit. 2:13, Heb. 1:8, 2 Pet. 1:1; many more).

All of your proof-texts have been previously discussed.

... ONLY because that's what the Greek New Testament TEACHES.

Where does the Bible teach that God is a Trinity?
..nowhere. The Trinity is read INTO the Bible, it does not come FROM the Bible.

It's also what the 1st century Christians believed.
And what the 2nd century Christians believed.

Absolutely false.

And what the 3rd century Christians believed.
And what the 4th century Christians believed.

The doctrine of the Trinity was developed and then legislated into Christianity during that time.

And what the 5th century Christians believed.
And what the 6th century Christians believed.
And what the 7th century Christians believed.
And what the 8th century Christians believed.
And what the 9th century Christians believed.
etc.
etc.
etc.

...and for the most part it continues to this day. The Reformation did not go far enough.

 

[Gary Mac]

None of your proof-texts say, "Jesus isn't God".
You simply ASSUME unitarianism.

Jesus IS God (Isa. 9:6, John 1:1,14, 20:28, Acts 20:28, Rom. 9:5, Phil. 2:5-6, Col. 2:9, Tit. 2:13, Heb. 1:8, 2 Pet. 1:1; many more).



... ONLY because that's what the Greek New Testament TEACHES.

It's also what the 1st century Christians believed.
And what the 2nd century Christians believed.
And what the 3rd century Christians believed.
And what the 4th century Christians believed.
And what the 5th century Christians believed.
And what the 6th century Christians believed.
And what the 7th century Christians believed.
And what the 8th century Christians believed.
And what the 9th century Christians believed.
etc.
etc.
etc.

Actually here is what Jesus Said of himself and his God who sent him.
You are not going to believe what Jesus Said are you?

John 12:49: For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

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

John 5 :17 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

John 5:19. “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”

John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

 

[Our Lord's God]

YES.



I have.
Obviously you have nothing of substance to share.



You are hopelessly uninformed.
That's what your bias does to you.

Your own scholars no longer accept the claim that the "rule" applies here at Ephesians 5:5, 2 Thessalonians 1:12 among others.

That being the case, Trinitarians made up more excuses.

 

[Theo1689]

In that case………

Which is the precise meaning of Titus 2:13?

Translation #1: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ;

Translation #2: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great Godhead member and Savior Jesus Christ;

You seem to be very confused.
You are confusing "translation" with "interpretation".
They are not the same thing.

Only translation #1 is accurate AS A TRANSLATION.
But translation #2, while not a precise translation, is an accurate interpretation, when we take all of the Bible into account.

Again, if you think "translation" #2 is a valid translation, then with all due respect you neither know Greek, nor what "translation" actually is.

 

[Our Lord's God]

You seem to be very confused.
You are confusing "translation" with "interpretation".
They are not the same thing.

Only translation #1 is accurate AS A TRANSLATION.

No it isn't. Doxa is a noun not an adjective and there is no reason here to spin the word into the adjective "glorious."

But translation #2, while not a precise translation, is an accurate interpretation, when we take all of the Bible into account.

Again, if you think "translation" #2 is a valid translation, then with all due respect you neither know Greek, nor what "translation" actually is.

 

[Theo1689]

Jesus said his Father is "the only true God."

That is correct.
The Father is not a false God.
And only one God exists.
What Jesus taught was 100% true.

But that doesn't preclude Jesus from being God.
And Scripture teaches that Jesus is God.
I choose to believe Scripture.
You can choose to reject Scripture.
That's your problem, not mine.

Paul said that for us "there is but one God, the Father."

Again, yes, only one God exists.
And the Father is that one God.

But it's sad that you only quoted PART of what Paul wrote. Why did you hide the rest of it?

1 Cor. 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

"God" and "Lord" were (and are) both terms used of YHWH, the one God of the Bible.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but prior to becoming a Christian, Paul (then Saul) was a devout Jew. He was a Pharisee, and he lived and breathed the Torah.

And in 1 Cor. 8:6, Paul is presenting an expansion of the Sh'ma (Deut. 6:4-5), the daily prayer of the Jews where they proclaim that YHWH is the only true God and Lord. Paul is expanding that prayer to include both the Father and the Son.

So congratulations! Now you've actually learned something!

All of your proof-texts have been previously discussed.

Yes, they have.
You and others have tried to rationalize rejecting them.
And as free agents, you are free to reject that.
That falls under the category of a "you problem".

Where does the Bible teach that God is a Trinity?
..nowhere. The Trinity is read INTO the Bible, it does not come FROM the Bible.

Well, you ask the question, but then you immediately acknowledge that you're not the least bit interested in the answer. So I won't waste my time proving it to you, since it will obviously fall on deaf ears.

