D
- Status
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
Thank you, Daniel Marsh !! Good post about Granville’s Rule.
Another thing to consider is the context. It is discussing the second coming, the glorious appearing when every eye will see Jesus in glory. The Father, who can not be seen with our human eyes, is obviously not going to appear, so applying “the Great God” to God the Father confuses the statement and makes it make no sense. The subject is the GLORIOUS APPEARING OF
…of WHO? of Jesus, OUR GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST.
The Father is not going to appear, gloriously or otherwise.
Jesus the Son IS.
Thanks again, Daniel !! Good job !!
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
Another thing to consider is the context. It is discussing the second coming, the glorious appearing when every eye will see Jesus in glory. The Father, who can not be seen with our human eyes, is obviously not going to appear, so applying “the Great God” to God the Father confuses the statement and makes it make no sense. The subject is the GLORIOUS APPEARING OF
…of WHO? of Jesus, OUR GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST.
The Father is not going to appear, gloriously or otherwise.
Jesus the Son IS.
Thanks again, Daniel !! Good job !!
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Daniel 2:37 (King James Version)
Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.
Steve, I read the hebrew as saying “a king among princes” not a title in the sense of “the King of kings and the Lord of lords”.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Why do some Bible versions render Titus 2:13 as if it were referring only to one person, Jesus, calling him God and Savior?
In the New World Translation Titus 2:13 reads: “While we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus.”
However, many Bible translators have rendered the last part of the verse as if it meant only one person, Jesus. For example, An American Translation says: “. . . the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus.” Such translators often claim that this sort of rendering conforms to a “rule” of Greek grammar. Yet the Trinity doctrine also inclines them toward such a translation.
A literal translation of the Greek phrase is, “glory of the great God and Saviour of us Christ Jesus.” (The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, by Dr. Alfred Marshall) Observe that there is a single article (the) preceding two nouns (God, Savior) that are joined by the conjunction “and.”
Over a century ago, Granville Sharp formulated what is supposed to be a “rule” applying in such constructions. It asserts that, since the article (the) is not repeated before the second noun (Savior), the two nouns refer to the same person or subject. This would mean that “great God” and “Savior” would both be descriptive of Jesus, as if the meaning were ‘of Jesus Christ, the great God and our Savior.’
Persons inclined to believe in the deity of Jesus sometimes give the impression that the above position is demanded by proper Greek grammar. But that is not so. In fact, the validity of the “rule” being applied in Titus has been much debated by scholars.
For example, Dr. Henry Alford (The Greek Testament, Vol. III) says: “No one disputes that it may mean that which they have interpreted it” as meaning, but he adds that one needs rather to determine ‘what the words do mean.’ And that cannot be settled by grammatical rules.
A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Moulton-Turner, 1963) states about Titus 2:13: “The repetition of the art[icle] was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately.” What, though, about ‘Sharp’s rule’? Dr. Nigel Turner admits: “Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive.” (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, 1965) As to the Greek construction used, Professor Alexander Buttmann points out: “It will probably never be possible, either in reference to profane literature or to the N[ew] T[estament], to bring down to rigid rules which have no exception, ... ”—A Grammar of the New Testament Greek.
In The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Dr. N. J. D. White observes: “The grammatical argument . . . 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” ‘Savior’ in 1 Timothy 1:1; 4:10. And Dr. Alford stresses that in other passages where Paul uses expressions like “God our Savior” he definitely does not mean Jesus, for “the Father and the Son are most plainly distinguished from one another.” (1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3-5) This agrees with the overall teaching of the Bible that Jesus is a created Son who is not equal to his Father.—John 14:28; 1 Cor. 11:3.
Thus, Dr. White concludes: ‘On the whole, then, we decide in favour of the rendering of this passage, appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’ A number of modern translations agree. In the main text or in footnotes they render Titus 2:13 as speaking of two distinct persons, “the great God” who is Jehovah, and his Son, “our Savior, Christ Jesus,” both of whom have glory. (Luke 9:26; 2 Tim. 1:10) See The New American Bible, The Authentic New Testament, The Jerusalem Bible (footnote) and the translations by J. B. Phillips, James Moffatt and Charles K. Williams.
