Is God One or is He Three?

[Alter2Ego]

Hebrews 1:8: “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” Here, God the Father calls the Son “God” and addresses His throne as eternal.

Romans 9:5: “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” This verse refers to Christ as “God blessed forever.”

First and the Last:

That's incorrect. You are reading from a Trinitarian translation that deliberately dropped the quotation signs to cause confusion. Where it says Thy throne, O God, those words are supposed to be within quotations because it's quoting from Psalm 45:6. Notice how a couple of other Bibles render Hebrews 1:8.


New Living Translation
But to the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever. You rule with a scepter of justice." (Hebrews 1:8)


Hebrews 1:8
But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness."


If you go to Psalm 45:6, you will see the exact same words where it's with reference to Jehovah the father.


Alter2Ego

 

[Alter2Ego]

Romans 9:5: “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” This verse refers to Christ as “God blessed forever.”

First and the Last:

No, it does not. You are reading from a Trinitarian translation and ignoring context at the same time. That's why they are able to trick you into thinking like this. You have to pay attention to the context (surrounding words, verses, and chapters).

Look at the portion where it says "the flesh Christ came...." That's the clue that Jesus is not God because scripture at Numbers 23:19 says God is not a man. And since God is not a man, by default the portion of that scripture that says "God blessed forever," applies not to Jesus the son but to Jehovah the father. The translators were supposed to put a period after they wrote "the flesh Christ came...." Instead, they deliberately ran two sentences together to make it appear that the Bible is saying Jesus is God. Notice how a couple of Bibles correctly render that same verse of Romans 9:5. Notice the period that separates the two sentences. I will print the period in yellow.


Contemporary English Version
"They have those famous ancestors, who were also the ancestors of the Christ. I pray that God, who rules over all, will be praised forever! Amen."


New American Bible
"theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen."

Romans 9:5​

"To them the forefathers belong, and from them the Christ descended according to the flesh. God, who is over all, be praised forever. Amen."


Alter2Ego

 

[Alter2Ego]

The Bible in many places calls Jesus God, but you will never see it because you are not a believer. You can not see what you do not believe, even if it is right in front of your eyes. Jesus spoke of people like you........

John 9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
John 9:40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
John 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

If you were blind and did not see who Jesus claims to be, your eyes will be open to see.

If you say you see and not see who Jesus is you have been made blind and your sins remain.

Curtis:

To my recollection, the only person that on one single occasion referred to Jesus as God was the disciple Thomas. He did that right after Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

“And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.” (John 20:28)


Immediate after Thomas said it, three verses later, the Bible corrected Thomas' mistake, as follows:

English Standard Version
"but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31)


Alter2Ego

 

[Curtis]

Curtis:

To my recollection, the only person that on one single occasion referred to Jesus as God was the disciple Thomas. He did that right after Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

“And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.” (John 20:28)


Immediate after Thomas said it, three verses later, the Bible corrected Thomas' mistake, as follows:

English Standard Version
"but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31)


Alter2Ego

As said if you were one of Jesus's sheep you would know and understand who Jesus claimed to be, but because you are not one of his sheep you are blinded from seeing the truth.

Joh 10:24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
Joh 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
Joh 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

What is the greatest commandment?

Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Jesus claimed that he and his Father were "one".

The Jews were not in any deception who Jesus was claiming himself to be but God.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
. . . . . . . .
Jesus claimed that he and his Father were "one".

Curtis:

John 10:30 has already been discussed in this thread when B-A-C brought it up. Below is what I told him.

"B-A-C:

You are ignoring the context to that verse of scripture. Context refers to surrounding words, verses and chapters. Below is part of the context.

"{1} Jesus spoke these things and, raising his eyes to heaven, he said: 'Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, that your son may glorify you. {20} I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word; {21} in order that they may ALL be ONE, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, in order the world may believe that you sent me forth. {22} Also, I have given them the glory that you have given me, "in order that they may be one JUST AS WE ARE ONE." (John 17:1, 20-22)


So B-A-C. Are we to understand from reading John 17:21 and 22 that all of Jesus' disciples are one single person? Or are you able to see, based upon the context, that the word "one" is with reference to unity of purpose?"

