Explicit Proof That Jesus Is God.

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 asked you two questions and you respond with "Explain how you come to such a conclusion."

Will a coherent conversation be possible?
 
This makes no sense (as TOU QEOU is used in the same way in all three texts).

You do realize the article is used in all three verses, correct:


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).
Realized this morning the error I made. Yes, theos carries the definite article. We address this latter.

God Bless.
 
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.]
My apologies, please disregard my response to your post. It contains a foundational errorl.

God Bless.
 
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 got that from where?
 
You got that from where?
You have to be more specific.

Is your question referring to "Depending on the context of the verse, chapter, book, and the main idea the translators will insert or delete words when translating.
or "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."
 
Last edited:


I asked you two questions and you respond with "Explain how you come to such a conclusion."

Will a coherent conversation be possible?
In the amount of time, it took you to write this you could have answered my question. If you expect the possibility of a coherent conversation allow me the privilege of understanding your position, so I can correctly answer. Or do you believe typing one or two questions is sufficient?
 
In the amount of time, it took you to write this you could have answered my question. If you expect the possibility of a coherent conversation allow me the privilege of understanding your position, so I can correctly answer. Or do you believe typing one or two questions is sufficient?

Is it your intention to be so obtuse?
 
I'm not arguing against either Modalism or Trinitarianism.

I'm simply stating a fact.
What fact, you describe the Trinity using a Modalist definition. That is not a fact that is fiction.
What does any of that have to do with God being listed as Christ's father in the genealogical records:
Read again, God is not listed as being Jesus' Father. In Luke Joseph is listed as being Jesus' adopted Father, and Adam is listed as being the son of God. In Mathew Jesus is listed as being the Son of Mary. Notice, in Luke, you have to take a 15 verse leap for your idea to be considered. You should take hermeneutics.
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.
True, the term 'son of' is not as constrictive as it is today. It can also be used to indicate likeness or sameness of nature and equality of being.
But let's go back to Luke 3, anyone can conclude from the texts that Luke was recording lineage, no equality of nature.
But don't take my word for it.
Let's continue.

Mt 26:63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” 64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! 66 What do you think?” They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.”

If 'Son of God' means 'a creation of God', why would the high priest ask Jesus such a question? Following your interpretation of 'son of' meaning 'procreation of', everyone in the room was a son of God. What constitutes blasphemy? Is it claiming to be 'the son of man', sitting at the right hand of power', coming on the clouds of heaven'. Is it one or all three? No, it is claiming to be God. Question = which item mentioned by Jesus constitutes blasphemy? And why?
But I will do your homework for you.
Asking Jesu if He was the 'Son of God' was asking Jesus is He was equal to God. Also, note that only God appears in a cloud; therefore anyone claiming the cloud is claiming deity. That is how Jesus answered the question, and in doing so triggered the high priest to the point of demanding the death of Jesus.

Jn 10:33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

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.)
Now you are making things up. Hierarchical has nothing to do with biological. Hierarchical pertains to a relationship, status, or authority. A biological relationship is not necessary.
Simple: they are not "two independent centers of consciousness within one spiritual being".

They are two separate beings.
Your quote =17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”
Again I suggest you read up on the Trinity before you continue to debate.