In the New World Translation Titus 2:13 reads: “While we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus.”
However, many Bible translators have rendered the last part of the verse as if it meant only one person, Jesus. For example, An American Translation says: “. . . the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus.” Such translators often claim that this sort of rendering conforms to a “rule” of Greek grammar. Yet the Trinity doctrine also inclines them toward such a translation.
A literal translation of the Greek phrase is, “glory of the great God and Saviour of us Christ Jesus.” (The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, by Dr. Alfred Marshall) Observe that there is a single article (the) preceding two nouns (God, Savior) that are joined by the conjunction “and.”
Over a century ago, Granville Sharp formulated what is supposed to be a “rule” applying in such constructions. It asserts that, since the article (the) is not repeated before the second noun (Savior), the two nouns refer to the same person or subject. This would mean that “great God” and “Savior” would both be descriptive of Jesus, as if the meaning were ‘of Jesus Christ, the great God and our Savior.’
Persons inclined to believe in the deity of Jesus sometimes give the impression that the above position is demanded by proper Greek grammar. But that is not so. In fact, the validity of the “rule” being applied in Titus has been much debated by scholars.
For example, Dr. Henry Alford (The Greek Testament, Vol. III) says: “No one disputes that it may mean that which they have interpreted it” as meaning, but he adds that one needs rather to determine ‘what the words do mean.’ And that cannot be settled by grammatical rules.
A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Moulton-Turner, 1963) states about Titus 2:13: “The repetition of the art[icle] was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately.” What, though, about ‘Sharp’s rule’? Dr. Nigel Turner admits: “Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive.” (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, 1965) As to the Greek construction used, Professor Alexander Buttmann points out: “It will probably never be possible, either in reference to profane literature or to the N[ew] T[estament], to bring down to rigid rules which have no exception, ... ”—A Grammar of the New Testament Greek.
In The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Dr. N. J. D. White observes: “The grammatical argument . . . 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” ‘Savior’ in 1 Timothy 1:1; 4:10. And Dr. Alford stresses that in other passages where Paul uses expressions like “God our Savior” he definitely does not mean Jesus, for “the Father and the Son are most plainly distinguished from one another.” (1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3-5) This agrees with the overall teaching of the Bible that Jesus is a created Son who is not equal to his Father.—John 14:28; 1 Cor. 11:3.
Thus, Dr. White concludes: ‘On the whole, then, we decide in favour of the rendering of this passage, appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’ A number of modern translations agree. In the main text or in footnotes they render Titus 2:13 as speaking of two distinct persons, “the great God” who is Jehovah, and his Son, “our Savior, Christ Jesus,” both of whom have glory. (Luke 9:26; 2 Tim. 1:10) See The New American Bible, The Authentic New Testament, The Jerusalem Bible (footnote) and the translations by J. B. Phillips, James Moffatt and Charles K. Williams.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
I am curious what your take on this text is,
Mark 12:35-37 (King James Version)
35And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David?