 

[Christ4Ever]

Actually neither. I just know that whenever Orthodox Trinitarians are held to give account, I am hardly ever presented with well thought out scriptural support. I get it. People come unglued when they wish to believe some kind of doctrine or other, and yet don't have the resources to present a sufficient apologetic. There are dozens of intricate and extensive books written on the Trinity by scholars (even Trinitarian scholars). I am FAR not the expert... (Where is Matthias when you need him.)

I DO wish to say, though, that I hold no disdain for any who have taken the Kierkegaardian Kool-Aid and made a leap of faith into the Trinity. On the obverse, I rarely enter into these discussions because it almost always devolves into emotional knee-jerk disdain toward me and I don't need it. It's quite similar to the disdain given by the non-charismatics to those who have experienced the anointing to speak in tongues.

Kierkegaardian Kool-Aid? Sorry I'm a diabetic, unless of course it's sugar-free...
I do not consider myself an apologist, but just being a believer in Christ Jesus. For me, this signifies that we ought to be champions of faith, at the very least through the sharing of our personal testimonies. This is the role I see for myself, aside from my duties as a Moderator, of course.

Now, instead of Matthias, there is AI, although I prefer to seek guidance through communication with the Holy Spirit.

You initial premise was that Jesus accepted worship, therefore he is God. One can hardly say that a babe could make such a conscious decision at this point. BUT, are not Kings to be afforded "worship"? If such "worship" as given by the Magi was the exact same as that given to God only, why didn't Mary object?

And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh.(Matthew 2:11 NKJV)
But I'm sure you'd say that Mary thought she gave birth to God.

Now before going on, I should mention that I do not reject the Divinity of Jesus, only the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity. (And I do hope at some point that you address the concept of Hierarchy that you brought up.)

Well didn't I say, there was a way around acknowledging His being worshipped as a child?
I don't think he was a babe unless you consider someone around the age of two or more to still be a babe. It's common for people to confuse His birth with the arrival of the Magi and why Jesus is seen as being in a manger when they arrive. This is often seen in nativity scenes.
As far as what Mary thought...well, she kept things pretty close to the heart on what she thought. \o/

Glad to hear that you don't deny the divinity of Jesus. Many do
As far as Orthodoxy, or Liberal, etc. I in truth try not to be so specific and do not identify myself as such. I can't do anything about what others try to label me as. That being said, the use of Trinity while keeping Hierarchy in mind from what I see in Scripture relationship wise, explains the Godhead, God to me. Like I mentioned before, the Holy Spirit opened me to see this, plus a bit of how the Jews perceived by law relationships which He showed me as well, helped me greatly to having no issue with the concept of the Trinity/3 divine persons. Each One may take the lead depending on the circumstances, but the others are no less for it.

Can you think of God existing without the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit in eternity, though not by those titles? I know I can't. Maybe, you and others can, and do, but you'd have more issues than me having to explain how this is so, without the use of a Hierarchy and having to answer when it came into existence.

In both Mat 14:33 and Mat 15:25 (and as you say, others...) the word used is proskuneo (G4352 προσκυνέω) is written. If this identifies ONLY the worship given to God within the context of the OT, then why is this word used in the Septuagint for the worship of Angels?

And the two angels came to Sodom at evening. And Lot sat by the gate of Sodom, and Lot having seen them, rose up to meet them, and he worshipped (G4352 προσκυνέω) with his face to the ground, and said,(Genesis 19:1 Brenton)
The angels accepted this worship.

And Abraham stood up, and bowed himself to (WORSHIPED G4352 προσκυνέω) the people of the land, even to the children of Heth.(Genesis 23:7 KJV)
Abraham worshiped the people of Heth. (Nothing here says this was wrong.)

To be honest, there's a LOT of worship (G4352 προσκυνέω) going on in the OT, even David to KING Saul.

David also arose afterward, and went out of the cave, and cried after Saul, saying, My lord the king. And when Saul looked behind him, David stooped with his face to the earth, and bowed (WORSHIPED G4352 προσκυνέω).(1 Samuel 24:8 KJV)
And not only did King David worship King Saul, King David accepted worship as well.

Then Bathsheba bowed with her face to the earth, and did reverence to (WORSHIPED G4352 προσκυνέω) the king, and said, Let my lord king David live for ever.(1 Kings 1:31 KJV)
Of course, one might say that nobody knew any better. Admittedly, then, one DOES need to deal with this verse:

Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship (G4352 προσκυνέω) the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.(Matthew 4:10 KJV)
So where is "it" written, and what, indeed, is the IT that was written? The answer given by Jesus seems to be a compaction of two verses.