Once again, I don't need you to agree with my theology.
God is Triune whether you accept it or reject it.
And if you reject it, that's a "you" problem.
No skin off my nose, after all...

Absolutely false.

You are incorrect.
I'm sorry to be the one to burst your bubble, but you have no authority to make "absolute" proclamations, especially when they contradict God's word, the Bible.

The doctrine of the Trinity was developed and then legislated into Christianity during that time.

Nope, the Trinity is 100% Biblical.
I wouldn't believe it were it not so.

But for the case of the lurkers, if you TRULY want to see that the Trinity is 100% Biblical, I will recommend James White's "The Forgotten Trinity".

 

[Our Lord's God]

That is correct.
The Father is not a false God.
And only one God exists.
What Jesus taught was 100% true.

But that doesn't preclude Jesus from being God.

Actually it does. And your typical Trinitarian apologetic excuse isn't going to help you either.

The only way you can define the word "God" here in this verse is the divine ousia of Trinitarian doctrine. But that's won't work.

Give it a try. Is the word "GOD" in John 17:3 referring to an identity or the divine ousia? Do tell us if you have the courage.

 

[shroom]

That is correct.
The Father is not a false God.
And only one God exists.

According to Jesus Christ, who is "the only true God"?

What Jesus taught was 100% true.

And yet you think Jesus Christ is God too.

But that doesn't preclude Jesus from being God.

If the Father is the only true God, then Jesus isn't God.

And Scripture teaches that Jesus is God.

I don't think it does. It teaches that the Father is the only true God, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God's human Messiah. Jesus Christ is a man.

I choose to believe Scripture.
You can choose to reject Scripture.
That's your problem, not mine.

Come on, man... Everyone here claims they believe the Scriptures, that they are the only source for their doctrines.

Again, yes, only one God exists.
And the Father is that one God.

That's right.

But it's sad that you only quoted PART of what Paul wrote. Why did you hide the rest of it?

I didn't "hide" it.

1 Cor. 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

"God" and "Lord" were (and are) both terms used of YHWH, the one God of the Bible.

That's true, but the one Lord is referring to Jesus Christ, the man whom God MADE both Lord and Christ (Cp. Acts 2:36; Eph 4:5).

I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but prior to becoming a Christian, Paul (then Saul) was a devout Jew. He was a Pharisee, and he lived and breathed the Torah.

Right.

And in 1 Cor. 8:6, Paul is presenting an expansion of the Sh'ma (Deut. 6:4-5), the daily prayer of the Jews where they proclaim that YHWH is the only true God and Lord. Paul is expanding that prayer to include both the Father and the Son.

So congratulations! Now you've actually learned something!

lol... No, I disagree.. The Father always was and still is the only true God. In 1 Cor 8:6, Paul is saying that for us there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.

Yes, they have.
You and others have tried to rationalize rejecting them.
And as free agents, you are free to reject that.
That falls under the category of a "you problem".

Understanding them differently than you is not rejecting them.

Well, you ask the question, but then you immediately acknowledge that you're not the least bit interested in the answer. So I won't waste my time proving it to you, since it will obviously fall on deaf ears.

You're the one who claims that the Bible teaches that God is a Trinity. I would like to know what verses you're referring to.

Once again, I don't need you to agree with my theology.

Agreed. But it would be nice if we all believed the same thing.

God is Triune whether you accept it or reject it.

Lets see the verses that teach that God is a Trinity.

And if you reject it, that's a "you" problem.
No skin off my nose, after all...

I reject the Trinity because I do not believe the Bible teaches it.

You are incorrect.
I'm sorry to be the one to burst your bubble, but you have no authority to make "absolute" proclamations, especially when they contradict God's word, the Bible.

I have not contradicted the Bible.

Nope, the Trinity is 100% Biblical.
I wouldn't believe it were it not so.

Some verses would be nice.

But for the case of the lurkers, if you TRULY want to see that the Trinity is 100% Biblical, I will recommend James White's "The Forgotten Trinity".

If you want a good book on the history of the development of the Trinity:

Amazon.com

I'm very much aware that people rarely change their mind about anything on an internet forum.

 

[Our Lord's God]

And in 1 Cor. 8:6, Paul is presenting an expansion of the Sh'ma (Deut. 6:4-5), the daily prayer of the Jews where they proclaim that YHWH is the only true God and Lord. Paul is expanding that prayer to include both the Father and the Son.

Shameful Trinitarian myth. Paul is not alluding the the Shema but to the fact that in the days of King David........

for Israel there was one Lord God, Yahweh, and one Lord King David.

Same thing for the same reason.