36For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
37David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Revelation 1
1The **Revelation **of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament
The Revelation (apokalupsi/B>). Late and rare word outside of N.T. (once in Plutarch and so in the vernacular Koin?), only once in the Gospels (Luke 2:32), but in LXX and common in the Epistles (2 Thessalonians 1:7), though only here in this book besides the title, from apokaluptw, old verb, to uncover, to unveil. In the Epistles apokalupsi/B> is used for insight into truth (Ephesians 1:17) or for the revelation of God or Christ at the second coming of Christ (2 Thessalonians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:7). It is interesting to compare apokalupsi/B> with epipaneia (2 Thessalonians 2:8) and panerwsi/B> (1 Corinthians 12:7). The precise meaning here turns on the genitive following. Of Jesus Christ (Ihsou Cristou). Hort takes it as objective genitive (revelation about Jesus Christ), but Swete rightly argues for the subjective genitive because of the next clause. Gave him (edwken autoi). It is the Son who received the revelation from the Father, as is usual (John 5:20,26, etc.). To shew (deixai). First aorist active infinitive of deiknumi, purpose of God in giving the revelation to Christ. Unto his servants (toiߠdouloiߠautou). Believers in general and not just to officials. Dative case. God’s servants (or Christ’s). Must shortly come to pass (dei genesqai en tacei). Second aorist middle infinitive of ginomai with dei. See this same adjunct (en tacei) in Luke 18:8; Romans 16:20; Revelation 22:6. It is a relative term to be judged in the light of 2 Peter 3:8 according to God’s clock, not ours. And yet undoubtedly the hopes of the early Christians looked for a speedy return of the Lord Jesus. This vivid panorama must be read in the light of that glorious hope and of the blazing fires of persecution from Rome. Sent and signified (eshmanen aposteila/B>). “Having sent (first aorist active participle of apostellw, Matthew 10:16 and again in Revelation 22:6 of God sending his angel) signified” (first aorist active indicative of shmainw, from shma, sign or token, for which see John 12:33; Acts 11:28). See Acts 12:1 for shmeion, though shmainw (only here in the Apocalypse) suits admirably the symbolic character of the book. By his angel (dia tou aggelou autou). Christ’s angel as Christ is the subject of the verb eshmanen, as in 22:16 Christ sends his angel, though in Acts 22:6 God sends. Unto his servant John (twi doulwi autou Iwanei). Dative case. John gives his name here, though not in Gospel or Epistles, because “prophecy requires the guarantee of the individual who is inspired to utter it” (Milligan). “The genesis of the Apocalypse has now been traced from its origin in the Mind of God to the moment when it reached its human interpreter” (Swete). “Jesus is the medium of all revelation” (Moffatt).
bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=re&chapter=001&verse=001&next=002&prev=020
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Thank you for asking. Here at this scripture, along with Matt 22:42, Luke 20:41, and John 7:42 Jesus identifies himself as the mystery “my Lord” sitting next to Jehovah as mentioned at Psa 110:1-5
As discussed earlier in this thread, Jehovah is sitting next to Jesus talking with him. I maintain that common sense indicates if John was sitting next to Mary talking to her, no one in their right mind would argue that Mary is John. However, that is what is being argued… that Jesus is Jehovah, even though the scripture shows Jehovah talking to the person next to him.
You know, I really try to understand how Trinitarians think, and I understand some scriptures can be ambiguous and take more thought and analysis. And so, I often tell people I understand how some Trinitiarians can focus on certain scriptures and believe as they do.
This Psa 110:1-5 is so clear cut, I’m wondering if anyone here will at least acknowledge it exactly fits the model that JW’s believe…
Steve
B
BibleSteve
Guest
I’m sorry, what is the point you are making with this? I’ve read it a couple times…
Steve
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
The fact that you ask the questions you do, and make the misrepresentations of the trinity that you do, makes me believe that you have not honestly studied any of our books on the subject.
Here is a very basic study on it for you,
The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity:An Outline Study
By Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
apologetics.com
spotlightministries.org.uk/bowmanonthetrinity.htm
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
The “revelation” is an Uncovering or Unveiling of whom Jesus is.
B
BibleSteve
Guest
Oh, OK… I thought the purpose of this Revelation was explained simply in verse 1:
(Revelation 1:1-3) A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave John, 2who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, even to all the things he saw. 3Happy is he who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and who observe the things written in it; for the appointed time is near.
Your point is the book of Revelation’s purpose was to identify who Jesus is?
Steve
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Concerning your first source,
bible.ca/trinity/trinity-JW-SYBTT-Watchtower-BOOKLET-Should-You-Believe-the-Trinity-EXPOSED-REFUTED-pagan-section.htm bible.ca/trinity/trinity-JW-SYBTT-Watchtower-BOOKLET-Should-You-Believe-the-Trinity-EXPOSED-REFUTED-bible-section.htm
Steve, with all respect, before you continue using sources like those in “Should you Believe in the trinity?” You should check out the sources being quoted. Angel Arellano has photocopied each of those sources and after reading the sources in context, the watchtower booklet looks silly to say the least.