For thou shalt worship (G4352 προσκυνέω) no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous GodExodus 34:14 KJV)
And Samuel spake unto all the house of Israel, saying, If ye do return unto the LORD with all your hearts, then put away the strange gods and Ashtaroth from among you, and prepare your hearts unto the LORD, and serve him only: and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines.(1 Samuel 7:3 KJV)
But please note what Jesus actually said. He did not say "Thou shalt ONLY worship the Lord thy God." Instead, it is written "him only shalt thou SERVE."

Your premise seems to be that there is some command somewhere that says worship (G4352 προσκυνέω) can be given ONLY to God. Of course one is to worship (G4352 προσκυνέω) no other god, but all the worship (G4352 προσκυνέω) going on in Septuagint wasn't ONLY to God.

But I'm sure that when you read the word "God" you replace it up inside your head with "Godhead." (That's changing the words, and you know how I feel about that.)

Now you're reading my mind of what I think! Very bold of you! I should be so blessed to know what others see something as being in their mind! Because I don't think even Satan has that ability! lol

As far as the Greek/Hebrew goes. Lo siento, no entiendo ni el griego ni el hebreo.

Understanding the specifics of the word Worship can have multiple meanings. Which includes the worship of God. I can agree that the word itself allows for the act to be directed to others as well, and one would say no harm no foul. So, context of the event and what is being communicated between the participants is just as important, to have proper understanding of what is being presented to us here. We know that Jesus identified Himself as the Son of God, and that the man worshipped Him as such, and not for the miracle by itself. So, it was His personage that moved the man, because as he told the priests, he believed Him a prophet and not the Son of God at that time. You must ask yourself, was Jesus accepting worship for Himself, in place of God, or as a separate personage “Son of God” as His due? All the while knowing that the Jews saw this title, Son of God, and Jesus as saying He was God. That being the case, regardless of how you view the act of worship as signifying, was it acceptable for Jesus to allow this man to worship Him and if so why?

I would add here, that I am with Peter in this. Which is giving all the Glory and Honor to God, and accepting none for himself (Cornelius) being but a man. I have actually had that happen to me when a Hindu, bowed to me when I gave him a bible written in his language. I said no, no and lifted him up and stopped him from going to the floor. Give the glory to God, for I am nothing. \o/

That is why in the instance of worship is really contextual, whether in the OT/Hebrew, or NT/Greek. Are we accepting/differentiating what worship should be God’s alone, or that which is our due, which to me only means giving God all the Honor & Glory, for it comes from Him anyway, which may not be the case for how others see it.

As far as the temptation of Jesus, I look at the conjunction "and" that ties both together. The worship of God and serving of God as God’s and not Satan’s though there are those who do worship & serve him.

Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, "Do you believe in the Son of God?" He answered and said, "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" And Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you." Then he said, "Lord, I believe!" And he worshiped Him. And Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind." Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, "Are we blind also?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.' Therefore your sin remains.(John 9:35-41 NKJV)
So whom did the blind man see? And who was talking to him? The Son of God. All Jesus did here was accept (more accurately allow) the worship due the Son of God. Jesus never said anything about him BEING God. (Did he? If so, where?)

Agree, but then where/why would the Son of God be due any worship? Even the Apostles doing of miracles did not accept such worship, so the worship had to be due to his position. Which circles back to the why? I won't go over what I previously have stated about the context of worship.

Anyway, it is my belief by scripture previously mentioned that the Jews who correlated Jesus' usage of Son of God, was as if Jesus was saying he was God which is pretty clear by what they did and spoke. That has always been my point, and nothing more. That according to the Jewish people the son has the same authority as the father. So, in their eye's culture/law, they were correct in their wanting to stone him for placing himself in the same lineage as God, which to them was blasphemy since to them and even to this day they believe in only one God and a Man cannot be a God.

I never said he didn't. Where did I actually say that?

Worship (G4352 προσκυνέω) is used quite often in the both the New and the Old Testament texts for those other than God. And there is no scripture that says to ONLY worship (G4352 προσκυνέω) God. Just that one is to not worship other GODS...

Now if you don't think that words matter, then why should we even bother?

