Jesus God in the flesh!

TibiasDad

Well-known member
This shows me that you either didn't look at them or that you didn't comprehend what you read:

2 Peter 1:1 (NASB): "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (one entity).
2 Peter 1:1 (KJ21): "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ" (two entities).

Titus 2:13 (NASB): "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (one entity)
Titus 2:13 (KJ21): "looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ" (two entities)

Thus, your statement:

is shown to be incorrect.

No it is not, because there is only one ἡμῶν, the possessive plural pronoun in both verses. The compound nouns Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, God and Savior, cannot be legitimately separated! It is grammatically impossible in either case, and there is a singular ἡμῶν not a independent ἡμῶν for each of the two nouns.

Doug
 
No it is not, because there is only one ἡμῶν, the possessive plural pronoun in both verses. The compound nouns Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, God and Savior, cannot be legitimately separated! It is grammatically impossible in either case, and there is a singular ἡμῶν not a independent ἡμῶν for each of the two nouns.

Doug
And this is why those who have no knowledge of the original languages shouldn't speak about things they know nothing about.

At Titus 2:13, there are two genitive phrases:
1) του μεγαλου θεου (of the great God), and
2) χριστου ιησου (of Jesus Christ)

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

Moreover, at 2 Peter 1:1, there are two genitive phrases:
1) του θεου (of God), and
2) ιησου χριστου (of Jesus Christ)

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

TibiasDad

Well-known member
And this is why those who have no knowledge of the original languages shouldn't speak about things they know nothing about.

At Titus 2:13, there are two genitive phrases:
1) του μεγαλου θεου (of the great God), and
2) χριστου ιησου (of Jesus Christ)

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

Moreover, at 2 Peter 1:1, there are two genitive phrases:
1) του θεου (of God), and
2) ιησου χριστου (of Jesus Christ)

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

Wrong again, and that of one who allegedly has knowledge of the original languages. I am no expert by far, but I have studied Koine Greek in my formal training (with above average marks) for ministry, and have continued study informally in the 37 years of ministry since.

The genitive nouns, του θεου and ιησου χριστου, are possessed by the nomanitive noun ημων. The genitive nouns are the objects possessed, not the possessors! It is the same construction in both 2 Peter and Titus. That is first year Greek knowledge, so one need not be an expert, or even advanced in study to realize the fallacy of your arguments. If του θεου and ιησου χριστου are the possessors, then what do they possess in these passages?

The simple and straight forward translation is "our (Great) God and Savior", "our" being the subject of the sentence, and "Great God and Savior" being the objects of "our" possession, and ιησου χριστου is genitive because it is predicated on σωτηρος and του μεγαλου θεου , the genitive case for savior and great God!


Doug
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
This statement simply means "all things that exist have an essence of quality of existence". (I don't understand how this helps your argument.)

That is absurd! The quality of existence is existing! That is an equally true reality for all things! The differential between the things that exist is the "what" qualities that define these things. Plants exist, but they are not animal! Humans exist, just as do plants, but a man is not a plant! God exists, but God, in his natural state, is neither plant or animal, though they exist just as much as God. The essence of human existence is not the same as the essence of a rose bush or the essence of God, even though all three things exist in reality.

Doug
 
Wrong again, and that of one who allegedly has knowledge of the original languages. I am no expert by far, but I have studied Koine Greek in my formal training (with above average marks) for ministry, and have continued study informally in the 37 years of ministry since.
And I have degrees in said languages(--not to mention I worked as both a translator and interpreter, and speak 16 languages).
The genitive nouns, του θεου and ιησου χριστου, are possessed by the nomanitive noun ημων. The genitive nouns are the objects possessed, not the possessors! It is the same construction in both 2 Peter and Titus. That is first year Greek knowledge, so one need not be an expert, or even advanced in study to realize the fallacy of your arguments. If του θεου and ιησου χριστου are the possessors, then what do they possess in these passages?
The simple and straight forward translation is "our (Great) God and Savior", "our" being the subject of the sentence, and "Great God and Savior" being the objects of "our" possession, and ιησου χριστου is genitive because it is predicated on σωτηρος and του μεγαλου θεου , the genitive case for savior and great God!