Exposing “Should You Believe In the Trinity?” - $16
by Angel Arellano. Angel finds all the hard-to-locate photo-reproductions of the source material used in the Watchtower’s booklet, “Should You Believe In the Trinity?” Amazing misrepresentations seem to make the Watchtower’s position look good until you read the source! 128 pages, 8X11 spiral bound format. AA-18
freeminds.org/sales/books.htm#Exposing
I also, notice you or the watchtower makes the claim that the church fathers did not teach the trinity, I recommend you read an expert on the church fathers like Michael J. Partyka.
THE WATCHTOWER AND THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH FATHERS by Michael J. Partyka - $8
“Speaking as somebody who’s actually read all or most of the extant writings of every single one of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers cited, I can tell you with absolute certainty that these ante-Nicene writers knew the doctrine of the Trinity – or at least some of its key tenets – very well. In fact, some of the very first apologetic defenses of the Trinity were written by these same Church Fathers!
“So not being one to let such a challenge go by, I decided to take a look back through all I’d read before of the Fathers and see if I could find two things: (1) the source texts for the “anti-Trinity” quotes which the Watchtower used on its web site to support its anti-Trinity position, and (2) any evidence, preferably from the same texts used by the Watchtower, which would show each Church Father’s support for the doctrine of the Trinity, or at least his support for that critical tenet of the Trinity doctrine which says that Jesus Christ is of the same substance as the Father (i.e., that Jesus is truly God).” This is from page 2 of this 60 page, 8.5X11” perfect-bound book that is just what you need to demonstrate the dishonesty of the WT in their scholarship. It compares what the Watchtower says and quotes with what the Fathers REALLY said in context. Works well with the book, Exposing “Should You Believe In the Trinity?” which adds photocopies of the Father’s works as well. A must-have for the Christian who wants to make an overwhelming Trinitarian point! MP-8
freeminds.org/sales/books.htm
google.com/search?hl=en&q=Should+your+believe+in+the+Trinity+sources
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
No the correct translation is “The Revelation of Jesus Christ”, it literally reads the “unveiling of Jesus Christ”. The book of Revelation is about Jesus. Not the “revelation by Jesus Christ” there simply is no justification for the use of the word “by” there.
Have a good night, my wife is home.
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
Hi folks.
It’s 8pm on Wednesday night and I’m going to have to sign off for a while to relax. The Thursday before Memorial Day I had
a bad emotional/nervous break and I’m not well (and that’s putting it mildly). I just took my 8pm medications and it’s gonna take a while for them to kick in. I am currently having wave after wave of anxiety and panic attacks (though NOT related to this discussion), and I’m going to have to go lie down and wait for my meds to kick in so I can think without the panic attacks.
God bless you all & I hope to chat some more later.
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
It’s 8pm on Wednesday night and I’m going to have to sign off for a while to relax. The Thursday before Memorial Day I had
a bad emotional/nervous break and I’m not well (and that’s putting it mildly). I just took my 8pm medications and it’s gonna take a while for them to kick in. I am currently having wave after wave of anxiety and panic attacks (though NOT related to this discussion), and I’m going to have to go lie down and wait for my meds to kick in so I can think without the panic attacks.
God bless you all & I hope to chat some more later.
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
B
b_justb
Guest
I think part of the problem is syntax. When Catholic hear or see “Jesus is God” we automatically translate that into it’s correct theological context, “Jesus is God the Son, the second person in the Trinity, fully human and fully divine.” But who wants to say all that all the time? No one, it’s a pain in the tookus. Non-trinitarians see “Jesus is God” and translate that into, “Jesus is God the Father” which is completely wrong and not what anyone is saying or meaning. Lest they be heretics, of course 
Oh relax, it’s a joke … sort of. Click my llama link and have a laugh already.
Oh relax, it’s a joke … sort of. Click my llama link and have a laugh already.
B
b_justb
Guest
Peace with you, Jay. Rest in He who sets us free.
B
Bishopite
Guest
Your sylligism is flawed. Jehovah isn’t ONLY called Savior but God and Lord also, and ONLY God can forgive sin yet Jesus forgives sin in Mk 2:7! Jesus is called God, Lord and Savior in the Bible.