  • Just as I am a being with one center of self-consciousness, who I call “I”, God is a being with three centers of self-consciousness each of which can say “I”.
    • I am the Father.
    • I am the Son.
    • I am the Holy Spirit
      • Each has a first-person perspective, each has a separate will, and desires
        • They are three distinct persons.
    • The Father is not identical to the Son or the Holy Spirit.
    • The Son is not identical to the Father or the Holy Spirit
    • The Holy Spirit is not identical to the Son or to the Father.
      • They are not independent of each other they still belong to the same being.
The citation does not disagree with the Trinity but supports it. Here we have two separate centers of consciousness bearing witness.
Actually, it does because Thomas never doubted who Jesus was--only that he had been resurrected (John 20:25).
Are you saying that Thomas never doubted that Jesus is God? As much as that kills your argument, I cannot agree with that.
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).
Talk about pulling verses out the air. Why did you stop here, since what you cited is irrelevant to the topic at hand, you can cite thousands of verses, as much as you want, since there exist no standard as to what is relevant and what is not. What did Thomas say? 'The Lord of me and the God of me." Note thoes carries the definite article "ho" identifying Jesus as his God =YHWH.
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).
Your critique of 'eternal sonship" = "sonship=the time at which a father begets his male offspring". Ignoring the fact that 'sonship' is being applied to relationship not procreation. And not you write the above? Notice you are playing both sides of the fence.
It is not illogical to believe there exist an eternal hierarchical Father/Son relationship. Definitions do not reason. For example, "Natural Selection" it is neither natural or does it select, but when discussing this Creationist don't spit hairs on the dictionary meaning but understand the expanded meaning.
Again, the only way God and Jesus could have a (solely) "Father / Son relationship based on a hierarchy" is if Jesus was adopted.
Wrong, hierarchy has nothing to do with adoption, it has to do with position of authority. There can and does exist two eternal centers of consciousness where one has authority over the other.
By stating "Horaizo son of human=human", you're attempting to use "God" as a nature (just as human is a nature).
Wrong.
  • Essence -is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is; the essence of a thing is that which is expressed by its definition.
  • Existence - whereas the essence gives an answer to the question as to what the thing is, the existence is the affirmative to the question as to whether it is.
    • God is eternal, existence is of the essence of God,
    • Essence and existence are identical in God.
  • Nature - is that whereby it acts as it does, the essence considered as the foundation and principle of its operation.
    • Love is a marker of God’s essence.
    • God’s nature is love.
  • Being- signifies the substance of X, what makes X individual.
    • “Being” refers to the essential attributes that make God what He is,
      • holy
      • omnipresent
      • omniscient
      • immutable
      • omnipotent
When using human I am referring to being. =
Human being = one center of consciousness per being.
God = three centers of consciousness fully share the being called God.
Unfortunately, "God" in the phrase "son of God" is never used in that way(--Biblically speaking).
Rather narrow minded. Somethings do not have to be expressed explicitly to be understood. Are you not the champion of this?
I've addressed this here.
The context surrounding 2 Thess 1:12 can support the translation "our God and Lord Jesus Christ" or "our God and the Lord Jesus Christ"." What decides? I believe the context of vs 11 supports "our God and the Lord Jesus Christ" Just as the context of Titus 2 and 2 Peter 1 supports "our God and Savior Jesus Christ". It is done all the time. Translation has to take into account grammar and context. Note John 1:6,12,13,18 theos does not carry the definite article but is translated as if it does. Why? Why does the translator translate God instead of a god? Because of the context. And note no none trin disagrees with John 1:6,12,13,18 but they do have a hard time with John 1:1c. Why?
 
Last edited:
What fact, you describe the Trinity using a Modalist definition. That is not a fact that is fiction.
I wasn't describing the Trinity towerwatchman.

I was making a factual statement: 'no matter how you view "son", a father is not his son (and vice versa)' since you claimed (in part):
One has to take into consideration what 'son of' means in ancient times. It is much different than our times.

Read again, God is not listed as being Jesus' Father. In Luke Joseph is listed as being Jesus' adopted Father, and Adam is listed as being the son of God. In Mathew Jesus is listed as being the Son of Mary. Notice, in Luke, you have to take a 15 verse leap for your idea to be considered. You should take hermeneutics.
All in the genealogical records are listed as Jesus' father towerwatchman(. Perhaps you should understand the term "father" from a Biblical perspective).

However, even if you ignore that God is Jesus' Father based on the genealogical records, you still must understand that names are included in the record. Therefore, God is functioning as a name (like Adam, Enos, Seth, Joseph, Mary).

Hence, Jesus is not God (as God is named as Jesus' Father).
True, the term 'son of' is not as constrictive as it is today. It can also be used to indicate likeness or sameness of nature and equality of being.
But let's go back to Luke 3, anyone can conclude from the texts that Luke was recording lineage, no equality of nature.
But don't take my word for it.
Let's continue.

Mt 26:63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” 64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! 66 What do you think?” They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.”

If 'Son of God' means 'a creation of God', why would the high priest ask Jesus such a question? Following your interpretation of 'son of' meaning 'procreation of', everyone in the room was a son of God. What constitutes blasphemy? Is it claiming to be 'the son of man', sitting at the right hand of power', coming on the clouds of heaven'. Is it one or all three? No, it is claiming to be God. Question = which item mentioned by Jesus constitutes blasphemy? And why?
But I will do your homework for you.
Asking Jesu if He was the 'Son of God' was asking Jesus is He was equal to God. Also, note that only God appears in a cloud; therefore anyone claiming the cloud is claiming deity. That is how Jesus answered the question, and in doing so triggered the high priest to the point of demanding the death of Jesus.