Doug
You clearly have no idea what you're referring to as the construction in Titus is different from the construction in 2 Peter.

In Titus' του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων χριστου ιησου, the possessive (ημων) governs σωτηρος (only). Thus, the most natural rendering of the phrase is "of the great God and of Jesus Christ our savior".

At 2 Peter's του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου, the possessive ημων governs του θεου solely.


 
Last edited:
That is absurd! The quality of existence is existing! That is an equally true reality for all things!
Saying "the quality of existence is existing" makes no sense.
The differential between the things that exist is the "what" qualities that define these things. Plants exist, but they are not animal! Humans exist, just as do plants, but a man is not a plant! God exists, but God, in his natural state, is neither plant or animal, though they exist just as much as God. The essence of human existence is not the same as the essence of a rose bush or the essence of God, even though all three things exist in reality.

Doug
Stating the obvious does not an argument make(. Nor is this addressing anything I've stated, so does not negate anything I've mentioned).
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
And I have degrees in said languages(--not to mention I worked as both a translator and interpreter, and speak 16 languages).
Congratulations, but I have countless scholars, over 1900 years of time that agree with me! I would rather be correct and less educated than wrong with a superior intellect.

Regarding Titus 2:13, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, in their commentary, say:

the great God and our Saviour Jesus—There is but one Greek article to "God" and "Saviour," which shows that both are predicated of one and the same Being. "Of Him who is at once the great God and our Saviour." Also (2) "appearing" (epiphaneia) is never by Paul predicated of God the Father (Joh 1:18; 1Ti 6:16), or even of "His glory" (as Alford explains it): it is invariably applied to Christ's coming, to which (at His first advent, compare 2Ti 1:10) the kindred verb "appeared" (epephanee), Tit 2:11, refers (1Ti 6:14; 2Ti 4:1, 8). Also (3) in the context (Tit 2:14) there is no reference to the Father, but to Christ alone; and here there is no occasion for reference to the Father in the exigencies of the context. Also (4) the expression "great God," as applied to Christ, is in accordance with the context, which refers to the glory of His appearing; just as "the true God" is predicated of Christ, 1Jo 5:20. The phrase occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, but often in the Old Testament. De 7:21; 10:17, predicated of Jehovah, who, as their manifested Lord, led the Israelites through the wilderness, doubtless the Second Person in the Trinity. Believers now look for the manifestation of His glory, inasmuch as they shall share in it. Even the Socinian explanation, making "the great God" to be the Father, "our Saviour," the Son, places God and Christ on an equal relation to "the glory" of the future appearing: a fact incompatible with the notion that Christ is not divine; indeed it would be blasphemy so to couple any mere created being with God.

Regarding 2 Peter 1:1, they say:

Through the righteousness of God; the Greek preposition which we render through, may likewise be rendered with, as 2Pe 1:5 Act 7:38, in the church, that is, with the church; and so the sense is either:

1. Through the righteousness, i.e. truth and faithfulness, of Christ in his promises, whereof the faith of the saints was an effect: or:

2. Through the righteousness of Christ, as the meritorious cause of their faith: or:

3. With the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, and made theirs upon their believing. They had obtained like precious faith as the apostles themselves and others had, together with the righteousness of Christ, an interest in which always accompanies faith, Rom 4:22.

And our Saviour Jesus Christ: there being but one article in the Greek, these words are to be understood conjunctly, the particle
and being but an explicative, and the sense is: Through the righteousness of our God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ, who is God: see the like, 2Pe 1:11 3:18 Joh 20:28 Tit 2:14.

You clearly have no idea what you're referring to as the construction in Titus is different from the construction in 2 Peter.

In Titus' του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων χριστου ιησου, the possessive (ημων) governs σωτηρος (only). Thus, the most natural rendering of the phrase is "of the great God and of Jesus Christ our savior".

At 2 Peter's του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου, the possessive ημων governs του θεου solely.

The point is that both have του θεου-και σωτηρος and in both verses, there is only a singular ημων and article in relation to του θεου-και σωτηρος, necessarily uniting then as a singular compound object, namely, "the God and Savior of us" to put it literally.

