So now that the first 3 have been debunked, we can now move on to Titus 2:13 which, ironically, is also one of my go-tos.
You have not debunked a one
You never address this
John 1:1-3 is just the opposite.
As I noted you are denying John's word from the get go
John 1:1–3 (NASB 95) — 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God. 2
He was in the beginning with God. 3
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
First there is nothing in the verse calling him a non personal thing. And the word is addressed by the masculine pronoun he. He is further shown personal through his creative ability. All things came into being through him. This makes him a non thing.
Were he a non personal thing, he could not create himself
Where have you addressed this?
BTW you outright contradicted John 1:1
Scripture - the Word was God
You - The word was not God
Do you seriously think that is an argument when it is nothing but a plain denial of scripture?
Regarding
1 John 1:1–3 (NASB95) — 1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard,
what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
What is it they saw but the person of Christ the eternal life which was with the Father - The son of God Jesus Christ
How you can say the word did not exist in the old testament is clearly unbiblical for
John 1:1–2 (NASB95) — 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2
He was in the beginning with God.
1John 1:2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you
the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us
You have done nothing to address that refutation of your claim
and regarding
John 20:27–29 (NASB95) — 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” 28
Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”
Thomas said to him
My Lord and my God!
Hello
Thomas said to Jesus "My Lord and my God!"
Hello you have not set that aside
And Jesus responded back to him with
Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”
Hello
Thomas called him his Lord and his God
And because Thomas saw him he believed while Jesus would bless those who believe what Thomas believed without having seeing him
Your claims are clearly without any merit.
Finally as for
John 1:18 (NASB95) — 18 No one has seen God at any time;
the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
John 1:18 (LEB) — 18 No one has seen God at any time;
the one and only, God, the one who is in the bosom of the Father—that one has made him known.
John 1:18 (UASV) — 18 No one has seen God at any time;
the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has made him fully known.
John 1:18 (NIV) — 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son,
who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
It is clear enough
God and Jesus are entirely distinct in Titus 2:13. The Great God and Our Savior Jesus have two different articles. Jesus is Our Savior, God is The God. Two different categories, two different qualifiers, two different person.
Afraid not
Titus 2:13 (NASB95) — 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,
Our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ!
Sam Shamoun
In the following verses, both the blessed Apostles and Servants of Christ, Paul and Peter, lavish the highest accolades upon their risen Lord by describing him in language that can only be applied to the one true God, namely, Jehovah:
“looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing
of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (tou megalou Theou kai Soteros hemon Christou ‘Iesou), who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself
His own special people, zealous for good works.” Titus 2:13-14 New King James Version (NKJV)
“Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness
of our God and Savior Jesus Christ (tou Theou hemon kai Soteros ‘Iesou Christou):” 2 Peter 1:1 NKJV
Here, the inspired emissaries of Christ employ a Greek grammatical construction known as Sharp’s (first) rule to identify Jesus as both God (in fact, the great God!) and Savior.
According to this rule, when singular nouns that are not proper names are connected together by the conjunction
kai (“and”), with the definite article (“the”) only appearing before the first noun, then both nouns refer to a single person. In fact, this same exact construction is used four other times in 2 Peter in relation to Christ:
“for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom
of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (tou Kyriou hemon kai Soteros ‘Iesou Christou).” 2 Peter 1:11 NKJV
“For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge
of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (tou Kyriou kai Soteros ‘Iesou Christou), they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.” 2 Peter 2:20 NKJV
“that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles
of the Lord and Savior (tou Kyriou kai Soteros),” 2 Peter 3:2 NKJV
“but grow in the grace and knowledge
of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (tou Kyriou hemon kai Soteros ‘Iesou Christou). To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.” 2 Peter 3:18 NKJV
Now who would deny that in these passages Jesus is being described as both Lord and Savior? And yet this same construction appears in both Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1!
In light of this, there is simply no way around the fact that Christ is clearly being identified as our (great) God and Savior.
To provide further substantiation for this point, we have decided to reproduce the following (somewhat lengthy) excerpt from
Word Biblical Commentary: Pastoral Epistles, by William D. Mounce, Volume 46, pp. 426-429, and 431. In our estimation, Mounce’s exegesis happens to be one of the best explanations and defenses of Titus 2:13 (as well as 2 Peter 1:1) being another explicit witness(es) to the absolute Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. All bold and capital emphasis ours:
The arguments for Paul’s identification of
tou megalou theou …
hemon, “our great God,” and
‘Iesou, “Jesus,” ARE IMPRESSIVE…
(1)
theou, “God,” and
soteros, “savior,” are both governed by the same article, and according to Granville Sharp’s rule they therefore refer to the same person (Robertson,
Grammar, 785-89; Zerwick,
Biblical Greek, 59-60; Harris, “Titus 2:13,” 267-69; Wallace,
Greek Grammar, 270-90). For example, 2 Cor 1:2 speaks of
ho theos kai pater, “the God and Father,” both terms referring to the same person. As Wallace clarifies Sharp’s own qualifiers, the rule applies “
only with personal, singular, and non-proper nouns” (
Greek Grammar, 272) and indicates some degree of unity between the two words, possibly equality or identity (270).