JESUS = THE WORD
Simple logic declares that if A=B and B=C then A=C. Therefore, since JESUS = THE WORD and
THE WORD = GOD, then
JESUS = GOD
This is evidenced in Mark 2:5 and Luke 7:48. By Jewish law, this was something that only God could do. In Mark 2:7, the scribes say, “He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?” I may be able to forgive someone for sins committed against me, but never for sins they commit against God, and this is what Jesus claimed to do. But only God can forgive sins that are committed against Him. So,
- Only God can forgive sins committed against Himself (and all sins are against God).
- Jesus forgave people for their sins, which were against God; therefore,
- Jesus must be God
When Thomas touched Jesus’ wounds, after the resurrection, he exclaimed, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). There is no basis whatsoever for saying, as some JW’s say, that Thomas was referring to Christ when he said “my Lord,” but was referring to God (Jehovah) when he said “my God.” Instead, Thomas called Christ both his Lord and his God. And Christ did not correct him! Colossians 2:9 clearly confirms the deity of Christ when it states that in Him “all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily” (New World Translation).Stephen** called Jesus “Lord” (Acts 7:59,60), and we are to confess Jesus as Lord (Rom. 10:9; I Cor. 12:3). “Lord” in these verses is Kurios, which is the Greek word for Jehovah in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. It is evident from this that Christ the Lord (kurios) is Jehovah God.”**
christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-r005.html
B
Bishopite
Guest
I’ll say a prayer for you. I hope you are getting some professional help? If there is anything we can do, please tell us. Life is stressfull for everyone and remember no matter what Jesus loves you, even with your pain, John 3:16.
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
Thanks to those of you who made such kind comments.
I won’t derail this thread by discussing my illness, but yes
I am under professional medical care and have been since a major, nearly fatal breakdown in the summer of 1999.
This one isn’t nearly as bad as the 1999 one, but it is still bad.
God bless you for caring.
Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
I won’t derail this thread by discussing my illness, but yes
I am under professional medical care and have been since a major, nearly fatal breakdown in the summer of 1999.
This one isn’t nearly as bad as the 1999 one, but it is still bad.
God bless you for caring.
Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Dear Steve,
I responded to this thread with an open mind and a heart seeking truth. You brought up some interesting ideas.
We have taken time and energy into answering your “questions.” Whenever you pose a question, you never respond to the answers given, but proceed to pick apart another convoluted argument regarding grammer or made up terms such as “title matching” .
This should be an OPEN FORUM where we DISCUSS, not DISPUTE. Discussion is an open and honest appriaisal of ideas brought forth.
You seem to have “difficulty” with two phrases taken out of context. “His God” and “His Name” Faith is a mystery. God and His Name are still God, Jesus, and the Holy Sprit. I think in German, they call God Gott, and in French, Dieu. Is that His Name? I love Him in all His three (Oops, did St. Patrick already talk about this)?
My prayers are with you and all others who seek the truth. God sent His Holy Spirit to give us courage to continue in the faith in spite of obstacles. I pray every day that the Holy Spirit, one of the Three Persons in One God, opens the eyes of my heart to the many blessing He has bestowed upon us.
I responded to this thread with an open mind and a heart seeking truth. You brought up some interesting ideas.
We have taken time and energy into answering your “questions.” Whenever you pose a question, you never respond to the answers given, but proceed to pick apart another convoluted argument regarding grammer or made up terms such as “title matching” .
This should be an OPEN FORUM where we DISCUSS, not DISPUTE. Discussion is an open and honest appriaisal of ideas brought forth.
You seem to have “difficulty” with two phrases taken out of context. “His God” and “His Name” Faith is a mystery. God and His Name are still God, Jesus, and the Holy Sprit. I think in German, they call God Gott, and in French, Dieu. Is that His Name? I love Him in all His three (Oops, did St. Patrick already talk about this)?
My prayers are with you and all others who seek the truth. God sent His Holy Spirit to give us courage to continue in the faith in spite of obstacles. I pray every day that the Holy Spirit, one of the Three Persons in One God, opens the eyes of my heart to the many blessing He has bestowed upon us.
- Status