Explicit Proof That Jesus Is God.

What would have happened if Jesus had openly claimed, "I am God?" Look at what happened when He only claimed to be the son of God? They conspired to have Him crucified.
Jesus was going to be crucified regardless, so I don't understand your point.

Nevertheless, Jesus claimed to be who he was--not God, but--God's son.
 
Let's address this philosophically.


Scripture indicates that Christ's Sonship is an eternal Sonship.
That's an oxymoron.
It is one thing to say that Jesus became the Son of God; it is another thing altogether to say that He was always the Son of God.
Why? Haven't you always been the child of your father?
We must recognize that if there was a time when the Son was not the Son, then, to be consistent, there was also a time when the Father was not the Father.
There's a time when every father was not a father.

You don't become a father until you have children.
If the first person's designation as "Father" is an eternal title, then the second person's designation as "Son" must be so regarded.
Who told you God's designation as "Father" was eternal?
Jesus Son of God = God
If this is what you believe, you need a new math teacher.
 
Depending on the context of the verse, chapter, book, and the main idea the translators will insert or delete words when translating. Even though 2 Thess 1:12 and 2Pe 1:1 have the same structure they cannot be translated the same due to the immediate text.
2 Peter 1:2 is in the "immediate text" of 2 Peter 1:1. And 2 Peter 1:2 clearly distinguishes God from Jesus.

So, how is it that you can make the claim that "even though 2 Thess 1:12 and 2 Pe 1:1 have the same structure they cannot be translated the same due to the immediate text" when it comes to the context surrounding 1 Thessalonians 1:12 but ignore context with regards to 2 Peter 1:1?
2Pe 1:1 is speaking exclusively about Jesus and 2 Thess 1:12 about Jesus and God.
Since you've clearly ignored context with regards 2 Peter 1:1, just how did you come to the above conclusion?
 
Last edited:
Jesus was going to be crucified regardless, so I don't understand your point.

Nevertheless, Jesus claimed to be who he was--not God, but--God's son.
You have a weak argument. Claiming to be the Son of God does not negate diety, it only affirms relationship. One has to take into consideration what 'son of' means in ancient times. It is much different than our times.

“Son of” can be offspring of or “of the order of” 1Kg 20:35, 2 Kg 2:3,5. “Son of God” = “Of the order of God.” Orientals used the phrase “Son of” to indicate likeness, the sameness of nature, or equality of being.
  • 1 Kg 20:35 Now a certain man of the sons of the prophets said to his neighbor by the word of the LORD, “Strike me, please.” And the man refused to strike him.
  • 2 Kg 2:3 Now the sons of the prophets who were at Bethel came out to Elisha, and said to him, “Do you know that the LORD will take away your master 1from over you today?”
  • 2 Kg 2:5 Now the sons of the prophets who were at Jericho came to Elisha and said to him, “Do you know that the LORD will take away your master from over you today?”
We can go back and forth with implicit terms, or better yet, can anyone produce scripture that states explicitly that Jesus is God or that Jesus is not God. Let's keep in mind that Scripture was written under the inspiration of the HS therefore 100% credible.
BTW it only takes one verse. Jn 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
 
That's an oxymoron.
No explanation as to why?
Why? Haven't you always been the child of your father?
Were you the child of your father 1000 years ago?
There's a time when every father was not a father.
Discussing God not man.
You don't become a father until you have children.
The fallacy of definition. Father is also relational.
Who told you God's designation as "Father" was eternal?
Are you saying it is not?
If this is what you believe, you need a new math teacher.
Last I checked the use of = can be universally applied as an abbreviation for 'equal, identical, uniform, alike, like, the same, one and the same,
equivalent, indistinguishable, matching, twin, comparable, similar, corresponding,
correspondent, commensurate, amounting, proportionate amount, the same, on a par with = to name a few.

You should look into getting a refund from whatever "school" you attended.
 
2 Peter 1:2 is in the "immediate text" of 2 Peter 1:1. And 2 Peter 1:2 clearly distinguishes God from Jesus

So, how is it that you can make the claim that "even though 2 Thess 1:12 and 2 Pe 1:1 have the same structure they cannot be translated the same due to the immediate text" when it comes to the context surrounding 1 Thessalonians 1:12 but ignore context with regards to 2 Peter 1:1?

Since you've clearly ignored context with regards 2 Peter 1:1, just how did you come to the above conclusion?
Before we get into this, I have some questions. Do you agree with the translation of 1Thess 1:12? And if so how does that apply to the translation of 2 Pe 1:1? Keep in mind the topic is not the same sentence structure but the immediate context that agrees or disagrees with the translation.
 