When understood as Sharp intended, THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS IN THE NT TO THE RULE (although on theological grounds, NOT GRAMMATICAL, the rule has been questioned here and in 2 Pet 1:1; cf. Wallace,
Greek Grammar, 273 n. 50, and further bibliography at 273 n. 50 and 276 n. 55). If
soteros referred to a second person, it would have been preceded by the article. However, this is not to make the mistake of modalism, which sees only one God appearing in different modes (cf. Grudem,
Systematic Theology, 242). God the Father and God the Son are not identical in orthodox theology; the Son is God, but he is not the Father. Wallace and Robertson (
Exp 21 [1921] 185-87) both describe the force of G. B. Winer’s refusal (
A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament [Andover, MA: Draper, 1869] 130) to accept Sharp’s rule FOR THEOLOGICAL AND NOT GRAMMATICAL REASONS. Speaking of the same construction in 2 Pet 1:1, 11, Robertson is direct in his critique: “The simple truth is that Winer’s anti-Trinitarian prejudice overruled his grammatical rectitude in his remarks about 2 Peter i. 1” (
Exp 21 [1921] 185); and the influence that Winer exerted as a grammarian has influenced other grammarians and several generations of scholars.
The grammatical counterargument is that
soter, “savior,” like other technical terms and proper names, tends to be anarthrous; but “God” (Wallace,
Greek Grammar, 272, n. 42), and
soter (Harris, “Titus 2:13,” 268) are not proper names.
theos is not a personal proper name because it can be made plural (
theoi, “gods”; cf. Wallace,
Greek Grammar, 272, n. 42). Proper nouns are usually anarthrous since they are inherently definite, but
theos is almost always articular unless other grammatical rules require the article to be dropped in specific contexts.
theos occurs frequently in the TSKS (article-substantive-
kai-substantive) construction to which Sharp’s rule applies (Luke 20:37; John 20:27; Rom 15:6; 1 Cor 15:24; 2 Cor 1:3; 11:31; Gal 1:4; Eph 1:3; Phil 4:20; 1 Thess 1:3; 3:11, 13; Jas 1:27; 1 Pet 1:3; Rev 1:6), always in reference to one person (cf. Wallace, “Sharp
Redivivus?” 46-47). In the PE
soter occurs in eight other passages, seven of which are articular (1 Tim 2:3; 2 Tim 1:10; Titus 1:3, 4; 2:10; 3:4, 6). The only other anarthrous use of
soter in the PE is in 1 Tim 1:1, where it is anarthrous in accordance with Apollonius’s Canon (Wallace,
Greek Grammar, 250). In other words, in the PE the articular construction is the rule, suggesting that there is a specific reason for its anarthrous state here. If the question is the grammatical meaning of this text, Sharp’s rule is decisive.
If Paul was speaking of two persons, it would have been easy to say so unambiguously (e.g.,
tou megalou theou kai ‘Iesou Christou tou soteros hemon, “the great God and Jesus Christ our savior,” or
tou megalou theou hemon kai tou soteros ‘Iesou Christou, “our great God and the savior Jesus Christ” [Harris, 269]).
Instead he chose a form that most naturally reads as one person, ‘Iesou Christou, “Jesus Christ,” which is in apposition to tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon, “our great God and savior.” To say it another way, if Paul did not believe that Jesus was God,
it seems highly unlikely that he would have been so sloppy in making such a significant theological statement. If Paul did believe that Jesus was God, it is not a surprise to read this.
(2) The flow of the discussion argues that
theou kai soteros, “God and savior,” refers to one person and that the one person is Jesus Christ. (a) Paul begins by saying, “for the grace of God has appeared bringing salvation,” associating God with salvation. Two verses later, without a change of subject, he speaks of
theou kai soteros hemon, “our God and savior.” The most natural reading is to continue the association between
theou, “God,” and
soteros, “savior.” However, since
‘Iesou Christou “Jesus Christ,” most likely stands in apposition to
soteros, “savior,” because of their close proximity, Jesus is the God and Savior. (b) Since
elpis, “hope,” is personified in the PE as Jesus (see above), Paul begins the verse speaking of Jesus not God the Father (“waiting for the blessed hope, which is the appearing of God, who is Jesus Christ”). (c) The following verse speaks of Jesus’ saving activity. This does not mean that v 13 must be speaking of one person; Paul often changes subjects by adding a relative clause (e.g. Eph 1:7). However, since v 14 does discuss salvation, it strongly suggests that Paul is thinking of Jesus as savior. (This argues against Hort’s position [below] that
‘Iesou Christou, “Jesus Christ,” refers back to
tes doxes tou …
theou, “the glory of God.”) If God and savior refer to one person (below), and if savior refers to Jesus Christ, then so must God. Lock (145) also points out that the idea of
hina lytrosetai, “in order that he might redeem,” which occurs in v 14,
is used in the OT of God but here of Christ, implying an equation between the two.