The only difference is the placement of the personal pronoun, ημων, and placement of a word doesn't change the translation or meaning of the word. If your argument is correct, and ημων only refers to one of the genitive nouns, what possesses the other genitive nouns? If there is only a singular ημων and article, they have to refer and apply to all the genitive nouns in the logical context.

Doug
 
Congratulations, but I have countless scholars, over 1900 years of time that agree with me! I would rather be correct and less educated than wrong with a superior intellect.

Regarding Titus 2:13, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, in their commentary, say:

the great God and our Saviour Jesus—There is but one Greek article to "God" and "Saviour," which shows that both are predicated of one and the same Being. "Of Him who is at once the great God and our Saviour." Also (2) "appearing" (epiphaneia) is never by Paul predicated of God the Father (Joh 1:18; 1Ti 6:16), or even of "His glory" (as Alford explains it): it is invariably applied to Christ's coming, to which (at His first advent, compare 2Ti 1:10) the kindred verb "appeared" (epephanee), Tit 2:11, refers (1Ti 6:14; 2Ti 4:1, 8). Also (3) in the context (Tit 2:14) there is no reference to the Father, but to Christ alone; and here there is no occasion for reference to the Father in the exigencies of the context. Also (4) the expression "great God," as applied to Christ, is in accordance with the context, which refers to the glory of His appearing; just as "the true God" is predicated of Christ, 1Jo 5:20. The phrase occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, but often in the Old Testament. De 7:21; 10:17, predicated of Jehovah, who, as their manifested Lord, led the Israelites through the wilderness, doubtless the Second Person in the Trinity. Believers now look for the manifestation of His glory, inasmuch as they shall share in it. Even the Socinian explanation, making "the great God" to be the Father, "our Saviour," the Son, places God and Christ on an equal relation to "the glory" of the future appearing: a fact incompatible with the notion that Christ is not divine; indeed it would be blasphemy so to couple any mere created being with God
Regarding 2 Peter 1:1, they say:

Through the righteousness of God; the Greek preposition which we render through, may likewise be rendered with, as 2Pe 1:5 Act 7:38, in the church, that is, with the church; and so the sense is either:

1. Through the righteousness, i.e. truth and faithfulness, of Christ in his promises, whereof the faith of the saints was an effect: or:

2. Through the righteousness of Christ, as the meritorious cause of their faith: or:

3. With the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, and made theirs upon their believing. They had obtained like precious faith as the apostles themselves and others had, together with the righteousness of Christ, an interest in which always accompanies faith, Rom 4:22.

And our Saviour Jesus Christ: there being but one article in the Greek, these words are to be understood conjunctly, the particle
and being but an explicative, and the sense is: Through the righteousness of our God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ, who is God: see the like, 2Pe 1:11 3:18 Joh 20:28 Tit 2:14.
Interestingly, regarding Titus 2:13, we read:
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
Now, do I need to quote another (Trinitarian) scholar with regards to the rendering of 2 Peter 1:1?

The point is that both have του θεου-και σωτηρος and in both verses, there is only a singular ημων and article in relation to του θεου-και σωτηρος, necessarily uniting then as a singular compound object, namely, "the God and Savior of us" to put it literally.
The only difference is the placement of the personal pronoun, ημων, and placement of a word doesn't change the translation or meaning of the word. If your argument is correct, and ημων only refers to one of the genitive nouns, what possesses the other genitive nouns? If there is only a singular ημων and article, they have to refer and apply to all the genitive nouns in the logical context.

Doug
If such were the case, this would also be true oof 2 Peter 1:2(, and yet...).