I apologize for assuming you were unaware, as you had asked me to confirm the worship of Jesus in Scripture. (Post #179)
Now to do as you did above. Have I ever actually said that words do not matter, or are you making an assumption as well?

For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh (Judaism).(Philippians 3:3 KJV)
Why does the author not tell you to Worship Christ Jesus?

My point is that what you think of as "Worship" (G4352 προσκυνέω) is not found in the scripture to be something commanded as to be ONLY directed to God, hence, the King may be worshiped, Jesus may be worshiped, but only YH is to be worshiped AS God. And one is to only serve God. You might find it fun to do a word study on G3000.

And I John saw these things, and heard [them]. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. 9 Then saith he unto me, See [thou do it] not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. Revelation 22:8-9 KJV

I kind of read the above as the angel saying if you're going to worship, then worship God. Command? I want to, don't you?

I understand that the topic of worshipping Jesus has already been addressed by another, so though I have not read their response to you I believe there is no need to repeat going over it, unless you believe I should.

Yes, and were you there, I would have accepted your worship too. (It's a long story...)

Why not the other way around?

So... it just popped into your head fully grown then? All on it's own? Sorry, C4E, you didn't compose that Doctrine. And the fight over such goes back even before 325 AD.

You mention "It's a long story...), and now you are concerned with 325 AD?
But like you what I have already mentioned, by receiving understanding through the Holy Spirit, isn't always believed either.

MY belief? Actually no. If need be, mine might be best described Sola Pneuma. My apologies then, presuming yours to be Sola Scriptura, which is why I made such a reference. However, my belief is also DON'T CHANGE THE WORDS. ( I'm rather emphatic on that point.)

I guess we were both wrong. About "DON'T CHANGE THE WORDS" I would say, it depends on the manuscripts being used to make the translations, or a word/concept doesn't exist in the language it is being translated into.

I didn't infer anything. YOUR OWN SCRIPTURE calls Adam the Son of God.

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.(Luke 3:38 KJV)
Why do you people keep changing what is written? Truly, why don't you consider this an outright sin?

My point in bringing this up was meant to address your assertion that Jesus, being the Son of God made Jesus also God. Were this true, then Adam is in the Godhead.

You last sentence was the actual point I was making about inference!!!
Well done.

A literary device? One that will lead to heresy? Wow. I just do not have the (can we say "balls" here?) to ignore the warning of Jesus -

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.(Matthew 23:15 KJV)

What is a literary device by the way? Don't you know that parables can be considered a literary device as well?
Oh "balls", I see, because you believe it leads to heresy...aaah okay. While you're looking up what a literary device is, look up heresy as well. You're on the outside looking in on that one. Still, it should serve you well the next time you consider using it.

THANK YOU. I agree that you don't believe in the Trinity as established in orthodox theology, but instead have created your own spin on it. As such, it cannot be called the Doctrine of The Trinity, which by definition stipulates that the three persons in the Godhead are co-equal, and being co-eternal, have always been so. There can be no hierarchy in the Trinity.

Personally, you are welcome to believe your personal doctrine (as I do mine) but sir, it's NOT the Doctrine of the Trinity. It's something else. Now I did say earlier that I am not an expert on Trinitarian Doctrine, and that there are many scholarly books written on the topic, but there is a well accepted definition of Trinity, and it rejects hierarchy.

(And you'll have to blame the Holy Spirit for me not believing the Trinity.)

The Trinity expresses the belief that God is one being made up of three distinct persons who exist in co-equal essence and co-eternal communion as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I just wanted to make it clear to you, since you believe that the Trinity does not allow for hierarchy in it. Which is evident to me, like I said throughout all of Scripture.

Sigh, "hierarchy" another word for you to look up!

I've not changed sir. Jesus himself would rebuke those who change the words of scripture.

I said "Constrain" yourself - another word for you to look up!

How wonderfully insulting. (You're down to one cheek left )

Rhema
(Let me know if I missed anything you would like addressed.)

I don't find the term "Sola Scriptura" offensive; however, it seems I am not as sensitive to insults as you might be.

Enough said.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
\o/
<><
P.S. Anticipating a ban has its advantages. It eliminates the element of surprise and the potential for disappointment when it occurs.

 

[First and the Last]

Scripture says God is not a man. It also says he cannot die. If Jesus was the fleshly version of God, that would be a contradiction to the following scriptures that I'm now quoting to you for the fourth time.