OldShepherd

Active member
Jesus did not openly reveal Himself to those who were not His followers. It was not until He was being interrogated by the Sanhedrin that He told anyone outside His circle that He was the Son of God. They did not even accept or believe that,

they certainly would not have believed if He said He was God. For basically the same reason that non-Christians today do not acknowledge that Jesus was the Son of God, the Messiah.
 

OldShepherd

Active member
Depending on the context of the verse, chapter, book, and the main idea the translators will insert or delete words when translating. Even though 2 Thess 1:12 and 2Pe 1:1 have the same structure they cannot be translated the same due to the immediate text. 2Pe 1:1 is speaking exclusively about Jesus and 2 Thess 1:12 about Jesus and God.
You are mistaken.
2 Thess 1:12 Of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ (tou theou hēmōn kai kuriou Iēsou Christou). Here strict syntax requires, since there is only one article with theou and kuriou that one person be meant, Jesus Christ, as is certainly true in Tit_2:13; 2Pe_1:1 (Robertson, Grammar, p.786).​
A.T. Robertson taught graduate level Greek for more than 40 years.
Daniel Wallace: “In native Greek (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by kaiv (thus, article-substantive-kaiv-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent.” [“The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by Kaiv in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance” (Ph.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1995) 134-35.]​
 
You have a weak argument. Claiming to be the Son of God does not negate diety, it only affirms relationship. One has to take into consideration what 'son of' means in ancient times. It is much different than our times.

“Son of” can be offspring of or “of the order of” 1Kg 20:35, 2 Kg 2:3,5. “Son of God” = “Of the order of God.” Orientals used the phrase “Son of” to indicate likeness, the sameness of nature, or equality of being.
  • 1 Kg 20:35 Now a certain man of the sons of the prophets said to his neighbor by the word of the LORD, “Strike me, please.” And the man refused to strike him.
  • 2 Kg 2:3 Now the sons of the prophets who were at Bethel came out to Elisha, and said to him, “Do you know that the LORD will take away your master 1from over you today?”
  • 2 Kg 2:5 Now the sons of the prophets who were at Jericho came to Elisha and said to him, “Do you know that the LORD will take away your master from over you today?”
You do realize no matter how you view "son", the son is not the father or vice versa.

More than that, though: the fact that God is listed in Jesus' genealogical records demonstrates the use of "son of" is not "much different than our times".

Hence, because Jesus is the "son of God" (eg Luke 3:38), he is not God.
We can go back and forth with implicit terms, or better yet, can anyone produce scripture that states explicitly that Jesus is God or that Jesus is not God. Let's keep in mind that Scripture was written under the inspiration of the HS therefore 100% credible.
BTW it only takes one verse. Jn 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
I addresed this here.
 
No explanation as to why?
The way you're using eternal makes "eternal sonship" an oxymoron.

eternal=no beginning & no ending;
sonship=the time at which a father begets his male offspring

(Now, if by "eternal sonship" you all meant he will always and forever be a son, that would be different.)
Were you the child of your father 1000 years ago?
Everyone is a child of their father at the time their father begets them onwards(, which is why fathers are older than their children).
Discussing God not man.
That doesn't matter.
The fallacy of definition. Father is also relational.
Yes--"relational" (as in the "father/son" relationship).
Are you saying it is not?
Clearly.
Last I checked the use of = can be universally applied as an abbreviation for 'equal, identical, uniform, alike, like, the same, one and the same,
equivalent, indistinguishable, matching, twin, comparable, similar, corresponding,
correspondent, commensurate, amounting, proportionate amount, the same, on a par with = to name a few.
Such makes the argument against you even stronger, for saying "Jesus son of God=God" is like me saying "Horaizo son of Kiheiji=Kiheiji".
You should look into getting a refund from whatever "school" you attended.
I would if it tried to teach me what you are trying to promote.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Explicit Proof That Jesus Is God.

I could cite many verses in the NT where Jesus claims to be God, and you can counter with other verses where you claim that Jesus states He is not God. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find Jesus saying emphatically “I am God.” But also nowhere in the Gospels do we find Jesus saying emphatically, “I am not God.” The next reasonable step would to search the remaining New Testament, to see if any of the NT writers plainly stated that Jesus is God, or that Jesus is not God. The evidence I am looking for is not a trail of premises that ultimately conclude to either support or deny the deity of Christ. I searched high and low and found nowhere in the New Testament where Jesus or the NT writers explicitly state that Jesus is not God, but I do find verses where it explicitly states that Jesus is God. If you have any counter verses where Jesus or the authors explicitly state that Jesus is not God, please submit.