Jn 10:33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
Jesus was accused of blasphemy because he affirmed that he was "the Messiah, the Son of God".

With regards John 10:30,
I find it interesting that συ ανθρωπος ων ποιεις σεαυτον θεον is translated as "You, being a Man, make Yourself God" (when the text literally says "you--being a man--make yourself a god").

Nevertheless, Jesus answers them by saying "It is written: 'I said, 'you are gods'". Quoting a Scripture about others as being 'gods' would make no sense if Jesus were claiming to be "God".
Now you are making things up. Hierarchical has nothing to do with biological. Hierarchical pertains to a relationship, status, or authority. A biological relationship is not necessary.
Did I not state: "Only with regards to adopted sonship is a father/son relationship solely hierarchical"?

However, when a son is biologically their father's child, the father is the "head" of his child due to him being the child's (biological) father.
Your quote =17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”
Again I suggest you read up on the Trinity before you continue to debate.

  • Just as I am a being with one center of self-consciousness, who I call “I”, God is a being with three centers of self-consciousness each of which can say “I”.
    • I am the Father.
    • I am the Son.
    • I am the Holy Spirit
      • Each has a first-person perspective, each has a separate will, and desires
        • They are three distinct persons.
    • The Father is not identical to the Son or the Holy Spirit.
    • The Son is not identical to the Father or the Holy Spirit
    • The Holy Spirit is not identical to the Son or to the Father.
      • They are not independent of each other they still belong to the same being.
Never in Scripture are the Father, son, and holy spirit referred to as 'one being'.

If they were "the same being", Jesus could not refer to the Law stating: "δυο ανθρωπων η μαρτυρια αληθης εστιν (the testimony of two men is true") as the Law doesn't allow one being with "two centers of consciousness" to be a double witness.

That's like a lawyer stating he has two witnesses, and then someone approaches and testifies as "a son", and then the same individual comes back and testifies (as a 2nd witness, but) as "a father".
 
The citation does not disagree with the Trinity but supports it. Here we have two separate centers of consciousness bearing witness.
No.

We have two individuals bearing witness.
Are you saying that Thomas never doubted that Jesus is God? As much as that kills your argument, I cannot agree with that.
Does the text express that Thomas doubted Jesus' identity, or his resurrection? Thomas' own statement confirms what he doubted:

Now Thomas, one of the twelve, who was called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and put my finger into the mark of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will never believe!
Thus, the only thing Thomas doubted (per this text) is that Jesus was resurrected.
Talk about pulling verses out the air. Why did you stop here, since what you cited is irrelevant to the topic at hand, you can cite thousands of verses, as much as you want, since there exist no standard as to what is relevant and what is not. What did Thomas say? 'The Lord of me and the God of me." Note thoes carries the definite article "ho" identifying Jesus as his God =YHWH.
Did not Jonathon say to David: "Lord YHWH of Israel"? Yes. Did that mean Jonathon was calling David 'YHWH God of Israel'? No!
Did not Jesus answer and say to the crowd: "my mother and my brothers"? (Of course.) Did that mean Jesus was calling those in the crowd his 'mother and brothers'? No!

Therefore, just because Thomas answered and said to Jesus: "my Lord and my God" does not mean Thomas was calling Jesus his Lord and God.
Your critique of 'eternal sonship" = "sonship=the time at which a father begets his male offspring". Ignoring the fact that 'sonship' is being applied to relationship not procreation. And not you write the above? Notice you are playing both sides of the fence.
You continue to claim that Jesus' "sonship" is being applied to "relationship not procreation"; yet, there are no scriptures to support this thought--especially considering Jesus is the 'only born son'.
It is not illogical to believe there exist an eternal hierarchical Father/Son relationship.
Yes it is if you believe both were in existence for the same amount of time.

Such would make them twins(. And even amongst twins, there is a hierarchy).
Definitions do not reason. For example, "Natural Selection" it is neither natural or does it select, but when discussing this Creationist don't spit hairs on the dictionary meaning but understand the expanded meaning.
You may want to think on this even more because the reason it is called "natural selection" is because the selection is natural(, ie, 'found in nature).
Wrong, hierarchy has nothing to do with adoption, it has to do with position of authority.
In a father/son relationship, the person with the "position of authority" is the father.

The "father"(, ie, the "authoritative figure") is the father because of either biology or adoption.
There can and does exist two eternal centers of consciousness where one has authority over the other.
This is never presented in Scripture.

The Bible presents one individual having authority of another individual (eg 1 Corinthians 11:3).
Wrong.
  • Essence -is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is; the essence of a thing is that which is expressed by its definition.
  • Existence - whereas the essence gives an answer to the question as to what the thing is, the existence is the affirmative to the question as to whether it is.
    • God is eternal, existence is of the essence of God,
    • Essence and existence are identical in God.
  • Nature - is that whereby it acts as it does, the essence considered as the foundation and principle of its operation.
    • Love is a marker of God’s essence.
    • God’s nature is love.
  • Being- signifies the substance of X, what makes X individual.
    • “Being” refers to the essential attributes that make God what He is,
      • holy
      • omnipresent
      • omniscient
      • immutable
      • omnipotent
When using human I am referring to being. =
Human being = one center of consciousness per being.
God = three centers of consciousness fully share the being called God.
The Bible never implied that "three centers of consciousness fully share the being called God". Instead, it promotes:

1) God,
2) God's son, and
3) God's holy spirit.

Rather narrow minded. Somethings do not have to be expressed explicitly to be understood. Are you not the champion of this?
What you refer to as "narrow-minded" is what I call scriptural.

And scripturally speaking, "God" in the phrase "son of God" is never used in the way you are using it.
The context surrounding 2 Thess 1:12 can support the translation "our God and Lord Jesus Christ" or "our God and the Lord Jesus Christ"." What decides? I believe the context of vs 11 supports "our God and the Lord Jesus Christ"
The context cannot support the translation "our God and Lord Jesus Christ" at 2 Thessalonians 1:12. (The so-called "Sharp's Rule" seems to support it, but because of the many restrictions it has, even this "rule" is questionable with regards this verse.)

The context, OTOH, supports the translation "our God and the Lord Jesus Christ".
Just as the context of Titus 2 and 2 Peter 1 supports "our God and Savior Jesus Christ".
The context of Titus 2:13 does not support the translation "of our great God and savior Jesus Christ". Neither does the context of 2 Peter 1:1 support it's "our God and savior Jesus Christ" translation. (Again, the so-called "Sharp's Rule" seems to support these translations; however, context is what causes others to choose the alternate translations.)
It is done all the time. Translation has to take into account grammar and context.
If that were the case, "Sharp's Rule" would not exist (especially considering grammar doesn't work in the way this "rule" works as grammar functions too freely to be bound by such a 'rule'.)
Note John 1:6,12,13,18 theos does not carry the definite article but is translated as if it does. Why? Why does the translator translate God instead of a god? Because of the context. And note no none trin disagrees with John 1:6,12,13,18 but they do have a hard time with John 1:1c. Why?
I've addressed this here.
 
The context cannot support the translation "our God and Lord Jesus Christ" at 2 Thessalonians 1:12. (The so-called "Sharp's Rule" seems to support it, but because of the many restrictions it has, even this "rule" is questionable with regards this verse.)
The context, OTOH, supports the translation "our God and the Lord Jesus Christ".

The context of Titus 2:13 does not support the translation "of our great God and savior Jesus Christ". Neither does the context of 2 Peter 1:1 support it's "our God and savior Jesus Christ" translation. (Again, the so-called "Sharp's Rule" seems to support these translations; however, context is what causes others to choose the alternate translations.)

I for one appreciate you sharing your many years of Greek scholarship with us. Would you share with us the name of the institution where you did your post graduate study and the names of any of your peer reviewed writings?
In the absence of such I think it wise to rely on the accredited scholars. Paul was educated, he wrote what he meant and meant what he wrote.

A. T. Robertson, Titus 2:13
Looking for (prosdechomenoi). Present middle participle of prosdechomai, old verb, the one used of Simeon (Luk_2:25) and others (Luk_2:38) who were looking for the Messiah.
The blessed hope and appearing of the glory (tēn makarian elpida kai epiphaneian tēs doxēs). The word epiphaneia (used by the Greeks of the appearance of the gods, from epiphanēs, epiphainō) occurs in 2Ti_1:10 of the Incarnation of Christ, the first Epiphany (like the verb epephanē, Tit_2:11), but here of the second Epiphany of Christ or the second coming as in 1Ti_6:14; 2Ti_4:1, 2Ti_4:8. In 2Th_2:8 both epiphaneia and parousia (the usual word) occur together of the second coming.
Of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (tou megalou theou kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou). This is the necessary meaning of the one article with theou and sōtēros just as in 2Pe_1:1, 2Pe_1:11. See Robertson, [Taught graduate level Greek for more than 40 years] Grammar, p. 786. Westcott and Hort read Christou Iēsou.
Marvin Vincent, Titus 1;13
and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ; not two divine persons, only one, are here intended; for the word: rendered "appearing", is never used of God the Father, only of the second person; and the propositive article is not set before the word "Saviour", as it would, if two distinct persons were designed; and the copulative "and" is exegetical, and may he rendered thus, "and the glorious appearing of the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ"; who, in the next verse, is said to give himself for the redemption of his people: so that here is a very illustrious proof of the true and proper deity of Christ,

Let us review 2 Peter 1;1.
If Jesus is not God and Savior in 2 Pet 1:1 He is not Lord and Savior in 2 Pet 1:11. Both verses have the same grammatical structure.

2 Peter 1:1
1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:[του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου/tou theou emon kai soteros emon isou xristou]
2 Peter 1:11
11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. [του κυριου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου/tou kuriou emon kai soteros iesou xristou]​
 
I for one appreciate you sharing your many years of Greek scholarship with us. Would you share with us the name of the institution where you did your post graduate study and the names of any of your peer reviewed writings?
In the absence of such I think it wise to rely on the accredited scholars. Paul was educated, he wrote what he meant and meant what he wrote.

A. T. Robertson, Titus 2:13
Looking for (prosdechomenoi). Present middle participle of prosdechomai, old verb, the one used of Simeon (Luk_2:25) and others (Luk_2:38) who were looking for the Messiah.
The blessed hope and appearing of the glory (tēn makarian elpida kai epiphaneian tēs doxēs). The word epiphaneia (used by the Greeks of the appearance of the gods, from epiphanēs, epiphainō) occurs in 2Ti_1:10 of the Incarnation of Christ, the first Epiphany (like the verb epephanē, Tit_2:11), but here of the second Epiphany of Christ or the second coming as in 1Ti_6:14; 2Ti_4:1, 2Ti_4:8. In 2Th_2:8 both epiphaneia and parousia (the usual word) occur together of the second coming.
Of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (tou megalou theou kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou). This is the necessary meaning of the one article with theou and sōtēros just as in 2Pe_1:1, 2Pe_1:11. See Robertson, [Taught graduate level Greek for more than 40 years] Grammar, p. 786. Westcott and Hort read Christou Iēsou.
Marvin Vincent, Titus 1;13
and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ; not two divine persons, only one, are here intended; for the word: rendered "appearing", is never used of God the Father, only of the second person; and the propositive article is not set before the word "Saviour", as it would, if two distinct persons were designed; and the copulative "and" is exegetical, and may he rendered thus, "and the glorious appearing of the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ"; who, in the next verse, is said to give himself for the redemption of his people: so that here is a very illustrious proof of the true and proper deity of Christ,

Let us review 2 Peter 1;1.
If Jesus is not God and Savior in 2 Pet 1:1 He is not Lord and Savior in 2 Pet 1:11. Both verses have the same grammatical structure.


2 Peter 1:1​

1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:[του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου/tou theou emon kai soteros emon isou xristou]

2 Peter 1:11

11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. [του κυριου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου/tou kuriou emon kai soteros iesou xristou]
While I could address these quotes, there really is no reason for me to seeing as these "scholars" have not shown that my statement is incorrect--especially considering neither of these scholars address the context of these verses.
 

herman

Member
While I could address these quotes, there really is no reason for me to seeing as these "scholars" have not shown that my statement is incorrect--especially considering neither of these scholars address the context of these verses.
Now that sounds fair to me Ongyo. Can you then please quote your scholars that address the context of the verses and what are their credentials? Thank You!

In Him,
herman
 
While I could address these quotes, there really is no reason for me to seeing as these "scholars" have not shown that my statement is incorrect--especially considering neither of these scholars address the context of these verses.
Please see response by Herman, quoted below.
Now that sounds fair to me Ongyo. Can you then please quote your scholars that address the context of the verses and what are their credentials? Thank You!

In Him,
herman
 
While I could address these quotes, there really is no reason for me to seeing as these "scholars" have not shown that my statement is incorrect--especially considering neither of these scholars address the context of these verses.
You seem to be dodging my comment on 2 Pet 1:1 and 1:11. There is no "context" which indicates a difference between the parallel meaning of these 2 vss. If Jesus is not "God and savior" in 2 Pet 1:1 He is not "Lord and savior" in 2 Pet 1;11, both have the same grammatical structure. That being true the same grammatical structure in other vss. have the same meaning despite any vague "context" you have claimed more than once but have not identified.
 
Now that sounds fair to me Ongyo. Can you then please quote your scholars that address the context of the verses and what are their credentials? Thank You!

In Him,
herman
I don't depend on scholars or scholarly works as I not only have degrees in the Biblical Languages, and can speak both languages (in addition to 14 others), so am able to judge the text and context myself.

However, if you need to view other "scholarly works" that address Titus 2:13, please note the Expositor's Greek Testament. Regarding Titus 2:13, we read (in part):

επιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης: The Second Coming of Christ will be, as we are assured by Himself, “in the glory of His Father” (Matthew 16:27; Mark 8:38). “We rejoice in the hope of the glory of God” (Romans 5:2, a passage which supports the view that δόξης here is dependent on ἐπλίδα as well as on ἐπιφάνειαν). von Soden takes ἐπιφάνειαν as epexegetical of ἐλπίδα. The Second Coming of Christ may, therefore, be regarded as an ἐπιφάνεια τῆς δόξης θεοῦ, even though we should not speak of an ἐπιφάνεια τοῦ πατρός, while ἐπιφάνεια ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ is normal and natural (See on 1 Timothy 6:14). τῆς δόξης having then an intelligible meaning, we are not entitled to treat it as merely adjectival, the glorious appearing (A.V.). The genitival relation does not differ in this case from τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ in 2 Thessalonians 2:8. See also note on 1 Timothy 1:11. Again, there does not seem any reason why τοῦ σωτῆρος, κ. τ. λ., here should not depend on ἐπιφάνειαν, on the analogy of 2 Timothy 1:10. This may be thought too remote. In any case, the conception of the Second Coming as an occasion of manifestation of two δόξαι, that of the Father and of the Son, is familiar from Luke 9:26, ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἑν τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς, κ. τ. λ. On the whole, then, we decide in favour of the R.V.m. in the rendering of this passage, appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. The grammatical argument—“the identity of reference of two substantives when under the vinculum of a common article”—is too slender to bear much weight, especially when we take into consideration not only the general neglect of the article in these epistles but the omission of it before σωτήρ in 1 Timothy 1:1; 1 Timothy 4:10. Ellicott says that “ μεγάλου would seem uncalled for if applied to the Father”. To this it may be answered that (a) the epithet is not otiose here; as marking the majesty of God the Father it is parallel to the ὃς ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν, κ. τ. λ., which recalls the self-sacrificing love of the Son; both constituting the double appeal—to fear and to love—of the Judgment to come. (b) Again, St. Paul is nowhere more emphatic in his lofty language about God the Father than in these epistles; see 1 Timothy 1:17; 1 Timothy 6:15-16.
 

herman

Member
I don't depend on scholars or scholarly works as I not only have degrees in the Biblical Languages, and can speak both languages (in addition to 14 others), so am able to judge the text and context myself.

However, if you need to view other "scholarly works" that address Titus 2:13, please note the Expositor's Greek Testament. Regarding Titus 2:13, we read (in part):
Apparently your not aware of what your saying. What your saying in "logic" is known as circular reasoning. In other words, your the only one who understands the context because your the only one who says so. And I don't care how many languages you speak, and I don't care about you telling me to check out Titus 2:13 according to the Expositor's Greek Testament.

The subject at hand is 2 Peter 1:1 as compared to the same construction as 2 Peter 1:11 that Oldshepherd brought up. So again, just to be fair mind you, give us YOUR scholarly context of said verses, I'm only interested in your "expertise" Ongyo.

In Him,
herman
 
You seem to be dodging my comment on 2 Pet 1:1 and 1:11. There is no "context" which indicates a difference between the parallel meaning of these 2 vss. If Jesus is not "God and savior" in 2 Pet 1:1 He is not "Lord and savior" in 2 Pet 1;11, both have the same grammatical structure.
I didn't dodge it because it wasn't worth discussing again. I've already established that these texts have the same grammatical structure as 2 Thessalonians 1:12(, and yet 1 Thessalonians 1:12 is translated as "our God and the Lord Jesus Christ" despite "Sharp's Rule").
That being true the same grammatical structure in other vss. have the same meaning despite any vague "context" you have claimed more than once but have not identified.
2 Peter 1:2's "του θεου και ιησου του κυριου ημων" can be viewed as a similar epithet as "του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου" as stated in 2 Peter 1:1(. It is this context that has led to others to translate 2 Peter 1:1 as "of God and our savior Jesus Christ").

Also, at Titus 2:13, there are the genitive phrases:
1) του μεγαλου θεου (of the great God), and
2) σωτηρος ημων χριστου ιησου (of our savior Jesus Christ)

Therefore, του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων χριστου ιησου can easily be translated as: "of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ (or, "of Jesus Christ our savior)"

Moreover, at 2 Peter 1:1, there are the genitive phrases:
1) του θεου ημων (of our God), and
2) σωτηρος ιησου χριστου (of savior Jesus Christ)

Therefore, του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου can easily be translated as: "of our God and of the savior Jesus Christ"(. The same is true of 2 Peter 1:11. Contextually speaking, Jesus has been referred to as "Lord" throughout the chapter, so it is more probable that "Lord" refers to Jesus at 2 Peter 1:11).
 
Last edited:
Apparently your not aware of what your saying. What your saying in "logic" is known as circular reasoning. In other words, your the only one who understands the context because your the only one who says so.
That's not what I said.

I said I don't have to look to scholars to tell me what the Greek says/means because I am a scholar myself.
And I don't care how many languages you speak, and I don't care about you telling me to check out Titus 2:13 according to the Expositor's Greek Testament.
Of course you don't.

So again, what was the purpose of your comment:

Can you then please quote your scholars that address the context of the verses and what are their credentials? Thank You!

The subject at hand is 2 Peter 1:1 as compared to the same construction as 2 Peter 1:11 that Oldshepherd brought up. So again, just to be fair mind you, give us YOUR scholarly context of said verses, I'm only interested in your "expertise" Ongyo.

In Him,
herman
Are you saying that the below (as quoted by OldShepherd):
I for one appreciate you sharing your many years of Greek scholarship with us. Would you share with us the name of the institution where you did your post graduate study and the names of any of your peer reviewed writings?
In the absence of such I think it wise to rely on the accredited scholars. Paul was educated, he wrote what he meant and meant what he wrote.
A. T. Robertson, Titus 2:13
Looking for (prosdechomenoi). Present middle participle of prosdechomai, old verb, the one used of Simeon (Luk_2:25) and others (Luk_2:38) who were looking for the Messiah.
The blessed hope and appearing of the glory (tēn makarian elpida kai epiphaneian tēs doxēs). The word epiphaneia (used by the Greeks of the appearance of the gods, from epiphanēs, epiphainō) occurs in 2Ti_1:10 of the Incarnation of Christ, the first Epiphany (like the verb epephanē, Tit_2:11), but here of the second Epiphany of Christ or the second coming as in 1Ti_6:14; 2Ti_4:1, 2Ti_4:8. In 2Th_2:8 both epiphaneia and parousia (the usual word) occur together of the second coming.
Of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (tou megalou theou kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou). This is the necessary meaning of the one article with theou and sōtēros just as in 2Pe_1:1, 2Pe_1:11. See Robertson, [Taught graduate level Greek for more than 40 years] Grammar, p. 786. Westcott and Hort read Christou Iēsou.
Marvin Vincent, Titus 1;13
and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ; not two divine persons, only one, are here intended; for the word: rendered "appearing", is never used of God the Father, only of the second person; and the propositive article is not set before the word "Saviour", as it would, if two distinct persons were designed; and the copulative "and" is exegetical, and may he rendered thus, "and the glorious appearing of the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ"; who, in the next verse, is said to give himself for the redemption of his people: so that here is a very illustrious proof of the true and proper deity of Christ,
had nothing to do with Titus 2:13?

With regards to 2 Peter 1:1, 1:11, the only thing that was said was:

Let us review 2 Peter 1;1.
If Jesus is not God and Savior in 2 Pet 1:1 He is not Lord and Savior in 2 Pet 1:11. Both verses have the same grammatical structure.

2 Peter 1:1

1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:[του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου/tou theou emon kai soteros emon isou xristou]

2 Peter 1:11

11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. [του κυριου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου/tou kuriou emon kai soteros iesou xristou]
ie, the grammar in both verses is the same(, which I already acknowledged but addressed here).
 
Top