All of Genesis Chapter 18

Genesis 18:13, "And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?"

Abraham is talking with a real tangible Man. So who do you think LORD refers to?

 

[B-A-C]

So B-A-C. Are we to understand from reading John 17:21 and 22 that all of Jesus' disciples are one single person? Or are you able to see, based upon the context, that the word "one" is with reference to unity of purpose?"

My point exactly. More than one person, but only one God.

 

[First and the Last]

First and the Last:

Scripture says God is not a man. It also says he cannot die. If Jesus was the fleshly version of God, that would be a contradiction to the following scriptures that I'm now quoting to you for the fourth time.

Numbers 23:19​

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? (Numbers 23:19 -- King James Version)


Jesus' disciples of the First Century and many other people saw Jesus face to face. Jehovah told Moses at Exodus 33:20: "You cannot see my face, for no man can see me and live." If Jesus were God manifest in the flesh, everyone that saw his face would have died.


New Living Translation
"{13} And I charge you before God, who gives life to all, and before Christ Jesus, who gave a good testimony before Pontius Pilate, {14} that you obey this command without wavering. Then no one can find fault with you from now until our Lord Jesus Christ comes again. {15} For, At just the right time Christ will be revealed from heaven by the blessed and only almighty God, the King of all kings and Lord of all lords. {16} He alone can never die, and he lives in light so brilliant that no human can approach him. No human eye has ever seen him, nor ever will. All honor and power to him forever! Amen." (1 Timothy 6:13-16)


Read that a few more times and perhaps it will eventually sink in.


If you come back with the same argument, I will refer you back to these same scriptures each and every time.


The Bible doesn't contradict itself.


Alter2Ego

The argument presented seeks to create a contradiction between the divine nature of God and the humanity of Jesus. However, understanding the incarnation reveals that there is no contradiction. Numbers 23:19 states, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent," emphasizing God's divine, immutable nature. This does not deny the possibility of God taking on human flesh, as later revealed in the New Testament.

The incarnation is the mystery where Jesus, who is fully God, took on human flesh. John 1:14 affirms this: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." In this context, "begotten" refers to Jesus' unique role and mission as the Son of God in His human form, not to His creation. Jesus' divine nature as the Self Expressive Eternal Word did not change; instead, He added humanity to His divinity.

Exodus 33:20, where God tells Moses, "You cannot see my face, for no man can see me and live," refers to God's unveiled glory. In the New Testament, Jesus, as God incarnate, veiled His divine glory to live among humanity. Philippians 2:6-8 explains this: "Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men." Thus, people could see Jesus without dying because His divine glory was veiled in human flesh.

1 Timothy 6:13-16 speaks of God's immortality and unapproachable light, emphasizing God's transcendence. God, in His humanity, experienced death, but His divine nature remained immortal. This is supported by Jesus' resurrection, who else but God alone can resurrect their own Body. This last statement alone should put everything to rest.

 

[B-A-C]

I can't find any faults with the New World Translation and find it to be excellent and accurate.

We already knew where you were coming from. Jehovah's Witnesses have been using that version for a long time.

 

[First and the Last]

John 20:28 is what Thomas said one single time. He didn't go around teaching that to other people. And you are ignoring the context at John 20:31 where the Bible reiterates that Jesus is the son of God. So obviously Thomas didn't have the final word and he was simply wrong.

Repeating this here with my add notes:

John 20:28 is what Thomas said one single time. He didn't go around teaching that to other people. And you are ignoring the context at John 20:31 where the Bible reiterates that Jesus is the son of God (Yes, according to Humanity Flesh, but also God manifested). So obviously Thomas didn't have the final word and he was simply wrong.

 

[First and the Last]

First and the Last:

Titus 2:13 where it uses the expression "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" is talking about two different spirit persons: "the great God" is Jehovah and "our Savior" is identified as Jesus Christ. But because you are reading the scripture with Trinitarian lenses, you've reached the conclusion (incorrectly) that "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" applies to Jesus alone. Earlier in that same Titus chapter 2 (context) it spoke only of God


Alter2Ego

The assertion that Titus 2:13 is referring to two different persons—Jehovah and Jesus—is based on a misunderstanding of the Greek grammar and context of the passage. A careful examination reveals that this verse is actually affirming the deity of Jesus Christ.