To put it simply, nothing you've mentioned is "necessary" (as language doesn't work that way.)
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
Interestingly, regarding Titus 2:13, we read:

1) You haven't cited the source of your quote, but using your cited website I've found:

a) Robertson's Word Pictures:

Of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (τεου — tou megalou theou kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou). This is the necessary meaning of the one article with σωτηρος — theou and Χριστου Ιησου — sōtēros just as in 2 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:11. See Robertson, Grammar, p. 786. Westcott and Hort read Christou Iēsou f0).

b) Geneva Study Bible:
e Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
(e) Christ is here most plainly called that mighty God, and his appearance and coming is called by the figure of speech metonymy, our hope.

c) John Gill: 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."

d) Coffman's Commentary:

The glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ ... Despite the usual accuracy of the ASV, it appears to this student that the translators missed it here. The proper rendition of the phrase is as given in the ASV margin, the RSV, Weymouth and Goodspeed, thus:

The glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Lenski said flatly: "Jesus Christ is here called our God and Saviour. One person is referred to and not two."[33]

Of course, many scholars support the translation as in the KJV and the text before us; but despite that, it is admitted by all of them that this is what the Greek says, making it necessary to plead an exception in order to read it differently.
Besides that, "The only begotten Son, alone, is the subject of this sublime passage."[34] Written as it should be written, it is one of the most precious statements in all the New Testament bearing upon the deity of our blessed Lord.

The marvelous glory of Jesus Christ will be in the cataclysmic events of the Second Advent, the same being the primary affirmation of this great text. Paul was encouraging the beleaguered saints on Crete to hold fast the true faith until that moment in the fullness of time when Christ has promised to return, the second time apart from sin, robed in the glory of the eternal world, for the purpose of redeeming the righteous and casting evil out of his universe. Apart from the rendition of the disputed phrase noted above, the deity of Christ shines clearly enough in that glory envisioned of him in the entire verse.

[32] Ronald A. Ward, op. cit., p. 261.

[33] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 922.

[34] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 258.

e) Albert Barnes:

Of the great God - There can be little doubt, if any, that by “the great God” here, the apostle referred to the Lord Jesus, for it is not a doctrine of the New Testament that God himself as such, or in contradistinction from his incarnate Son, will appear at the last day. It is said, indeed, that the Saviour will come “in the glory of his Father, with his angels” Matthew 16:27, but that God as such will appear is not taught in the Bible. The doctrine there is, that God will be manifest in his Son; that the divine approach to our world be through him to judge the race; and that though he will be accompanied with the appropriate symbols of the divinity, yet it will be the Son of God who will be visible. No one, accustomed to Paul‘s views, can well doubt that when he used this language he had his eye throughout on the Son of God, and that he expected no other manifestation than what would be made through him.

In no place in the New Testament is the phrase ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ Θεοῦ epiphaneian tou Theou- “the manifestation or appearing of God” - applied to any other one than Christ It is true that this is spoken of here as the “appearing of the glory - τῆς δόξης tēs doxēs- of the great God,” but the idea is that of such a manifestation as became God, or would appropriately display his glory. It is known to most persons who have attended to religious controversies, that this passage has given rise to much discussion. The ancients, in general, interpreted it as meaning” The glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” This sense has been vindicated by the labors of Beza, Whitby, Bull, Matthaei, and Middleton (on the Greek article), and is the common interpretation of those who claim to be orthodox; see Bloomfield, Rec. Syn., and Notes, in loc. He contends that the meaning is, “the glorious appearance of that great being who is our God and Saviour.” The arguments for this opinion are well summed up by Bloomfield. Without going into a critical examination of this passage, which would not be in accordance with the design of these Notes, it may be remarked in general:

(1) that no plain reader of the New Testament, accustomed to the common language there, would have any doubt that the apostle referred here to the coming of the Lord Jesus.

(2) that the “coming” of God, as such, is not spoken of in this manner in the New Testament.

(3) that the expectation of Christians was directed to the advent of the ascended Saviour, not to the appearing of God as such.

(4) that this is just such language as one would use who believed that the Lord Jesus is divine, or that the name God might properly be applied to him.

(5) that it would naturally and obviously convey the idea that he was divine, to one who had no theory to defend.

(6) that if the apostle did not mean this, he used such language as was fitted to lead people into error.

(7) and that the fair construction of the Greek here, according to the application of the most rigid rules, abundantly sustains the interpretation which the plain reader of the New Testament would affix to it. The names above referred to are abundant proof that no violation is done to the rules of the Greek language by this interpretation, but rather that the fair construction of the original demands it. If this be so, then this furnishes an important proof of the divinity of Christ.

Just sayin',

Doug
 
1) You haven't cited the source of your quote,
That makes no sense considering I provided the link, which takes you directly to The Expositor's Greek Testament (where the quote is found).
but using your cited website I've found:
a) Robertson's Word Pictures:

Of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (τεου — tou megalou theou kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou). This is the necessary meaning of the one article with σωτηρος — theou and Χριστου Ιησου — sōtēros just as in 2 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:11. See Robertson, Grammar, p. 786. Westcott and Hort read Christou Iēsou f0).


b) Geneva Study Bible:
e Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
(e) Christ is here most plainly called that mighty God, and his appearance and coming is called by the figure of speech metonymy, our hope.

c) John Gill: 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."

d) Coffman's Commentary:

The glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ ... Despite the usual accuracy of the ASV, it appears to this student that the translators missed it here. The proper rendition of the phrase is as given in the ASV margin, the RSV, Weymouth and Goodspeed, thus:

The glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Lenski said flatly: "Jesus Christ is here called our God and Saviour. One person is referred to and not two."[33]

Of course, many scholars support the translation as in the KJV and the text before us; but despite that, it is admitted by all of them that this is what the Greek says, making it necessary to plead an exception in order to read it differently.
Besides that, "The only begotten Son, alone, is the subject of this sublime passage."[34] Written as it should be written, it is one of the most precious statements in all the New Testament bearing upon the deity of our blessed Lord.

The marvelous glory of Jesus Christ will be in the cataclysmic events of the Second Advent, the same being the primary affirmation of this great text. Paul was encouraging the beleaguered saints on Crete to hold fast the true faith until that moment in the fullness of time when Christ has promised to return, the second time apart from sin, robed in the glory of the eternal world, for the purpose of redeeming the righteous and casting evil out of his universe. Apart from the rendition of the disputed phrase noted above, the deity of Christ shines clearly enough in that glory envisioned of him in the entire verse.

[32] Ronald A. Ward, op. cit., p. 261.

[33] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 922.

[34] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 258.

e) Albert Barnes:

Of the great God - There can be little doubt, if any, that by “the great God” here, the apostle referred to the Lord Jesus, for it is not a doctrine of the New Testament that God himself as such, or in contradistinction from his incarnate Son, will appear at the last day. It is said, indeed, that the Saviour will come “in the glory of his Father, with his angels” Matthew 16:27, but that God as such will appear is not taught in the Bible. The doctrine there is, that God will be manifest in his Son; that the divine approach to our world be through him to judge the race; and that though he will be accompanied with the appropriate symbols of the divinity, yet it will be the Son of God who will be visible. No one, accustomed to Paul‘s views, can well doubt that when he used this language he had his eye throughout on the Son of God, and that he expected no other manifestation than what would be made through him.

In no place in the New Testament is the phrase ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ Θεοῦ epiphaneian tou Theou- “the manifestation or appearing of God” - applied to any other one than Christ It is true that this is spoken of here as the “appearing of the glory - τῆς δόξης tēs doxēs- of the great God,” but the idea is that of such a manifestation as became God, or would appropriately display his glory. It is known to most persons who have attended to religious controversies, that this passage has given rise to much discussion. The ancients, in general, interpreted it as meaning” The glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” This sense has been vindicated by the labors of Beza, Whitby, Bull, Matthaei, and Middleton (on the Greek article), and is the common interpretation of those who claim to be orthodox; see Bloomfield, Rec. Syn., and Notes, in loc. He contends that the meaning is, “the glorious appearance of that great being who is our God and Saviour.” The arguments for this opinion are well summed up by Bloomfield. Without going into a critical examination of this passage, which would not be in accordance with the design of these Notes, it may be remarked in general:

(1) that no plain reader of the New Testament, accustomed to the common language there, would have any doubt that the apostle referred here to the coming of the Lord Jesus.

(2) that the “coming” of God, as such, is not spoken of in this manner in the New Testament.

(3) that the expectation of Christians was directed to the advent of the ascended Saviour, not to the appearing of God as such.

(4) that this is just such language as one would use who believed that the Lord Jesus is divine, or that the name God might properly be applied to him.

(5) that it would naturally and obviously convey the idea that he was divine, to one who had no theory to defend.

(6) that if the apostle did not mean this, he used such language as was fitted to lead people into error.

(7) and that the fair construction of the Greek here, according to the application of the most rigid rules, abundantly sustains the interpretation which the plain reader of the New Testament would affix to it. The names above referred to are abundant proof that no violation is done to the rules of the Greek language by this interpretation, but rather that the fair construction of the original demands it. If this be so, then this furnishes an important proof of the divinity of Christ.

Just sayin',

Doug

Vincent's Word Studies states:
Of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ ( τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἱησοῦ )

For Jesus Christ rend. Christ Jesus. Μέγας great with God, N.T. but often in lxx. According to A.V. two persons are indicated, God and Christ. Revelations with others rend. of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus, thus indicating one person, and asserting the deity of Christ. I adopt the latter, although the arguments and authorities in favor of the two renderings are very evenly balanced.
IOW, (Trinitarian) "scholars" are divided on the way the text should be translated. Thus, it is correctly stated:
We have no sure way to judge which translations correctly understand the verse and which ones do not. But with the long overdue dismissal of the phantom of “Sharp’s Rule,” the position of those who insist “God” and “Savior” must refer to the same being in this verse is decidedly weakened. There is no legitimate way to distinguish the grammar of Titus 2.13 from that of Titus 1.4 and 2 Thessalonians 1.12, just as there is no way to consider 2 Peter 1.1 different in its grammar from 2 Peter 1.2. This is a case where grammar alone will not settle the matter.
Note also:
The verse can be understood either of one person or two....The verse itself proves neither that one person or that two persons are in view.
What's interesting is that because this verse is ambiguous, Trinitarian "scholars" aren't even in agreement!

(Just sayin'.)
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
That makes no sense considering I provided the link, which takes you directly to The Expositor's Greek Testament (where the quote is found).


Vincent's Word Studies states:

IOW, (Trinitarian) "scholars" are divided on the way the text should be translated. Thus, it is correctly stated:

Note also:

What's interesting is that because this verse is ambiguous, Trinitarian "scholars" aren't even in agreement!

(Just sayin'.)

I will simply repeat Coffman's Commentary, "Of course, many scholars support the translation as in the KJV and the text before us; but despite that, it is admitted by all of them that this is what the Greek says, making it necessary to plead an exception in order to read it differently.

I believe that the most natural and syntaxically (if that is a proper way of saying it) correct and conservative way of reading it. The non-grammatical reasons, such as the fact that epiphany, the appearing of, is never in reference to the Father, and always to the Son! Grammar aside, this most certainly mandates the necessity of the great God and Savior being a compound noun.

Doug
 
I will simply repeat Coffman's Commentary, "Of course, many scholars support the translation as in the KJV and the text before us; but despite that, it is admitted by all of them that this is what the Greek says, making it necessary to plead an exception in order to read it differently.
Clearly you don't understand the commentary you've quoted. Saying "it is admitted by all of thrm that this is what the Greek says" simply means that they understand it is a possible translation.

Such is true of those translations who render the text as referring to Christ only in the main text:

Titus 2:13

New American Standard Bible

13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of [a]our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,
Read full chapter

Footnotes​

  1. Titus 2:13 Or the great God and our Savior

I believe that the most natural and syntaxically (if that is a proper way of saying it) correct and conservative way of reading it.The non-grammatical reasons, such as the fact that epiphany, the appearing of, is never in reference to the Father, and always to the Son!
"The appearing" refers to the glory in Titus 2:13. Such is an allusion to Luke 9:26.
Grammar aside, this most certainly mandates the necessity of the great God and Savior being a compound noun.

Doug
Not really.

Both grammatically and contextually, the text refers to "the appearing of the glory of the great God and (the appearing of the glory of) our savior Jesus Christ"--or, as translated in many versions: "the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ".
 
Top