(3) The phrase
theos kai soter, “God and savior,” was a set phrase in Hellenistic language…
AND ALWAYS REFERRED TO ONE PERSON, such as Ptolemy I (
tou megalou theou euergetou kai soteros [
epiphanous]
eucharistou, “the great god, benefactor, and savior [manifest one,] beneficent one”…;
soter kai theos, “savior and god”…), Antiochus Epiphanes (
theos epiphanes, “god manifest”…), and Julius Caesar (
theos kai soter, “god and savior”…). Moulton comments, “Familiarity with the everlasting apotheosis that flaunts itself in the papyri and inscriptions of Ptolemaic and Imperial times, lends strong support to Wendland’s contention that Christians, from the latter part of i/A.D. onward, deliberately annexed for their Divine Master the phraseology that was impiously arrogated to themselves by some of the worst men” (
Grammar 1:84).
It was also used by Hellenistic and Palestinian Judaism in reference to God (Dibelius-Conzelmann, 143-46). Since in Hellenism it was a set phrase referring to one Person and Paul is using language that places his gospel in direct confrontation with emperor worship and Ephesian religion…, the phrase most likely refers to one person in this context, not two.
This is how it would have been understood in Cretan society. Wallace points out how rare this expression is in the LXX (Esth 5:1; Ps 61:1, 5, without the article; cf. 2 Macc 6:32; Philo
Leg.
All. 2.56;
Praem. 163.5); the MT rarely has an analogous construction (singular-article-noun-
waw-noun), and when it does, the LXX uses a different construction in translation (“Sharp
Redivivus?” 43). He cites O. Cullmann (
The Christology of the New Testament, rev. ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963] 241) in concluding that “Hellenism accounts for the form, Judaism for the context of the expression” (“Sharp
Redivivus?” 44).
(4) When Paul speaks of the “appearing of the glory of our great God,” he ties “appearing” and “God” together.
Yet epiphaneia, “appearing,” in Paul always refers to Jesus’ second coming and never to God. The appearance of God is therefore the appearance of Jesus (2 Thess 2:8; 1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim 1:9-10; 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13). In fact 1 Tim 6:14 and 2 Tim 1:10 have much the same meaning as our passage and confirm this argument. Although God the Father is involved in the Son’s return, he is not as involved as this would indicate if it refers to two people (Lock 145; Fee, 196). There are two related arguments. (a) If
kai, “and,” is epexegtical,
epiphaneian, “appearing,” is a restatement of
elpida, “hope,” and hope is a personification of Jesus, showing that the appearance is the appearance of Jesus. (b)
epiphaneian, “appearing” (v 13), parallels
epephane, “appearance,” in v 11, and since in v 11 Paul is speaking of Jesus’ appearance, it is most likely here that he is speaking of Jesus’ second appearance. The counterargument is that the cognate
epiphaneian, “to appear,” occurs in Titus 2:11 and 3:4 as part of the description of God the Father; however, these verses speak of God sending Jesus the first time.
Titus 2
13Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
I don't consider that one to be one you should use. Actually, it makes you look quite illiterate that you would set yourself up like a bowling pin for an easy knock down.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
THE GRANVILLE SHARP RULE OF GREEK GRAMMAR MAKES IT PLAIN ONLY ONE PERSON IS SPOKEN OF.
The Granville Sharp rule is a grammatical principle stating that when two or more personal, singular substantives (excluding proper names) are connected by καί and governed by a single article, they refer to the same person.
Since that one was so quickly handled, you quoted Hebrews 1:8 which is also one of my go-tos. Hebrews 1:8 is quoted from Psalm 45:6 where the person being referred to is a human king with a queen. That should be your first red flag that it's not calling Jesus God. God and Jesus don't have queens.
Um the recipient of the title is quite obvious here
Hebrews 1:8 (NASB95) — 8
But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
It is not a human king and a queen from the old testament
to assume that is to imagine God does not know who he is talking about
This is fun stuff when seeing how God ties this all together.