Titus 2:13 in the King James Version (KJV) reads: "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." The key phrase here, "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," employs a construction in Greek known as the Granville Sharp Rule. This grammatical rule states that when two nouns of the same case are connected by the conjunction "and" (kai in Greek) and the first noun has the definite article ("the") while the second does not, both nouns refer to the same person. Thus, in this context, "the great God" and "our Saviour" are both referring to Jesus Christ.

This interpretation is supported by the immediate context and the broader theological context of the New Testament, which consistently affirms the divinity of Christ. For example, John 1:1 states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Additionally, John 20:28 records Thomas addressing Jesus as "My Lord and my God," which Jesus does not correct but accepts, indicating His divine identity.

The earlier verses in Titus 2 refer to "God our Savior" (Titus 2:10), a title that is interchangeably applied to both the Father and Jesus in the New Testament, showing their unity in the work of salvation. Paul frequently uses this title for Jesus, as seen in passages like Philippians 3:20, "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ."

Therefore, the claim that Titus 2:13 refers to two distinct persons—Jehovah and Jesus—is not supported by the Greek grammar or the broader scriptural context. Instead, the verse affirms that Jesus Christ is both our great God and Savior, a truth that is foundational to Christian doctrine. This understanding harmonizes with the overall biblical witness to the deity of Christ and His unique role in the salvation of humanity.

 

[First and the Last]

But because you are reading the scripture with Trinitarian

I am not and nowhere did I say I was neither would I say I am Oneness. These are formulations of man over time. I am only interested in what Scripture reveals.

 

[First and the Last]

about two different spirit persons:

God is invisible and has no body outside of Christ. His invisible spirit is Omnipresent, but physically/tangibly for us to see is forever Eternally enshrined in the glorified body of Christ.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Christ4Ever:

The word "Godhead" is a fabrication that did not show up in the Bible until the 14th century AD, when it first appeared in John Wycliffe's English TRANSLATION as "godhede".

"John Wycliffe introduced the term godhede into English Bible versions in two places, and, though somewhat archaic, the term survives in modern English because of its use in three places of the Tyndale New Testament (1525), the Geneva Bible (1560/1599), and King James Version (1611). In that translation, the word was used to translate three different Koine Greek words:"

ENGLISH BIBLE Meaning in Malay - translations and usage examples

Examples of using english bible in a sentence and their translations. For example, the English bible does not use the term“Allah”. - Sebagai contoh, dalam Bahasa Inggeris, kita tidak menggunakan kata Allah.

tr-ex.me

The word "Godhead" is nowhere to be found in the oldest existing manuscripts from which modern Bibles were translated.



Alter2Ego

So, what word does exist in the manuscripts for the 3 times Godhead is used in the Bible? What word would you have used in the translation to English?
Strongs has 3 Greek words for where you find Godhead. Now Vine's Dictionary explains it's use as follows:
G2304
2Pe 1:3, and of His nature, ver. 4, in each place, as that which proceeds from Himself. In Act 17:29 it is used as a noun with the definite article, to denote "the Godhead," the Deity (i.e., the one true God). This word, instead of theos, was purposely used by the Apostle in speaking to Greeks on Mars Hill, as in accordance with Greek usage. Cp. DIVINITY. In the Sept., Exd 31:3; 35:31; Job 27:3; 33:4; Pro 2:17.
G2305
"divinity," the RV rendering in Rom 1:20 (AV, "Godhead"), is derived from theios (see DIVINE, A), and is to be distinguished from theotes, in Col 2:9, "Godhead." In Rom 1:20 the Apostle "is declaring how much of God may be known from the revelation of Himself which He has made in nature, from those vestiges of Himself which men may everywhere trace in the world around them. Yet it is not the personal God whom any man may learn to know by these aids; He can be known only by the revelation of Himself in His Son;... But in the second passage (Col 2:9), Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fullness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of Divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up His Person for a season and with a splendor not His own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the Apostle uses theotes to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son" (Trench, Syn. ii). Theotes indicates the "Divine" essence of Godhood, the Personality of God; theiotes, the attributes of God, His "Divine" nature and properties.
G2320 as well.

You will not find many words exactly as found in the manuscripts translated into English, for the Greek has many more words then the English language has. I believe about 5 million of them, and 70 million word types. Some estimates of the number of words for the English language is 1 million. So, in many cases other words were used in place of the Greek, because there was no comparable one to be found in the English. That is why context is so important in determining what is being said in Scripture, and the Holy Spirit for understanding.