Titus 2:13 = looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ
2 Peter 1:1 = Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have [a]obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Note: any counter would have to rise to the same standard, and produce verses that explicitly state that Jesus is not God.

Explicit Proof That Jesus Is God.

I could cite many verses in the NT where Jesus claims to be God, and you can counter with other verses where you claim that Jesus states He is not God. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find Jesus saying emphatically “I am God.” But also nowhere in the Gospels do we find Jesus saying emphatically, “I am not God.” The next reasonable step would to search the remaining New Testament, to see if any of the NT writers plainly stated that Jesus is God, or that Jesus is not God. The evidence I am looking for is not a trail of premises that ultimately conclude to either support or deny the deity of Christ. I searched high and low and found nowhere in the New Testament where Jesus or the NT writers explicitly state that Jesus is not God, but I do find verses where it explicitly states that Jesus is God. If you have any counter verses where Jesus or the authors explicitly state that Jesus is not God, please submit.

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

2 Peter 1:1 = Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have [a]obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Note: any counter would have to rise to the same standard, and produce verses that explicitly state that Jesus is not God.

Why did you change the noun δοξης into an adjective?

And why did you assume ημων modifies θεου as well as σωτηρος?
 
Last edited:
You are mistaken.
2 Thess 1:12 Of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ (tou theou hēmōn kai kuriou Iēsou Christou). Here strict syntax requires, since there is only one article with theou and kuriou that one person be meant, Jesus Christ, as is certainly true in Tit_2:13; 2Pe_1:1 (Robertson, Grammar, p.786).
A.T. Robertson taught graduate level Greek for more than 40 years.
He also noted:
This otherwise conclusive syntactical argument, admitted by Schmiedel, is weakened a bit by the fact that σωτηρ — Kurios is often employed as a proper name without the article, a thing not true of εν τηι βασιλειαι του Χριστου και τεου — sōtēr in Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1. So in Ephesians 5:5 τεος — en tēi basileiāi tou Christou kai theou the natural meaning is in the Kingdom of Christ and God regarded as one, but here again Κυριος — theos like Kurios often occurs as a proper name without the article. So it has to be admitted that here Paul may mean “according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ,” though he may also mean “according to the grace of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ.”
The bolded is why many scholars state this verse (and others) do not fall under "Sharp's Rule".
Daniel Wallace: “In native Greek (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by kaiv (thus, article-substantive-kaiv-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent.” [“The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by Kaiv in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance” (Ph.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1995) 134-35.]
Daniel Wallace re-writes Sharp's Rule in his dissertation; yet, when it comes to the translation of 2 Thessalonians 1:12 in the NET, we read:
that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.
 
Before we get into this, I have some questions. Do you agree with the translation of 1Thess 1:12? And if so how does that apply to the translation of 2 Pe 1:1? Keep in mind the topic is not the same sentence structure but the immediate context that agrees or disagrees with the translation.
I've already addressed this.

Now, can you please answer my questions, which were:

how is it that you can make the claim that "even though 2 Thess 1:12 and 2 Pe 1:1 have the same structure they cannot be translated the same due to the immediate text" when it comes to the context surrounding 1 Thessalonians 1:12 but ignore context with regards to 2 Peter 1:1?
And:
Since you've clearly ignored context with regards to 2 Peter 1:1, just how did you come to the conclusion that "2Pe 1:1 is speaking exclusively about Jesus and 2 Thess 1:12 (is speaking) about Jesus and God"?
 
Jesus did not openly reveal Himself to those who were not His followers. It was not until He was being interrogated by the Sanhedrin that He told anyone outside His circle that He was the Son of God. They did not even accept or believe that,


they certainly would not have believed if He said He was God. For basically the same reason that non-Christians today do not acknowledge that Jesus was the Son of God, the Messiah.
In total agreement. Thankyou.
 
You are mistaken.
2 Thess 1:12 Of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ (tou theou hēmōn kai kuriou Iēsou Christou). Here strict syntax requires, since there is only one article with theou and kuriou that one person be meant, Jesus Christ, as is certainly true in Tit_2:13; 2Pe_1:1 (Robertson, Grammar, p.786).
A.T. Robertson taught graduate level Greek for more than 40 years.
Daniel Wallace: “In native Greek (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by kaiv (thus, article-substantive-kaiv-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent.” [“The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by Kaiv in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance” (Ph.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1995) 134-35.]
I agree with Granville Sharp's Rule, but I also agree that the context rules and the translator has to interpret accordingly. Following the context, I believe Paul is using theos as a proper name, it agrees more with the text than theos being used a substantive. At the same time, your interpretation does not disagree with the text, but I believe mine agrees more.
This does not undermine Titus 2:13 or 2 Pe 1:1, for there the text agrees with the translation. Also, this does not undermine the Trinity or strengthen any anti-trinitarian argument. Why? Since God is a proper noun in 2 Thess 1:12 then I do not need a definite article, for the designation of 'proper noun' identifies Theos as YHWH. In other words anarthrous Theos = YHWH in John 1:1c. The anti trins are in checkmate.

Thank you for the post.
 
He also noted:

The bolded is why many scholars state this verse (and others) do not fall under "Sharp's Rule".

Daniel Wallace re-writes Sharp's Rule in his dissertation; yet, when it comes to the translation of 2 Thessalonians 1:12 in the NET, we read:
I agree with Granville Sharp's Rule, but I also agree that the context rules and the translator has to interpret accordingly. Following the context, I believe Paul is using theos as a proper name, it agrees more with the text than theos being used a substantive.

This does not undermine Titus 2:13 or 2 Pe 1:1, for there the text agrees with the translation. Also, this does not undermine the Trinity or strengthen any anti-trinitarian argument. In fact it puts the nail in the anti trin coffin. Why? Since God is a proper noun in 2 Thess 1:12 then I do not need a definite article, for the designation of 'proper noun' identifies Theos as YHWH. In other words anarthrous Theos = YHWH in John 1:1c.
 
You do realize no matter how you view "son", the son is not the father or vice versa.
You should understand what you are arguing against. What you posted is modalism, which I do not believe in, we are discussing the Trinity.
More than that, though: the fact that God is listed in Jesus' genealogical records demonstrates the use of "son of" is not "much different than our times"

Hence, because Jesus is the "son of God" (eg Luke 3:38), he is not God.
Luke and Matthew are interested in proving that Jesus is a descendent of Abraham through David and prove so by listing the genealogy. Note Matthew does not state that Jesus is the son of Joseph but the son of Mary. Luke identifies Jesus as Joseph's legally adopted son.
As to your answer above, you are attempting to argue against an eternal Father /Son hierarchical relationship as a father /son biological relationship. How can anyone apply a biological relationship to two independent centers of consciousness within one spiritual being?
I addresed this here
Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus *said to him, “Because you have seen me, have you now believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”
After Thomas answers, Jesus only addresses that Thomas believes he's been resurrected(, and states others are blessed for not having to see but yet believe he rose from the dead).
That is a huge leap of faith. You are reading into the text what it does not say. Nowhere does it state that Jesus was referring to the resurrection only. If Jesus is not God, note that neither Jesus corrected Thomas, nor John wrote a comment correcting Thomas' statement. As the text stands Jesus and John are in agreement with Thomas's statement.
The way you're using eternal makes "eternal sonship" an oxymoron.

eternal=no beginning & no ending;
sonship=the time at which a father begets his male offspring.
(Now, if by "eternal sonship" you all meant he will always and forever be a son, that would be different.)

The fallacy of appealing to definition.

Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined by argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean. Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of a term.

Jesus and the Father have a Father / Son relationship based on a hierarchy vs procreation. But you insist on describing your god as creation vs the creator.
Such makes the argument against you even stronger, for saying "Jesus son of God=God" is like me saying "Horaizo son of Kiheiji=Kiheiji".
Now, this makes the argument against you even stronger. Jesus = center of consciousness. God = being. "Horaizo son of human =human".
how is it that you can make the claim that "even though 2 Thess 1:12 and 2 Pe 1:1 have the same structure they cannot be translated the same due to the immediate text" when it comes to the context surrounding 1 Thessalonians 1:12 but ignore context with regards to 2 Peter 1:1?
And:
Since you've clearly ignored context with regards to 2 Peter 1:1, just how did you come to the conclusion that "2Pe 1:1 is speaking exclusively about Jesus and 2 Thess 1:12 (is speaking) about Jesus and God"?
The context surrounding 2 Thess 1:12 support the translation of Theos as a proper name, why = because in vs 11 Paul writes about the grace of God that is being mentioned in vs 12. As to 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13, the text is about Jesus only.
But do not smile so quickly.

This does not undermine Titus 2:13 or 2 Pe 1:1, for there the text agrees with the translation. Also, this does not undermine the Trinity or strengthen any anti-trinitarian argument. In fact, if you agree, it puts the nail in the anti-trinitarian coffin. Why? Since God is a proper noun in 2 Thess 1:12 then I do not need a definite article, for the designation of 'proper noun' identifies Theos as YHWH. In other words anarthrous Theos = YHWH in John 1:1c.
 
Why did you change the noun δοξης into an adjective?

And why did you assume ημων modifies θεου as well as σωτηρος?
Explain how you come to such a conclusion.

This might help

Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person*. In our texts, this is demonstrated by the words "God" and "Savior" at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. "God" has the article, it is followed by the word for "and," and the word "Savior" does not have the article. Hence, both nouns are being applied to the same person, Jesus Christ.
 
I agree with Granville Sharp's Rule, but I also agree that the context rules and the translator has to interpret accordingly. Following the context, I believe Paul is using theos as a proper name, it agrees more with the text than theos being used a substantive.

This does not undermine Titus 2:13 or 2 Pe 1:1, for there the text agrees with the translation.
This makes no sense (as TOU QEOU is used in the same way in all three texts).
Also, this does not undermine the Trinity or strengthen any anti-trinitarian argument. In fact it puts the nail in the anti trin coffin. Why? Since God is a proper noun in 2 Thess 1:12 then I do not need a definite article, for the designation of 'proper noun' identifies Theos as YHWH.
You do realize the article is used in all three verses, correct:
2 Thessalonians 1:12: του θεου ημων και κυριου ιησου χριστου
Titus 2:13: του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων χριστου ιησου
1 Peter 1:1: του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου
In other words anarthrous Theos = YHWH in John 1:1c.
For that to be true, (the nominative) QEOS in John 1:1 would need to have the article (since nothing in the text makes it definite).
 
You should understand what you are arguing against. What you posted is modalism, which I do not believe in, we are discussing the Trinity.
I'm not arguing against either Modalism or Trinitarianism.

I'm simply stating a fact.
Luke and Matthew are interested in proving that Jesus is a descendent of Abraham through David and prove so by listing the genealogy. Note Matthew does not state that Jesus is the son of Joseph but the son of Mary. Luke identifies Jesus as Joseph's legally adopted son.
What does any of that have to do with God being listed as Christ's father in the genealogical records:
son of Enos son of Seth son of Adam son of God. (Luke 3:38)
Futhermore, you argued that "son of" was not used in the same way today as it was back then. This demonstrates it was used in the exact same way as it is used today.
As to your answer above, you are attempting to argue against an eternal Father /Son hierarchical relationship as a father /son biological relationship.
No I am not because a father/son relationship is hierarchical due to the biological.

(Only with regards to adopted sonship is a father/son relationship solely hierarchical.)
How can anyone apply a biological relationship to two independent centers of consciousness within one spiritual being?
Simple: they are not "two independent centers of consciousness within one spiritual being".

They are two separate beings.
That is a huge leap of faith. You are reading into the text what it does not say. Nowhere does it state that Jesus was referring to the resurrection only.
Actually, it does because Thomas never doubted who Jesus was--only that he had been resurrected (John 20:25).
If Jesus is not God, note that neither Jesus corrected Thomas, nor John wrote a comment correcting Thomas' statement. As the text stands Jesus and John are in agreement with Thomas's statement.
Jesus had no reason to correct John since John wasn't calling him God(--just like Jesus wasn't calling those in the crowd his 'mother and brothers' at Luke 8:21--just like Jonathon wasn't calling David "YHWH God of Israel" at 1 Samuel 20:12).
The fallacy of appealing to definition.

Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined by argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean. Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of a term.
The above is nonsense since words are defined based on how they are used(--which is why words are added to the dictionary every year).
Jesus and the Father have a Father / Son relationship based on a hierarchy vs procreation. But you insist on describing your god as creation vs the creator.
Again, the only way God and Jesus could have a (solely) "Father / Son relationship based on a hierarchy" is if Jesus was adopted.
Now, this makes the argument against you even stronger. Jesus = center of consciousness. God = being. "Horaizo son of human =human".
By stating "Horaizo son of human=human", you're attempting to use "God" as a nature (just as human is a nature).

Unfortunately, "God" in the phrase "son of God" is never used in that way(--Biblically speaking).
The context surrounding 2 Thess 1:12 support the translation of Theos as a proper name, why = because in vs 11 Paul writes about the grace of God that is being mentioned in vs 12. As to 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13, the text is about Jesus only.
But do not smile so quickly.

This does not undermine Titus 2:13 or 2 Pe 1:1, for there the text agrees with the translation. Also, this does not undermine the Trinity or strengthen any anti-trinitarian argument. In fact, if you agree, it puts the nail in the anti-trinitarian coffin. Why? Since God is a proper noun in 2 Thess 1:12 then I do not need a definite article, for the designation of 'proper noun' identifies Theos as YHWH. In other words anarthrous Theos = YHWH in John 1:1c.
I've addressed this here.
 
Top