I am not a Greek scholar, so I must apologize for not having an explanation suitable to your needs.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Christ4Ever]

There is no concept of a "Hierarchy of the Godhead" This belief is rooted in the affirmation that God is a single, indivisible entity, as emphasized in Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." Jesus Christ embodies the fullness of the Godhead, as stated in Colossians 2:9, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." This means that Jesus is the full manifestation of the one God in human form. The roles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are understood as different manifestations of the same God. Thus, there is no hierarchy within the Godhead since God’s actions as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are functions of the same divine being. (If we try and change this statement in any way, we no longer believe in One God.)

This perspective simplifies the approach to worship and prayer, focusing devotion entirely on Jesus as the embodiment of God’s presence and power. Scriptural support for this includes passages like Isaiah 9:6, which attributes titles of deity and fatherhood to Jesus, and John 10:30, where Jesus states, "I and my Father are one," reinforcing the oneness of God. Therefore, there is no hierarchy within the Godhead; instead, there is one God who manifests Himself in different roles for His redemptive plan, with Jesus Christ as the complete and full manifestation of this one God.

In the context of Jesus being fully God and fully man, His limitation in knowledge can be understood through the doctrine of the incarnation. When Jesus, who is eternally God, took on human flesh, He voluntarily set aside certain divine privileges to fully experience human life. This self-limitation, known as "kenosis," is highlighted in Philippians 2:6-7, where Jesus "emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." As a human, Jesus experienced growth, learning, and the limitations inherent in humanity.

For example, in Mark 13:32, Jesus states that no one knows the day or hour of His return, "not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." This statement reflects His genuine human experience of not knowing everything while on earth. However, this does not diminish His deity or indicates a Hierarchy; rather, it emphasizes the mystery of the incarnation—Jesus being fully God chose to live within the constraints of humanity to accomplish His redemptive mission. This self-limitation allowed Him to fully identify with us, providing a perfect example of humility and obedience to God the Father.

I'll not discuss "Oneness" with you, because that is what we'd be doing.
Apologies because your effort is appreciated.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Christ4Ever]

I see no point in continuing this discussion on the forum since it's against your website's rules. I invite you and anyone else to private message me if you wish to discuss Trinity further.


Alter2Ego

So you are leaving, and won't see any more postings from you?
Does this also mean you'd like your account closed?
If so, please let me know, and I will contact our Administrator to have it so for you. Understand that it may take a little time, but eventually it will be as you ask and your account will be closed.

If true and you don't change your mind, then fair you well in your travels, and may the hardship of all believers not be overly hard for you.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Christ4Ever]

Not sure where the "Beginning Quote" is, and sorry if I missed parts of the exchange, but I found the above passage interesting, because the concept of representation as stipulated does not make the son into the actual father. Nobody would even consider that a son would actually be the person he is "legally representing." But the Trinity makes Jesus into God, actually.

Blessings,
Rhema

Are you referencing something that I wrote to Alter2Ego? If so, it starts as just "Quote" to "End Quote".

Agree that it does not make the son into the actual father. That is "Oneness" and what Member First and Last believes in, though I think with some twists here and there. But for the Jews of the day, the authority was implied and no different than if the father were there himself. It reminds me of the Parable of the Vine Growers, which I believe can be found in Mark 12, Matthew 21, and Luke 20.

Don't you believe that "God" is a noun and not a personal pronoun? I believe that would be consistent in both the Greek and Hebrew. When discussing God, I refer to all three personages, each distinguishable based on the context provided in Scripture.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Christ4Ever]

As long as you can admit that "Hierarchy" is rejected by the Doctrine of the Trinity.

Rhema

Not in functionality (forgive me God for the use of this word)) it doesn't!

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Curtis]

So B-A-C. Are we to understand from reading John 17:21 and 22 that all of Jesus' disciples are one single person? Or are you able to see, based upon the context, that the word "one" is with reference to unity of purpose?"

1Co 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

No, the body of Christ is both one body and that one body has all the same unity and purpose although it is made up of many members. The same is true with the trinity and the Godhead. Being one with God because of his Glory that he has given to the Church leads a born again believer into thoughts of experiencing God way beyond the natural realm.

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: