Darryl you have given an outstanding analysis of Titus 2:13. As one of my Greek professors stated in the early 1990's when I earned my PhD in Greek and Exegesis, "The best way to explain and understand the meaning of the Greek text is to allow the Greek text to speak." I wholeheartedly agree.
???? You must know also the Greek...logic (of Rev.Aristotle's); there were plenty of Greeks idiots (philosophers ridiculed perfect by Aristotle; some of them, Epicureans and Stoics tried to fight with St.Paul, Acts 17).In English, there is a corrupted term "philosophy" that usually means an "idea, feeling" and not a precise, one and perfect (divine) logical reasoning, inference! Repent@Stop being an "idiot"(Mk 7:22)! Titus 2:13 has other translations; and if this one presented here is ok (by Greek grammar) it means only the author of Letter was a theological idiot who corrected Jesus's own words(at least his idea) -Mark 10:18,etc.!!!
However one tries to fit the bible ( written centuries before Nicea as the trinity first step!) you can easily seperate 'God' AND 'our Saviour' without being an advanced greek scholar! Paul often uses exactly the same greek word for 'and' when for example he speaks of "Silas AND Timothy" ( Acts 17:14) one of many examples! Obviously TWO seperate people. Also Paul's salutations "Blessed be God the Father AND the Lord jesus Christ" to commence many of his epstles it is made clear at EPH 1:3 & 2 Cor 1:3 where he says "Blessed be the God AND FATHER OF our Lord Jesus Christ". Quite clear, TWO not ONE person being mentioned! Father AND Son!
@brothervictor2076 Brother victor! Why direct me to what OTHER people say! I dont base my views on anyone else or any religion of man made origin. I have God's word the bible! Jude, in the year 55 stated that "The faith was ONCE FOR ALL TIME delivered to the holy ones" ( Jude 1:3) Any writings, dogma's, creeds, edicts , even u tube posts are only of interest to me if they totally are in line with bible truths! ( To me the most endearing bible writer was the apostle John. He has told both you & me this, as the REASON he wrote his gospel; "Theses things have been written that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the SON OF GOD, and that by believing you may have everlasting life". I dont veer in any way from that statement! ( John 20:31)
@@kiwihans100 the texts that you mentioned do not violate the Granville Sharp rule. This grammatical rule which was discerned through the reading of God's word as a consistent rule when these grammatical criterions were met in a specific construction. Since I too believe we should be shaped by God's Word, I would encourage you to listen carefully again to the requirements for the Granville Sharp rule to be met (as laid out in this video or another source) and then go look in the Bible to find where this grammatical rule is met but doesn't apply. In this way, you will have then disproved the rule. However, the texts that you mentioned do not apply and therefore do not disprove the rule nor it's application to the texts mentioned . I think that in your search to disprove this rule that you will be struck by the sheer frequency of this type of grammatical construction in God's Word. I pray that this will be helpful to you because we both love God's Word and understanding the grammar used in the inspired Word goes a long way to helping us understand His Word, something I can tell you're eager to do.
@@kiwihans100 ὅ τε Σιλᾶς καὶ ὁ Τιμόθεος is the Acts 17:14. It violates the construction mentioned in this video because 1. Those are proper nouns/names and the rule says the singular substantives have to be non-proper. 2. There are two articles and each article is governing it's own proper noun that it is modifying. The Granville Sharp rule is talking about a single article governing two singular, personal (referring to an individual), and non-proper substantives. I don't say this to argue with you but to hopefully provide clarity on what argument is being made and to encourage you to watch the video again so that you understand the argument properly even if you end up disagreeing with it.
Excellent video. Thanks for bringing out other verses that use Sharp's rule. Most people think Sharp's rule only applies to Tit 2:13 & 2Pe 1:1. Keep up the good work.
Loving this! I had heard about this in the Greek language from people but hadn’t ever had it explained in detail like this! Amazing video! Gods Word keeps on speaking the truth everyday! Keep it up! I’d just like to add that when we say that Jesus is God “the Son” we mean it in the Spiritual/Soul sense since God is Spirit who took on a second nature “sinless human flesh” thereby having two natures in one Person! Glory to God “Father, Son, Holy Spirit”!
How sad that your entire analysis suggests that the whole 'christian' thing is a charade! We have One God, changing part of himself into a 'son' with a 'father'. The 'son' part takes on human form, pretends to talk to a 'father' ( but in reality is taking to himself) . Then the 'son' parts, pretends to die and then the whole God has a book written that gives a complelely false impression to the readers of a loving Father who sacrifices His dear Son e.t.c. Many millions believe the whole theatrical tablau believing, as John said "If this is how God loved us ( in sacrificing his dear son) should we not love one another" & "God loved the world SO MUCH that he gave his only begotten son" ( 1 John 4: 10,11). Sorry to say that all you have said above are the theological philosophies of post Nicean Roman & greek writings. Nothing in the gospels or epistles or even the wrtings of the earliest church fathers supports this God & Christ dishonouring beliefs! Why not stick to the truism that Paul stressed that for US "There is One God the Father OUT OF whom all things are and One Lord Jesus Christ THROUGH whom all things are" Jesus is neither God himself, nor even equel to the father. They are both entirely SEPERATE beings! The Son now dwells "At the right hand side of the Father". ( This is where Stephen & John saw them BOTH in vision)!
When I was a Jehovah's witness we was forced. To believe that he was Michael the archangel. Now I have knowledge of the bible and I know Jesus is God. And he came to do the will of his father.
@@a.wilkins1708 Jehovah's witnesses is a dangerous cult. They protect pedophiles worldwide in there religion under there 2 witness rule. They force members to die when they need blood to live. They predict end of the world too many times. And it was a fell prophecys they made.
I am a greek orthodox the jw that are greek avoid to use the original language text of the New Testament in greek because from it they easy get exposed imagine and they are greek speaking...
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας Yes that is true I don't speak Greek. But I did found Bible passages from JWs Greek bibles. And John 1:1 proves that . In the Greek writing watchtower did not put A. Between the word and God
the symmetry of Hebrew and Greek is undeniable. Gameliel even stated that the Torah can only be translated in the Greek language to acquire full meaning and context. Gameliel was Sauls teacher before he converted to Christianity and became Paul
If this is true that Jesus is God himself, how does he die? You have illogical absurdities that also disagree with the bible message and Jesus own statements. The Trinity teaching is completely illogical. Again though my real question to you is HOW DOES GOD DIE? Isn' t that supposed to be one of his inherent traits? No beginning, no ending, NEVER EVER DIES. Wake up people you have been fooled by Constantine and his predecessors. Why didn't anybody of substance teach the Trinity before the year 300 AD? Why is it that it took the Romans for us to supposedly truly understand the nature of our God?? NO real answer right? Why wasn't the Trinity taught to us by all of the apostles in a way that is not just reading into the text. Jesus is the son of God (not God the son either) I think as in he was begotten from the Father God. Why is it that the Trinity is such a hard concept to understand yet the bible itself states that a child should be able to understand it? Can a child or any of us for that matter understand a son who is begotten (which means had a beginning) but yet has always been? Too many logical fallacies..for a child or even an adult to understand in the first place. Oh and are you calling Jesus a liar when he never ever called himself God but he did call himself the son of the Father God! Read it for what it says not what somebody tells you what is said. The mystery is not the Trinity. The mystery is that God defeated satan by sending his only begotten son made of a woman and Himself to make a way for us to come back to Himself by CHOICE not by force by showing his true love of us!!! There is your mystery not the Trinity. If Jesus is our brother and he is equal to the Father that is almost making us equal with God. Again it's nonsense relationship. He is our brother because he is the only begotten SON of God while we are adopted SONS of God. That i the only way that you can make sense out of his statement.
I totally agree that we can be saved by no one else but God. There are many times in the old testament we see that GOD is our salvation. Then in the New Tesrament it tells us there is no salvation in any other name but Jesus. The New Testament is a clear revelation of what the old testament was already saying. Thank you so much for this video so helpful blessings to you🙏🏻!!!
Are you aware that the NWT in Greek inserted the article before "Jesus Christ"? της δικαιοσύνης του Θεού μας και του Σωτήρα Ιησού Χριστού It appears that JWs could not leave the verse as it was for Greek speakers because they would realize that God and Saviour were referring to the same person, Jesus Christ, so they have to insert the article to make the titles refer to different people.
@@mikem3789 that isn’t a referring to exodus 3 man. Very few trinitarian scholars even think so anymore. You can see the major translations for that. They almost all say “I am he” which is what the phrase means, probably referencing Jesus as the messiah as per John 4:26.
@@jordandthornburg no sir….’he’ is not in the original text. If you don’t believe Jesus is God, or in the Godhead (Father, Son, and Spirit- (3) persons - one God, one being….you can’t call yourself a Christian
@@mikem3789 yes it is. Ego eimi means. “I am he” hence all the translations that say that. John 8:24 does not count as evidence for that so what else do you have?
Wonderful work, thanks for sharing. When I watch this channel, I even want to learn Greek, even though I don't think I have enough time. The Lord Jesus Christ bless you!
The Granville Sharp “rule” was discovered by someone who wanted to prove the deity of Christ. The trouble with the rule is it actually begs the question. It assumes that because Jesus is God, the Granville Sharp rule is therefore true, and thus applies to those verses (context be damned). Interestingly that rule was only “discovered” a relatively short time ago and isn’t universally accepted (despite the fact that the vast vast majority of scholars believe in the deity of Christ) - the NAB translators, for example, rejected the Granville Sharp rule. This is one of those arguments that is great for those who already accept the conclusion Sharp was trying to prove.
@@willscott596 the Greek ‘ego eimi’ translated “I am” is not a special construction and doesn’t even correspond grammatically to the Hebrew of Ex. 3:14. It’s a dubious connection rooted in wishful thinking.
@@kellyblakeborough3371 Jesus was deemed a blasphemer simply because the Jewish leaders rejected his claim to be the Messiah (or Christ). Are you referring to something specifically?
Why does the μου in Phil 2:25 only applies on 'συστρατιωτην'? Why doesn't it apply to all three nouns? Epaphroditus being Paul's brother and fellow worker too as well.
Which holy spirit? Matthew 27:50 "And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and gave up His spirit" So we have two holy spirits, one father and Jesus body. In total we have 4 gods now.
@@tagnenjosephs3124 Open any Bible, go to New Testaments, go to Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 27, verse 50 "And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and gave up His spirit" Am I quoting correctly?
I don't think this is a fair representation of Matt 27:50. The Bible recognizes that man is a unity of material and immaterial, and that death separates these, which is what this verse is referring to. It certainly doesn't leave us with 4 divine persons. Thanks for watching!
Since "Of" is usually the sign of the Genitive Case; In regards to all fourteen different Greek words, viz., from, around, away, under, beside, upon, over, in, into, down, through, towards, with, and before, these appear to be all prepositions. Are there many verbs in the Greek language? Is there a Greek word for 'was'? If so, was it lost in translation in Gen 1:1 ('hayah' ; to become, became, caused to come to pass)?
G-Sharp Rule aside, you're missing the broader grammar and pattern in Titus. Jesus Christ is the "Glory of God." in Titus 2:13, just as Jesus is the "Goodness of God which appeared" in Titus 2:11, and the "Goodness and Kindness of God" in Titus 3:4. Paul is calling Jesus the "____" of God, followed by the verb "appeared," throughout the book. Similar to Paul saying "Woman is the Glory of Man" in 1 Corinthians 11:7. Titus 2:13 is not calling Jesus "God," but rather the "Glory of God."
awesome video, my brother! and i think it's 2 Peter, not 1st Peter 😀 but informative video anyway! our Lord Jesus is God! all will bow in reverence and fear before His throne. even muhammad and those whom he has deceived. repent my muslim friends. repent.
Exactly. This atheistic, gentile nation ,the Mohammedans, currently sits on the Dome OF THE ROCK. And they will surely bow; even as the idol statue Dagon, who fell upon his face to the earth before the ark of the Lord. ....1Sam5:1-5
It is a bit challenging. Thanks for the books. It would be fabulous to discuss the claim that Jesus stated "I AM" I have never heard a preacher talk about the greek in this passage.
@@bma How do you explain Revelation 3:12 "If you conquer, I will make you a pillar in the temple of *MY GOD* ; you will never go out of it. I will write on you the name of *MY GOD* "
@@t.scopperfield4943 first of all the main name word for Deity in the original language text of the New Testament used is o ων not the word Θεός Theos God. If you see a greek orthodox icon of Jesus Christ it never says on it Θεός God but ALLWAYS o ων. That is taken from scripture revelation 1:8 romans9:5 and Exodus 3 14 Septuagint text.. there the Ehyeh aser Ehyeh.Ehyer .in hebrew of Exodus 3 14 is translated from jews themselves in greek 200 BC as εγώ ειμί ο ων ο ων. Ιs the main word that shows Deity in greek.
@@t.scopperfield4943 no about revelation 3:12 the word there is Θεός in scripture the word can be used for the Father as it is there or for the Trinity. If you see there actually the Trinity is showed the one talking is the Son the word Θεός is for the Father God and in verse 3:13 is the word Πνεύμα that is actually the person of the Holy Spirit.
@@bma "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth (Darryl Burling and Granville Sharp Rule), but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (1 Cor. 2:13) There are two possessive phrase that appearing in Titus 2:13. The Glory of the great God (1st appearing), and saviour Jesus Christ (2nd appearing). In 2 Cor. 4:6 it says "The glory of God in the face of Christ". So the God in Titus 2:13 is the same God in 2 Cor. 4:6. The grandville sharp rule was invented only amidst 17th century. It is not the rule of the Apostles to interpret the scriptures. Apostle Paul said: EVER LEARNING AND NEVER ABLE TO COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH. (2 Tim. 3:17) THAT'S WHY TO THOSE WHO STRIVE TO UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES THROUGH THEIR OWN WORDLY KNOWLEDGE, WILL NEVER ABLE TO COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH.
@@vishyswa ok. You don’t have all experiences yet. You obviously haven’t met godly non Jesus = God believers. There are many out there, myself included.
@@jordandthornburg I'm not saying non Jesus = God people are not godly. I'm saying that if you don't know or understand the true nature of another person it is impossible to truly know them.
Brother, have you done anything on Jhn 20:28? I have noticed that, that is one of the Unitarians pet verses to attack concerning the emphasis and Greek structure.
I agree , but the verse reads HIMSELF only . The conversation that is spoken is not only between Jesus and Thomas because the other apostles were there so there is common ground who the subject matter is applied to
_"Jesus is God"_ Nope. The Bible makes it clear that a human descendant of David, not God, was the father of Jesus. The terms, "seed", "flesh", "root", "fruit of his loins", and "offspring" mean that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph. Matthew 1:1 "This is the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David." John 42 "They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?” Acts 2:30 "Therefore being a prophet [David], and knowing that God had sworn an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne." Hebrews 2:16 "For verily he [Jesus] took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham." Acts 13:23 "Of David's seed hath God, according to his promise, raised unto Israel a saviour, Jesus." Romans 1:3 "Concerning his son Jesus Christ, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." 2 Timothy 2:8 "Remember that Jesus Christ is the seed of David." Revelation 22:16 "I, Jesus have sent my angel to testify unto you these things in the churches; I am the root (progeny) and the offspring of David." John 1:45 “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote; Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” Matthew 9:27 "When Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, thou son of David, have mercy on us."
God specifically warned against worshiping false saviors such as Jesus! Isaiah 43:10 "Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior." Hosea 13:4 "Thou shalt know no God but me, for there is no saviour beside me." Exodus 20:2 and Deuteronomy 5:6 “You shall have no other gods besides me". Isaiah 45:5 "I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God." Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind." Isaiah 42:8 "I am the Lord; that is My name! I will not yield My glory to another." It is Biblically impossible for Jesus to be the messiah. Matthew 1:12 lists Jeconiah (also known as Jehoiachin or Coniah) as Jesus' ancestor, and God states in Jeremiah 22:30 that descendants of Jeconiah are cursed and that no ancestor of Jeconiah will ever sit on the throne of David (heaven) or ever rule in Judah.
Should we expect God to know what the Ten Commandments are? What was Jesus's sixth commandment? 1. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (Matthew 19:17-19) 2. Honor thy father and mother: Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor thy father and mother. (Mark 10:19) 3. There was no sixth. Jesus listed only five commandments (notice that the five on Jesus' list are the secular ones that make no mention of God): Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother. (Luke 18:20)
The Bible makes is very clear Jesus is God. If Joseph was his dad why is he ashamed and wanted to move Mary away to another city? You should read and study more
@@JesusIsGodAlmighty736 _"The Bible makes is very clear Jesus is God."_ False. God specifically stated that he is one, not three: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." (Deuteronomy 6:4) For 3,000 years of scholarly study about the Old Testament, never was it stated that God was three or that the messiah is God. God knows the last hour; Jesus does not. So, how could Jesus and God (and the Holy Spirit) be one? The idea of a "trinity" was the result of a vote to resolve many inconsistencies, including God saying there is no savior other than him. The word 'trinity' appears nowhere in the Bible; the concept was finalized at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE after years of debate. It was an attempt to articulate Christianity's belief in the oneness of God with their claims about Jesus and their experiences of the spirit. The first of the early Church Fathers to be recorded using the word "Trinity" was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom in the context of a discussion of the first three days of creation, following the early Christian practice of identifying the Holy Spirit as the Wisdom of God. Scripture makes it clear that the concept of a Trinity is anti-God: Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind." It is Biblically impossible for Jesus to be the messiah. Matthew 1:12 lists Jeconiah as Jesus' ancestor, and God states in Jeremiah 22:30 that descendants of Jeconiah are cursed and that no ancestor of Jeconiah will ever sit on the throne of David (heaven) or ever rule in Judah. John 20:17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." Matthew 23:9 "And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." Matthew 27:45 "Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'" John 14:28 "I go unto the Father; for my Father is greater than I." Acts 2:22 "Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God..." Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good-except God alone". Mark 16:19 "After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God."
Amen! Great God, and our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Great God, the Deity of Jesus as God, our Saviour, relating the to the Humanity of Jesus as the sacrifice for our sins. The dual nature of Jesus Christ. As Thomas said, my Lord, and my God. (John 20:28)
How is it critical to the doctrine of the atonement (as stated in the Bible) that we believe Jesus is God? I don’t see that anywhere. Can anyone share a verse or a passage which states that?
The quantity and even to some extent the particulars of what we need to believe for salvation is not explicit. But conversion will lead to a submission to the Word as this is part of the work of the Holy Spirit after salvation. I hope this helps.
Is Matthew 28:19b a counter example of the Granville Sharp Rule? Three substantives,, each preceded by definite articles, requiring that they are not the same person?
How is Mat 28:19 a counter example to the rule? A counter example would require you to find a TSKS construction (with the 3 accompanying rules) that refers to two people, not one. Mat 28:19 is a great trinitarian verse which shows that the singular name (ὄνομα) is shared by the three persons of the Godhead: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You are correct that the article preceding the three substantives requires them to be distinct persons, which means modalism is false. Trinitarians teach that the one being (God) subsists in three distinct persons and point to this verse as evidence of that truth. Bottom line, Mat 28:19 doesn't refute the Granville Sharp's rule.
If I understand you correctly, you're asking if Matt 28:19 is an example that helps prove the Granville Sharp rule by its use of the article, right? If so, I think you're right. The use of the article does indeed suggest three different people. :)
@@1corinthians8v69 i read only the original language text of the New Testament never translations so easy seen there the Trinity even in mark 12:29 i would be a satanic liar as i read the original language text and say that there is no Trinity
I heard a very interesting perspective on Jesus by Bill Donahue , he has multiple videos on TH-cam so you can check it out. But his perspective was that when Jesus referred to himself as God , he meant that God was in him, therefore making him the son of God . But the twist is that Jesus also told us that we are the sons of God , therefore telling us that God is in us as well, if we receive him . And this raises the question that what if Jesus was actually teaching us to find God within ourselves , and that the way to God was in our spiritual journey? Not that he intended for the apostles and us to worship him and see him as God. I’m very curious to know others perspective on this. Thank you
Thanks for the video, Darryl! Can Granville Sharp's Rule rightly be called a rule? I have struggled with the fact that it previous to Granville, it was seen as a translation decision, which orthodox Christians saw as having no bearing on the doctrine of the deity of Christ. My understanding is that Granville Sharp based his rule solely off the text of the NT, with little reference to Church Fathers or the LXX. What started my questioning of the rule was reading Calvin's Commentary on the passage, which showed me that although older translations (Lutherbibel, Tyndale, Geneva, KJV, etc) do not follow the Granville Sharp Rule, it was still something that they grappled with when translating verses such as Titus 2:13 (and obviously the translators of those bibles had no issue with the deity of Christ). Calvin says: It is uncertain whether these words should be read together thus, “the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, the great God and our Saviour,” or separately, as of the Father and the Son, “the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.” The Arians, seizing on this latter sense, have endeavoured to prove from it, that the Son is less than the Father, because here Paul calls the Father the great God by way of distinction from the Son. The orthodox teachers of the Church, for the purpose of shutting out this slander, eagerly contended that both are affirmed of Christ. But the Arians may be refuted in a few words and by solid argument; for Paul, having spoken of the revelation of the glory of “the great God,” immediately added “Christ,” in order to inform us, that that revelation of glory will be in his person; as if he had said that, when Christ shall appear, the greatness of the divine glory shall then be revealed to us. Calvin, J., & Pringle, W. (2010). Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (pp. 320-321). Logos Bible Software.
There are four views on this passage, and Murray Harris covers them in detail in his book Jesus as God, which I recommend. He includes a discussion of the approach you mention. I believe the reading I've provided (and that Harris argues for) has the best explanatory power and fits best with the evidence we see of this construction. Thanks for your thoughtful comments!
@@pmachapman Hi Peter, if you are questioning the validity of Sharp's rule then I suggest reading Dan Wallace's monograph on Sharp's rule. It's very long but extremely thorough. Most people only hear of Sharp's rule in connection to the Christological passages of Tit 2:13 & 2Pe 1:1 and don't realize that there are approx. 80 other TSKS constructions that fit Sharp's rule. Everyone accepts the rule is valid in these other 80 places and only question the rule when it comes to Tit 2:13 & 2Pe 1:1... I wonder why?! I concur with Darryl that Murray Harris's book 'Jesus as God' is an excellent book and well worth the read. If you're looking for something short that basically gives you the Cole's notes of why Jesus is "our great God and Saviour," rather than viewing the passage as two persons (God [the Father] and Jesus) or viewing Jesus as the glory of God, then I suggest Benjamin Merkle's book 'Exegetical gems from Biblical Greek.'
@@kevinfromcanada4379 Thanks, Kevin - I am a Canadian in exile! I have read one of his early journal articles on it, but there are a few more (which are now on my reading list...). That is a good point you raise on it only being contentious RE: two specific passages. I was taught to remember when encountering issues like this, that grammarians always come after the language, i.e. their rules are defined from what was said, rather than define what was said. This has made me perhaps more critical of grammatical rules than other aspects of exegesis and translation, with my conservative nature often requiring a large amount of convincing to change from an "old path". Nevertheless, I endeavour not to be obstinate, and I really appreciate your comment!
To call Granville Sharp's observation a "rule" is somewhat of a misnomer. Natural language is not like mathematics where hard and fast rules exist that always hold. With spoken and written languages, grammar "rules" frequently have exceptions or anomalies, and Granville Sharp is no different. Even within the Septuagint, there is an exception to the "rule" (Proverbs 24:21). A detailed review of this verse (in an article on the NET Bible website), which considers three possible reasons why the "rule" is violated in LXX Proverbs, ends up admitting that it is indeed an exception to the rule: bible.org/article/sharp-redivivus-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule. In other words, speakers and writers of Greek in the Koine period mostly did follow the pattern that Granville Sharp observed, but not always. It is not good or logical exegesis to base a defence of the doctrine of the Trinity on such a shaky foundation: asserting that a "rule" exists, even though that rule has a well-known exception in the Biblical Koine corpus.
ALL I've ever heard is from the JWs and I've heard my pastor say for a long time that they are wrong, and others say the same thing. They'd come to my house, I'd invite them in, we'd talk for a while, and always get to John 1:1, and they'd come back with something I think was similar to Colwell's rule and quote it it, (or their version of it), and I never had a come back, because it always came down to "my translation is better than yours", and I couldn't prove or disprove either, because I wasn't discipled. Now that I'm in poor health living with my sons in the Philippines, they never come my way. I lost out.
Another blog required you to have your first and last name in order to post. That might be a bit much, but as you can see, I adhere to that in this post.
Consider ALL Paul's writings. Its plain he elevated 'God the Father' above 'The Lord Jesus Christ'. 1 Cor 11:3 for example "The head of the woman is Man, the head of man is the Christ, the HEAD OF THE CHRIST IS GOD" At Tit 2:13 Paul is speaking of 'our Great God' AND Savior ( OF US) Jesus Christ'. By leaving out 'of us' translators try to give the impression that Paul speaks of Just one person! Why do they leave out 'of us'? Because it CHANGES the meaning! clever but seen through!
Thank you. THIS is the kind of teaching that Christians need. Christians should also be aware of how The Apostles baptized: INTO THE NAME ΙΗΣΟΥ (I-e-sou/YA-SU), Acts 4:12, etc
@@kevinfromcanada4379 _"Matthew and John were eyewitnesses of Jesus."_ There is no evidence either of them (or Jesus) existed. John: John reached its final form around AD 90-110, although it contains signs of origins dating back to AD 70 and possibly even earlier. Like the three other gospels, it is anonymous. The Gospel of John was only attributed to John later in the second century when the Church Fathers were attempting to define who, in their opinions, wrote each of the gospels. There is no evidence that John even existed. John 21:24-25 is written in the third-person, referring six times to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" -- "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true."
@@kevinfromcanada4379 _"Matthew and John were eyewitnesses of Jesus."_ There is no evidence either of them (or Jesus) existed. Matthew: Most scholars believe the gospel was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110; a pre-70 date remains a minority view. The work does not identify its author, and the early tradition attributing it to the apostle Matthew is rejected by modern scholars. The Gospel of Matthew occasionally lets it slip that it was written long afterwards, such as the description of the Jewish authorities’ cover-up of the resurrection (“this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day." Matthew 28:15) and the story of the field of blood (“Wherefore that field was called the field of blood, unto this day," Matt. 27:8)
Ahh, you’re a Jesus mythist. You should listen to what the atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman says about Jesus mythists. There is exceptionally good evidence that Jesus existed and there are a number of points regarding his life that is undisputed among NT scholars and historians. Second, while the gospels are anonymous (just as the Torah was), this doesn’t mean that people didn’t know who wrote them (just like the Torah, which is attributed to Moses). There is no reason to doubt that Matthew and John wrote the books that are attributed to them. There isn’t the slightest hint that anyone claimed someone else authored these books. As Craig Blomberg says, “When all the evidence is amassed, there appears no conclusive proof for the apostle Matthew as author but no particularly cogent reason to deny this uniform early church tradition. Were the Gospel not written by him, the church surely chose a rather strange individual (in light of his unscrupulous past by Jewish standards) as a candidate for authorship. Without any ancient traditions to the contrary, Matthew remains the most plausible choice for author.” Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992), 44. The same can be said for the gospel of John.
I'm sure he has some good resources such his commentary on Titus, or some of his other books, but I just haven't been focusing my reading there. Thanks for watching!
To which Genitive Case would I apply this to? The Genitive of Possession , The Genitive of Material or the Genitive of Origin? Can two Genitives (of Possession and of Relation ) be apply here, since it appears that they depend on one another?
One can accept that Jesus is 'divine' and that he has deity' and STILL recognise that He in turn has a 'Deity' over and above him. The Apostle John tells us Jesus was 'God'. Then Later records that Jesus himself said "I am ascending to MY GOD & FATHER". ( John 20:17)
Tit 2:13 is a typical example of attempting to 'twist' the scriptures to fit in with a much later 'trinity' dogma! Its the way one reads Paul's words that can change the meaning! In Tit 1:4 Paul states "Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ". an obvious reference to TWO seperate persons. In his additional blessings at 1/2 Cor, Gal, Eph e.t.c Paul makes it clear that Jesus is NOT God" " Blessed be the God and Father OF the Lord Jesus Christ" ( Eph 1:3)
"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth (Darryl Burling and Granville Sharp Rule), but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (1 Cor. 2:13) There are two possessive noun that appearing in Titus 2:13. The Glory of the great God (1st appearing), and saviour Jesus Christ (2nd appearing). In 2 Cor. 4:6 it says "The glory of God in the face of Christ". So the God in Titus 2:13 is the same God in 2 Cor. 4:6. The grandville sharp rule was invented only amidst 17th century. It is not the rule of the Apostles to interpret the scriptures. Apostle Paul said: EVER LEARNING AND NEVER ABLE TO COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH. (2 Tim. 3:17) THAT'S WHY TO THOSE WHO STRIVE TO UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES THROUGH THEIR OWN WORDLY KNOWLEDGE, WILL NEVER ABLE TO COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH.
Jesus and the apostles all said that Father God is the only One. John 17:3 / 1 Corinthians 8:6 And that settled this issue for me. ...YHVH is 1 Lord. Jesus and I have the same God and Father, Jesus is my elder brother, the sinless lamb of God that died for me on the cross. John 20:17 And then I looked into the early years when the people were discussing the matter, people believing various things about it all. But then the Catholic church draw the line in 381AD at The First Council of Constantinople, when people that I don't believe was true Christians, took a firm stand for the lie and made the Trinity the supreme law, and all other views were banned and the persecution began in earnest. Lasted for many centuries into the Catholic dark ages.
One cannot disagree with truth. A detractor can only maintain his opinion in the face of overwhelming proof to the contrary. And why? What is the downside of believing that Jesus is God? How is that going to help me? How can I possibly have a good life being a JW or other cultist? These groups keep their dupes in prison, whereas Christ came to set us free from the law of sin and death. Open their eyes and ears, Lord! Similarly, if you don't believe in eternal security or you don't believe in the deity of Christ, then you don't know God's grace and therefore don't know God.
It is quite clear why Jesus was called the son of man and preferred to call himself the son of man. It's because he was a man. This is an Aramaic expression quite commonly used in Jesus' day to refer to a human being. It was used profusely of Ezekiel for example. And it is quite clear that Jesus' teaching about blasphemy concerns the fact that blaspheming man is one thing, a forgiveable thing, but blaspheming God is another. "Coming on the clouds" is a reference to authority and judgment. God will judge through a man He raised from the dead and appointed to judge in His name. God has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a MAN whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising him from the dead. Acts 17:30-31
Who is the cloud rider in Psalm 104:3? What does this tell us about Dan 7:13 and Rev 14:14? Is the Son of Man in Divine? Where does the Son of Man sit in heaven (Mar 14:62)? If angels belong to the Son of Man (Mat 16:27), who is he? What does Jesus mean when he says, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM..." If Jesus is the Son of Man, whet does he mean when he says you will know that I Am? There is no predicate. Hint, look at Deu 32:39, Isa 43:10, etc., where "I am" is used without a predicate.
@@kevinfromcanada4379 Jesus means "I am he", i.e. the Son of Man, whom he just mentioned. It's not correct that there is no predicate in the passages from Deuteronomy and Isaiah. The Hebrew is _ani hu,_ which means "I am he". Every time Jesus uses "ego eimi" in John without an explicit predicate, it has an implicit predicate (except in John 8:58, which is existential and affirms his pre-existence). He was not claiming to be "the I AM", since there is no such thing as "the I AM" (besides, he would have to say "I am the I AM" to claim that).
@@Bowen12676 There is no antecedent in the context pointing to a claim to be either the Messiah or the Son of Man. Richard Bauckham points out, Jesus could “hardly mean, ‘I am the Son of Man,’ because ‘the Son of Man’ is itself an enigmatic way of referring to himself that Jesus’ hearers in the Gospel do not understand.”[1] The absolute έγώ είμι statements in John 8:24, 28 should be taken as pair. Unlike Jesus’ predicated έγώ είμι statement in v. 18 which speaks to Jesus’ role as the servant of Yahweh, these verses concern his identity as Yahweh. The fact that the Jewish leaders respond to Jesus’ first statement by asking, “Who are you?” (v. 25) demonstrates that “there is no plausible antecedent in the context, as though Jesus could be saying ‘I am that one about whom we have just been speaking.’”[2] In John 8:58, “Jesus claims not merely preexistence-in that case, he could have said, ‘before Abraham was born, I was’-but deity.”[3] Jesus appropriates to himself the self-designation of Yahweh from Deuteronomy 32 and Isaiah 40-55, which are built upon the self-revelatory name in Exodus 3:14. The Jewish leaders know exactly what Jesus is claiming and immediately take up stones to stone him for blasphemy.[4] [1] Richard Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple : Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), ePub, Monotheism and Christology [2] Ibid. [3] Andreas J. Köstenberger, “John,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), ePub, Jesus at the Feast. [4] Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God : The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York, NY: Harperone, 2015), ePub, Did Jesus Claim to Be God?
@@kevinfromcanada4379 You missed my point that in Isaiah and Deuteronomy, God says "I am _he";_ he doesn't simply say "I am". There is a predicate. Now, I understand that you're referring to the later Greek translation, but Jesus was almost certainly not speaking in Greek (he was speaking to the Jewish Leaders, probably in an Aramaic language). So, the alleged verbal parallel between his words and God's words in Deuteronomy and Isaiah seems tenuous at best. Even so, I think Jesus' answer to the Jews' question "who are you?" provides us with a plausible predicate for John 8:24 and 28: "just what I have been telling you from the beginning". In other words, when Jesus said "I am he", he was claiming to be what he has been telling them he is from the beginning: the Messiah, the son of God. In John 8:57, Jesus was asked about his age and how he could have existed. The use of the present verb "eimi" in verse 58 conveys that Jesus' existence continues to the present. In Greek, when a present verb is modified by an expression of past time, it signals an action that begun in the past and continues to the present. One example is John 14:9. An interlinear would read: "So much time with you I am" The present "eimi" is used here too, but since Jesus is talking about something that begun in the past and has continued up to the present, pretty much all translations render it "have been". John 8:58 is the same, since it has a present verb ("eimi") modified by an expression of past time ("prin Abraam genesthai"). As such, Greek grammarian Dr. Kenneth L. McKay wrote that it "would be most naturally translated 'I have been in existence since before Abraham was born' were it not for the obsession with the simple words 'I am' " (Expository Times 1996, p. 302).
@@Bowen12676 First, Jesus almost certainly spoke Greek. I suggest you read G Scott Gleaves's book, "Did Jesus Speak Greek?: The Emerging Evidence of Greek Dominance in First-Century Palestine." (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2015). There are many external and internal reasons for concluding that Jesus spoke Greek. If we can trust the NT authors then Jesus cited from the Greek OT (cf. Luke 4:18 - compare the difference between the Greek and Hebrew of Isaiah 61:1-2). So if Jesus cited the Greek there, why would we assume that Jesus is not citing Isaiah 43:10 in Greek in John 8? And even if Jesus didn't speak Greek, this is the connection that the writer intends the reader to understand. Second, I've already dealt with the fact that there is no antecedent in John 8:24 & 28. Third, Wallace demonstrates that there are several problems grammatically with seeing εγω ειμι as a historical present: 1) “historical presents are usually wedged in between aorist (or imperfect) _indicatives,_ not infinitives.” 2) This would be the only historical present in the NT that uses εἰμί. 3) This would be the only historical present in the NT that is not in third person. For these reasons, Wallace says “The burden of proof, therefore, lies with the one who sees εἰμί as _ever_ being used as a historical present.”[1] If Jesus simply wanted to express preexistance he would simply have used ημην (I was), but he didn't. Finally, the reaction of the Jews demonstrates that they understood his claim to be that of deity, not simple preexistance. If he simply claimed to be older than Abraham they would have laughed at him but they understood his claim to one of diety and so they tried to kill him for blasphemy. [1] Daniel B Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics : An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997), 530.
Being human does not mean necessarily being sinful. The same people who believe Jesus is God also believe that Adam was sinless before he sinned. Paul said that Adam brought sin and death into the world when he sinned. So it is possible to be human and be pure and sinless. And if sin is passed on (“original sin”) somehow genetically through Adam’s seed, then Jesus is also clear of that since he was conceived in a virgin through the Holy Spirit. So that argument for Jesus being God has no weight.
I'm not sure that you're following your argument here. Your reasoning (which I agree with) leads to the opposite conclusion to the one you conclude with. If Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit the implication is that He is the offspring of God directly and being conceived in a woman provides the human part of the incarnation. So Jesus is both God and Man.
Thanks for your presentation. Just have to comment on one aspect with your opening words please. Fascinating that you mention at the beginning those three points about if Jesus is a god then the following is the case: 1/ If Jesus is not God he is a human being 2/ Then he is bound with sin 3/ Then he cannot be a perfect substitute and we cannot be saved Never heard those conclusions before. But think these scriptures below will clear up some confusion and teach the truth of the matter, from what I can humbly see. (Joh 3:13; 6:38, 62; 8:23, 42, 58) Jesus came from heaven to earth - sent by God ((Mt 1:18, Lu 1:35, Lu 2:7) Born as a human and Mary made pregnant with Jesus in her womb through Holy spirit. So no human father. (John 1:14, Heb 10:5, 1Ti 3:16; Philippians 2:7) Jesus "became or made" flesh to live on earth so he wasn't flesh before he came to earth through Holy spirit. (Heb 7:26; Joh 8:46; 1Pe 2:21, 22) Jesus' father was God in the heavens so was a perfect human so had no sin - He had no imperfect father who caused his birth (John 17:5, John 8:23) Jesus is Gods son in heaven before he came to earth as he was WITH his father in heaven before then (Lu 3:38; 1:35, Mar 1:11, Gal 4:4) Jesus had been God’s Son on earth from the time of his birth, even as the perfect Adam had been the “son of God.” (1 Peter 3:18, 1 Ti 3:16, Heb 1:2. Eph 1:17, 20, Rom 4:24) After his resurrection he was raised a spirit (not flesh) back to the heavens. Only his father raised him from the dead. His father has installed his son at his own right hand. Jesus is Gods son in heaven as God is his father. (I Cor 15:50-52, Job 38:7, John 4:24) Only spirits can live in heaven, not humans. Angels are sons of God in heaven, and they are not flesh but are spirits like God Any other scriptures have a bearing? Not talking about disputed grammar verses. Scholars and bible translators have different views. So, what does the bible teach consistently on this overall. Thanks for your time. Hope this all helps in your ongoing search for Bible truth about Jesus 😊
Thanks for your reply. Its not clear whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me here, so I'm not sure a) where the confusion is or b) how it is clearer now. The points you raise are not entirely contrary to where I stand, but at points need further clarification. It seems like you've denied a bodily resurrection which would be the only major point we'd differ on. Thanks for watching!
1:25 "if you claim the name of Christ in any way" lol well said. So even if your a deity denying cult member your cult leader should've taught you to be civil
The Granville Sharpe Rule was completely unknown to Greeks of the New Testament era (both the rule and the name of the rule). Sharpe didn't discover this rule; he invented it. His whole purpose was to find a way to “prove” that Jesus is God. The rule has been thoroughly debunked. Bible translators apply the rule because the majority of those who buy Bibles are Trinitarians.
and on numerous occasions with ego eimi in John. I know it could be referring to normal people, but many of the places in John (If I remember correctly, around 21 times) the use of Ego Eimi seems to reflect the I AM phrase from Exodus.
@@VicRibeiro777 actually the exodus 3 14 is in greek is the words εγώ ειμί ο ων that we see for Jesus Christ as o ων said in the New Testament john 1:18 romans 9:5 John 3:13 john6:46 revelation 1:4 1:8 etc in 2 cor 1131 it is said for the FATHER God.
@@VicRibeiro777 in greek the main word for Deity is o ων.see the greek speaking saint john the Damascian in his work the exact expodition of the orthodox faith ch 9 he says that then he says is the word Θεός Theos_God showing from which greek verbs is that word from θεειν θεασθαι αιθειν.If you see an orthodox icon of Jesus Christ around his head is never the word God Θεός but allways o ων. O ων is in greek the one talking to mosses at exodus 3 14 jews themselves translated into greek BC period that and wrote for Ehyeh aser Ehyeh.Ehyeh..Εγω ειμί ο ων ο ων... .
Daryl, peace to you my friend but I must point out a few concerns. At the video range 2:10 - 2:30 minutes, you highlighted what, in some ways, resembles the ancient Gnostic heretics, i.e. that being human makes you sinful. 1 John attacks this. The OT prophesied that Jesus had to be the Seed of both Abraham and David, hence why the NT calls him the son of both. He was fully human but his Spirit was divine, i.e. the Word that came forth from God. God is spirit said Jesus and the Word is Spirit that came forth from him. Hence why the earliest manuscripts we have for John 1:18 says "no one has ever seen God, but the only begotten God, he has explained him". And Jesus said if you have seen me, then you have seen the Father. Jesus was fully human and yet his Spirit was divine (is divine), i.e. the God-man, but he is not his Father. Paul says there is one God, and he is the Father. The begotten Son who is divine came forth from him, and John and other passages in scriptures say. You asked and said in your logical analysis that 1. being human inherently makes you sinful, not a product of a person choosing the lusts of the flesh (as Romans 7 - 8) indicates falsely translated as "covetous" but lusts that brought sin, explained often in Paul's letters that brings temptation, the devils use to tempt people into sinning, thus bringing condemnation and separation). 1 John 4:2 ...Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. * Jesus came in the flesh is an idiom meaning = Jesus was human (the Latin word Human, as you must know, suggests humans came from Adam, just as the scriptures indicate Jesus came from Abraham and King David, and therefore Adam). The ancient Gnostics said "No because that would make him sinful" just like the heresies abounding today. 2. that Jesus is a perfect substitute for us and therefore his death on the cross cannot save us. (To that I say the NT says his Resurrection is what saves us. 1 Peter 3:21 Satisfaction theory invented this recent millennium is nonbiblical. The NT says a half a dozen times that he was a Ransom for our sins (e.g. Titus 2:14). Why does the Penal Substitution (PS) theory or Satisfaction theory (ST) of Atonement not consider: * why Satan entered into Judas? Was Satan working with Father God? ridiculous * why Satan asked to sift Peter as wheat? - PS or ST of the Atonement does not consider Satan's role and therefore misses why the Ancient understanding saw it as Ransom, and that Jesus battled with Satan on the cross, not with his Father, "who is in the Son and the Son in the Father" suffered with His son, knowing that the cross was necessary to set the captives free and the Son to rightly be given the Kingdom for his victory taking back what Adam had lost in the beginning. Another reason why "the Atonement" is important is because "being saved" means being rescued from Darkness (the devil's slavery). This Christ did. This does not mean that a person not following Jesus, i.e. if one does not obey Jesus' commands, he will not be sanctified nor be welcomed by Jesus in his Kingdom. Jesus' preaching in the gospels makes that clear. So many people ignore the King's own words. John 14 and 15 are very clear from Jesus' own mouth. The Holy Spirit warns us of Satan's coming deception in 2 Peter 3:15-17 that indicates half of the NT written by Paul is very hard to understand. Many today point to Paul (and their misinterpretation) for the gospel rather than to the words of Jesus. This is not how ANYONE in the first few centuries handled the gospels except the Gnostics who were lovers of Paul's letters because they were twistable as 2 Peter 3:15-17 points out. Maybe you have not read much in the early church writings (aka Ante Nicene Fathers) but I have read many times the earliest writings found in the first few volumes. Things to consider about the Historic Faith that over centuries of Catholicism polluted especially starting with Augustine of Hippo (400s AD).
What manipulation of Greek can change what John clearly stated. 'No man has SEEN God AT ANY TIME.' - 1 John 4:12,20. This from someone who grew up with Jesus and was Jesus' beloved Apostle.
The thing you don’t understand is that JESUS is NOT THE WORD, JESUS is THE WORD OF GOD, BUT HE IS NOT THE WORD HIMSELF. Jesus said; THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK, ARE NOT MY OWN. That settles the case. I AM THE PARAKLETOS
Jesus is the Word (John 1:1). In the beginning was THE WORD (Jesus). Jesus isn't the only parakletos-the Holy Spirit is also the parakletos (John 14:16).
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας True. There were many theological discussions back then. Sacred tradition has preserved them .Part of the Dogmatic foundations of Christendom both West and East.
God cannot sanctify himself. To sanctify means to set aside for a holy purpose. John 10:36 do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
@@tongakhan230 Jesus said, "And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth", John 17:19. Jesus sanctified himself, and we must too. I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' for the truth Jesus is not God, when he does miracles it is not by Jesus, but from God in him as the Holy Spirit, as John 10:38.
@@simonskinner1450 : Sanctified means set apart for holy service, God CANNOT be set apart for any holy service. He himself is HOLY. People who are not interested in Bible truth can read the Bible till they are blue in the face, but God withholds understanding from them. Compare Daniel 12:9,10.
@@simonskinner1450 :Exactly! Jesus could sanctify himself. Psalms 40:7 Then I said: “Look, I have come. In the scroll it is written about me. 8 To do your will, O my God, is my delight, And your law is deep within me. John 4:34 Jesus said to them: “My food is to do the will of him who SENT ME and to finish HIS WORK. God cannot set himself apart to do God's will. It would make no sense. Jesus was never God.
However one manipulates the language of the bible, its is incontravertable that though Jesus is called 'God' twice in the NT 'theos', he is never called THE God, Ho theos. ( See John 1:1, John 20:28) Since the greek word 'theos' simply means 'a powerful godlike one' in the literal greek Jesus himself spoke of his Father as God! "I am ascending to MY GOD AND YOUR GOD" ( To Mary John 20:17 )Paul intros his letters with "Blessed be the GOD & Father OF our Lord Jesus Christ" ( Eph 1:3).
I'm sorry, I haven't really researched this area. You might consider reading James White's What Every Christian Should Know about the Qua'ran (amzn.to/3V4w1HC).
Every time the NT speaks of One God, the Only God, the True God, or similar, it is always speaking of the Father, and never Jesus. Eph 4:6, 1 Tim 2:5, 1 Cor 8:6-8, John 17:3, John 8:40, John 5:44).
i can help with that Then you shall know that I am in the midst of Israel: I am the LORD your God And there is no other. My people shall never be put to shame. And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions. Joel 2:28 Who else is the Spirit of the LORD Than God? And in matthew we say baptize in the NAME (Singular) Father , Son , Holy Spirit Just want to tell you no argument
@@Thebibleauthority actually the original language text of the New Testament shows the Deity of the Holy Spirit. By the way because you are absolutely ignorant about the greek of the New Testament the word πνεύμα has different meanings in the text. .you have to see it in context.
On Psalm 45:6-7he psalmist said that the Messiah would be God, but that he would also bow to God. How can this be? The writer of Hebrews explained it in chapter 1, that Jesus is God's heir in all things, blessed to have a better inheritance, a better name and that he was the one spoken of by the Psalmist in 45:6-7, saying... "But unto the Son, he (Father God) saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Although going into the original languages is both fun and often quite enlightening... The answer to the question of "Is Jesus God" is written in Hebrew and Greek, both translated faithfully into our language in Psalms 45:6-7 and Hebrews 1:8-9. Sadly... Pointing out what is already properly translated obviates having to use one's education in understanding Greek. Even so, COME, Lord Jesus!
I did notice that you stopped communicating with me, after I posited the idea that there were "a few" persons named in the Bible who did in fact keep the Word of God, i.e. all HIS commandments, judgments, decrees, statutes, etc. I am just guessing that you know why I put "a few" in quotes? And the only requirement to be in God's Kingdom, if you do sin is to repent, see for example Ezekiel chapter 18. And that Paul made lists of sins that disqualify persons from entering into the Kingdom of God that comes straight from the Torah, to wit idolatry, witchcraft, etc. and therefore the Torah is valid. Also, that Jesus is not a personal savior per Hebrews 10:26. Jesus is NOT God, that is to say he is NOT YHVH. "I am, and there is none like Me." There are a few examples of the judges being called "Elohim", in the "Old Testament". What is one definition of "Elohim"? Are there other definitions of "Elohim"? Could it be that the writers Paul and Peter were using the alternate definitions of "theos" or its derivations. Peter and Paul would be horrified to know that you are calling Jesus "God", something that never entered their minds, see for example 1 Corinthians 8:6, "But to us there is but one God, the Father..." And continuing in verse 7 "Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge..." Yes, yes, I know I used ellipsis. See also 2 Peter 1:2 where there is a distinction between God and Jesus.
Hey sorry, Darren. I don't have time to engage in detail with every comment on TH-cam and I have customers who I prioritize. I'll come back to this subject at some point in the future, and perhaps we can interact again then. It's not your arguments that are the problem, it's my time. 😀
@@bma I also realize that the Bible was written TO CONFUSE, so that only those who humble themselves before God can get the truth, i.e. those who study under the tutelage of the professors and scholars will Never Ever understand what it says. See for example Psalm 25 and 110 & 119.
But Darryl, if JESUS was God, he would have never denied been God, and JESUS clearly taught and repeatedly said; the words that I speak are not my own. Well, God would never say anything like that, God would never say; the words that I say are not my own.
Jesus never denied being God. The NT writers claim Jesus was/is God (John 1:1, 18; etc.), Jesus did and said things that only God can do and say (like forgiving sins [Mar 2:7]), Jesus claimed to be God (John 8:58; etc.), and his disciples confessed him as God (John 20:28).
Jesus Christ is a distinct person from The Farher what you post means that as one God he has no district will but the will in the Deity is one people saw him there as just a man and a lot of times Jesus Christ speaks to them in the sense they see him as just beeing a man.
@@kevinfromcanada4379 again, JESUS said, the words that I speak are not my own. You said “Jesus said things that only God can do and say”. That’s right, God said them, THROUGH JESUS. AGAIN. JESUS SAID, THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK ARE NOT MY OWN, I ONLY SPEAK WHAT I HEAR FROM THE FATHER. IT IS CLEAR AS WATER.
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας You are twisting scripture. Jesus also said; he who believes in me, BELIEVES NOT ON ME, BUT ON HIM WHO SEND ME. RIGHT THERE JESUS REMOVES HIMSELF FROM THE EQUATION.
John 20:31 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Yes! The purpose of John's writing is that people might believe (or continue to believe) that Jesus is the Messiah, who is also God (Son of God in John speaks of Jesus' divine nature). John begins his gospel by stating that Jesus is God (1:1; 1:18), and demonstrates it by recording the things he does and says. Jesus proclaims to be God throughout the book-which is explicit in John 8:58. His disciples confess that he is God (forming an inclusio) in John 20:28. Jesus is God! Now that being said, Jesus is not a δυτερος θεος (second God; polytheism) but finds his identity within the one God of Israel (monotheism). How does he fit within the one God? He is the person of Son, a subsistence within the one God. This is something that Jesus attempts to explain in John 5 & 10 to the religious leaders.
You know God is not the Author of confusion. Never once, is the term God the Son used in scripture. But over 54 times it says Son of God. Ephesians says Bleesed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I believe making Christ Jesus who doesn't even know the day or hour of his return, God. Is idolatry.
@@kevinfromcanada4379 you added to that passage, which is spiritual taboo. Not once does the book of John say "God the Son". But how many times does it say Son Of God? Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God, redeeming for mankind what was lost by the first Son of God, Adam.
@@acheloua7919 You are correct that the Bible never uses the phrase "God the Son" but that doesn't make it untrue. Jesus is identified as God (John 1:1; 1:18; 20:28; etc.) but he is not God the Father, rather he is the Son-God the Son. Now who is Thomas's God according to John 20:28?
After doing my own research I've come to the conclusion that the Granville Sharp rule is completely bogus. Here's my problem with it: The rule only works in a very specific case. There are exceptions or exclusions to the rule that betray the fact that the rule isn't really anything of substance. These exceptions include things like material objects (gold and silver). The reasoning? Because everyone would know that gold and silver aren't the same thing. It also doesn't apply to abstract ideas. Why? Because everyone would know that abstract ideas are not the same thing. There are a number of these and they are all justified the same way. Essentially, the rule doesn't need to be followed if people would commonly not identify two things as being the same for some reason. That begs the question if the rule is valid at all. If for inanimate objects and abstract ideas and whatever else you don't need to follow the rule then what makes anyone think it needs to be followed at all? If I all those cases common sense would invalidate the rule then why not common sense when it comes to personal substantives? People will often claim this rule works in English. This is great because it's an easy way to demonstrate that these people don't know what they're talking about and how the rule really doesn't hold water. If I say, "I spoke to his mother and his father about the incident." Does that mean I spoke to one individual? What about if I say, "I had a meeting with the President and Chief Justice John Roberts." Does that mean the John Roberts is both President and Chief Justice? If you didn't know about American politics you might make that conclusion but if you do know about American politics you'd know he can't be both and I must be talking about two individuals.
Responding to your brief argument against non-divine Christologies: 1. It doesn't follow that Jesus is bound with sin if he is a man. This would not become less true if he were also God: being 100% man, he would still be bound with sin. He could be a human who is not bound with sin, perhaps by virtue of the miraculous conception. Also, what does it mean to be "bound with sin" and yet never sin? 2. You said "Therefore we can only be saved by Christ and some other thing." This is a straw man. This is not a charitable argument. I would say if God says the atonement purchased by a perfectly obedient human is sufficient, then it is sufficient. 3. Ironically, you are adding to biblical faith. It is not enough to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and that God raised him from the dead (the overwhelming thesis statement of the New Testament). You must also believe that Jesus is God in order to be saved. But this idea is not in the bible. I say that "this is eternal life, that they may know you [the Father], the Only True God, and Jesus the Messiah, whom you have sent." "Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God through many signs and wonders which God did through him." "But for us we have one God, the Father... and one Lord, Jesus the Messiah." "Believe in God, believe also in me [Jesus]." "And that by believing you may have life in his name."
*Answer to question 1:* Jesus raised himself from the dead (John 2:19; 10:18). *Answer to question 2:* What does Mark 13:32 mean when Jesus says, “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father”? While unitarians attempt to use this verse as a proof text against the deity of Christ, Mark has told his reader in his prologue that Jesus is Yahweh (God; Mark 1:2-3). If Jesus is God in flesh, why then does he not know the day of his return? Christians have answered this in two ways, 1) his humanity and 2) his functional subordination to the Father. 1) His humanity Some Christians understand this verse as a reference to Jesus’s true humanity. In becoming human, he became truly human which involved having a human mind. During his lifetime he did not make use of his divine mind but was wholly dependent on God his Father. We see this in the fact that Jesus “increased in wisdom” (Luke 2:52). The omniscient God cannot learn, but in subjecting himself to true humanity he experienced the learning process just like every other human. 2) his functional subordination to the Father. Other Christains have understood “know” in this verse to be declarative, meaning that while Jesus knew the day of his return, it was not in his prerogative to make it known. Benson’s commentary points out that ειδεω properly means “I know” but is used in this verse in the sense to make others know. 1Co 2:2 supports this understanding. Paul says, “For I decided to know (ειδεναι) nothing among you except zJesus Christ and him crucified” (ESV). Paul is saying that I decided to ‘make known,’or to preach nothing among the Corinthians except the crucified Jesus. Paul was well acquainted with Greek philosophy and could have used it to support Christianity as Philo sought to do with Judaism, but he was determined to proclaim nothing but Christ Jesus and him crucified. Some Christians understand this verse as pertaining to a first century Jewish wedding custom. Christ as the bridegroom has gone to prepare a place for his bride. While he and the servants know when the Father will send the Son to get his bride, it is the Father’s prerogative to make it known publicly. In this case Jesus is saying that it is not his prerogative to make his coming known so the disciples (his bride) are to be ready, watching expectantly for his return. No matter which option you choose, the deity of Christ is not at stake. The purpose of the pericope was to emphasize the necessity for Christians to vigilantly wait in expectation of Christ’s return. In fact “the passage points to a high implicit Christology. The threefold reference to the Father, Son, and angels indicates a heavenly hierarchy (and preexistence?), in which the Son is higher than the angels. This goes beyond a merely adoptionistic or messianic sonship to God.”[1] [1] Mark L. Strauss, Mark : Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), ePub, 13:24-27.
I think John 5:19 explains well that Jesus could do nothing of himself but what he saw the Father do. Father knows best and coached Christ who was tempted in ALL was as we are, yet without Sin. Can God be tempted by Sin? Yet, Jesus was because he was Son of Man and Son of God. Man's redeemer.
How do you reconcile you belief based on disputed grammar rule even among trinitarians and 1 Timothy 2:5 there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and man, the man, Christ Jesus. Also, other scriptural proof texts of Jesus, being a man alone, like the first sermon given in the book of acts by Peter, Jesus words himself when he says that he is a man sent by God. I don’t want to sit here and debate you, rather, I would just ask you to take an unbiased look at what scripture plainly says, and meditate on whether or not Granville sharps Greek grammar rule that was basically constructed to support a dual nature doctrine about Christ that even Christ himself did not claim. I pray that you seek truth over belonging. Also, I do not believe that Jesus inherited sin when he was born, because God was his father, he didn’t have a human father. Also, if Jesus was God, then how did he die on the cross? Think about what the apostle John says, or the apostle Paul says when they warn about preaching another Christ. Jeff Dueble has a book called Christ before creeds. He is Australian. Worth checking out what he has to say. Dale Tuggy has a great channel called trinities podcast and can articulate much better than I on Granville sharp as well as the argument of Jesus being solely a man. Not to diminish him or his work but rather to see from clearly understood texts that Jesus was only ever presented as a man. The doctrine of the hypostatic Union is gnostic and its origin and any serious inspection of early Christianity and competing belief systems of the time only proves this to be true.
Peace to you my friend. At 2:12 you stated ‘If we don't recognize that Jesus is God, then Jesus is a human being, if Jesus is a human being then he is bound by sin like the rest of us’. Now I will invite you to explain what you mean by that but with most application of what you said, this is biblically false. The first application could be that Jesus sinned, that is he trangressed the Torah(Law). Jesus never did this. As I explain with the witness of a Jew in my video ‘Keys Facts True Christians MUST Know🔥 Do you know them🤔’, Jesus was accused of transgressing the tradition of elders by Pharisees as they keep a different law along side the Torah. He never trangressed the Torah. The second application is based upon the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’. This doctrine is based upon truth but is often misapplied. The true biblical doctrine of original sin, is that as Adam and Eve are the fruit we are left vulnerable to sin and only by the holy spirit could we overcome sin. Now does this apply to Christ? No. For it is written, “And answering, the angel said to her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, and for this reason the begotten Holy One will be called Son of God.” (Luk 1:35). Christ was not born of fallen flesh like we was, he was begotten (procreated) by the power of the Most High, Christ was Holy from his birth so was not ‘bound by sin’. Prayerfully you receive what I've said brother or any who read and if there was another meaning of ‘bound by sin’ you had meant I would love to hear it. May Almighty יהוה bless you.
So, by proving that others think Jesus is God, and you treat that is holy scripture, you prove Jesus, is a liar, because he said the father is the only true God and John 17 Verde 1 to 3. What other solution have you given us so in pursuing the proofs of Jesus, his deity, instead of proving Jesus, truly, God, you’ve proved he’s a liar. So what you would have to conclude instead is the alleged scripture that proves Jesus is God is false prophecy so that Jesus is true, and every man is a liar.
'deity' is a missleading word! it is a translation of Theotes' 'divine nature' The son's divine nature does not make him God or even equal to God since at 2 Peter 1:4 Peter promises that the saints will ALSO share in 'divine nature'! They wont be God will they? Worthy to mention also is the other missleading word 'godhead'. It does NOT appear in scritpure. At Col 2:9 the word 'theotes' is again wrong translated as godhead INSTEAD of 'divine nature' J.Wycliffe first used 'godhead' in the 13th century.
Where can I get these books can I get them off of your internet please text me the list and site that I can attain them I am in an trinitarian Church. I believe in this and I need something to back me up when I speak to these people.. even a complete Jew believes that Jesus is God.
Darryl you have given an outstanding analysis of Titus 2:13. As one of my Greek professors stated in the early 1990's when I earned my PhD in Greek and Exegesis, "The best way to explain and understand the meaning of the Greek text is to allow the Greek text to speak." I wholeheartedly agree.
???? You must know also the Greek...logic (of Rev.Aristotle's); there were plenty of Greeks idiots (philosophers ridiculed perfect by Aristotle; some of them, Epicureans and Stoics tried to fight with St.Paul, Acts 17).In English, there is a corrupted term "philosophy" that usually means an "idea, feeling" and not a precise, one and perfect (divine) logical reasoning, inference! Repent@Stop being an "idiot"(Mk 7:22)! Titus 2:13 has other translations; and if this one presented here is ok (by Greek grammar) it means only the author of Letter was a theological idiot who corrected Jesus's own words(at least his idea) -Mark 10:18,etc.!!!
However one tries to fit the bible ( written centuries before Nicea as the trinity first step!) you can easily seperate 'God' AND 'our Saviour' without being an advanced greek scholar! Paul often uses exactly the same greek word for 'and' when for example he speaks of "Silas AND Timothy" ( Acts 17:14) one of many examples! Obviously TWO seperate people. Also Paul's salutations "Blessed be God the Father AND the Lord jesus Christ" to commence many of his epstles it is made clear at EPH 1:3 & 2 Cor 1:3 where he says "Blessed be the God AND FATHER OF our Lord Jesus Christ". Quite clear, TWO not ONE person being mentioned! Father AND Son!
@brothervictor2076 Brother victor! Why direct me to what OTHER people say! I dont base my views on anyone else or any religion of man made origin. I have God's word the bible! Jude, in the year 55 stated that "The faith was ONCE FOR ALL TIME delivered to the holy ones" ( Jude 1:3) Any writings, dogma's, creeds, edicts , even u tube posts are only of interest to me if they totally are in line with bible truths! ( To me the most endearing bible writer was the apostle John. He has told both you & me this, as the REASON he wrote his gospel; "Theses things have been written that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the SON OF GOD, and that by believing you may have everlasting life". I dont veer in any way from that statement! ( John 20:31)
@@kiwihans100 the texts that you mentioned do not violate the Granville Sharp rule. This grammatical rule which was discerned through the reading of God's word as a consistent rule when these grammatical criterions were met in a specific construction. Since I too believe we should be shaped by God's Word, I would encourage you to listen carefully again to the requirements for the Granville Sharp rule to be met (as laid out in this video or another source) and then go look in the Bible to find where this grammatical rule is met but doesn't apply. In this way, you will have then disproved the rule. However, the texts that you mentioned do not apply and therefore do not disprove the rule nor it's application to the texts mentioned . I think that in your search to disprove this rule that you will be struck by the sheer frequency of this type of grammatical construction in God's Word. I pray that this will be helpful to you because we both love God's Word and understanding the grammar used in the inspired Word goes a long way to helping us understand His Word, something I can tell you're eager to do.
@@kiwihans100 ὅ τε Σιλᾶς καὶ ὁ Τιμόθεος is the Acts 17:14. It violates the construction mentioned in this video because 1. Those are proper nouns/names and the rule says the singular substantives have to be non-proper. 2. There are two articles and each article is governing it's own proper noun that it is modifying. The Granville Sharp rule is talking about a single article governing two singular, personal (referring to an individual), and non-proper substantives. I don't say this to argue with you but to hopefully provide clarity on what argument is being made and to encourage you to watch the video again so that you understand the argument properly even if you end up disagreeing with it.
Excellent video. Thanks for bringing out other verses that use Sharp's rule. Most people think Sharp's rule only applies to Tit 2:13 & 2Pe 1:1. Keep up the good work.
Loving this! I had heard about this in the Greek language from people but hadn’t ever had it explained in detail like this! Amazing video! Gods Word keeps on speaking the truth everyday! Keep it up!
I’d just like to add that when we say that Jesus is God “the Son” we mean it in the Spiritual/Soul sense since God is Spirit who took on a second nature “sinless human flesh” thereby having two natures in one Person! Glory to God “Father, Son, Holy Spirit”!
How sad that your entire analysis suggests that the whole 'christian' thing is a charade! We have One God, changing part of himself into a 'son' with a 'father'. The 'son' part takes on human form, pretends to talk to a 'father' ( but in reality is taking to himself) . Then the 'son' parts, pretends to die and then the whole God has a book written that gives a complelely false impression to the readers of a loving Father who sacrifices His dear Son e.t.c. Many millions believe the whole theatrical tablau believing, as John said "If this is how God loved us ( in sacrificing his dear son) should we not love one another" & "God loved the world SO MUCH that he gave his only begotten son" ( 1 John 4: 10,11). Sorry to say that all you have said above are the theological philosophies of post Nicean Roman & greek writings. Nothing in the gospels or epistles or even the wrtings of the earliest church fathers supports this God & Christ dishonouring beliefs! Why not stick to the truism that Paul stressed that for US "There is One God the Father OUT OF whom all things are and One Lord Jesus Christ THROUGH whom all things are" Jesus is neither God himself, nor even equel to the father. They are both entirely SEPERATE beings! The Son now dwells "At the right hand side of the Father". ( This is where Stephen & John saw them BOTH in vision)!
When I was a Jehovah's witness we was forced. To believe that he was Michael the archangel. Now I have knowledge of the bible and I know Jesus is God. And he came to do the will of his father.
That is wonderful!
Wow, I never looked into Jehova's witness doctrine. Sounds scary and as if purposefully leading away from the real identity of Jesus the Christ.
@@a.wilkins1708 Jehovah's witnesses is a dangerous cult. They protect pedophiles worldwide in there religion under there 2 witness rule. They force members to die when they need blood to live. They predict end of the world too many times. And it was a fell prophecys they made.
I am a greek orthodox the jw that are greek avoid to use the original language text of the New Testament in greek because from it they easy get exposed imagine and they are greek speaking...
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας Yes that is true I don't speak Greek. But I did found Bible passages from JWs Greek bibles. And John 1:1 proves that . In the Greek writing watchtower did not put A. Between the word and God
This channel is very much God-sent
This channel is demon inspired.
the symmetry of Hebrew and Greek is undeniable. Gameliel even stated that the Torah can only be translated in the Greek language to acquire full meaning and context. Gameliel was Sauls teacher before he converted to Christianity and became Paul
If this is true that Jesus is God himself, how does he die? You have illogical absurdities that also disagree with the bible message and Jesus own statements. The Trinity teaching is completely illogical. Again though my real question to you is HOW DOES GOD DIE? Isn' t that supposed to be one of his inherent traits? No beginning, no ending, NEVER EVER DIES. Wake up people you have been fooled by Constantine and his predecessors. Why didn't anybody of substance teach the Trinity before the year 300 AD? Why is it that it took the Romans for us to supposedly truly understand the nature of our God?? NO real answer right? Why wasn't the Trinity taught to us by all of the apostles in a way that is not just reading into the text. Jesus is the son of God (not God the son either) I think as in he was begotten from the Father God. Why is it that the Trinity is such a hard concept to understand yet the bible itself states that a child should be able to understand it? Can a child or any of us for that matter understand a son who is begotten (which means had a beginning) but yet has always been? Too many logical fallacies..for a child or even an adult to understand in the first place. Oh and are you calling Jesus a liar when he never ever called himself God but he did call himself the son of the Father God! Read it for what it says not what somebody tells you what is said. The mystery is not the Trinity. The mystery is that God defeated satan by sending his only begotten son made of a woman and Himself to make a way for us to come back to Himself by CHOICE not by force by showing his true love of us!!! There is your mystery not the Trinity. If Jesus is our brother and he is equal to the Father that is almost making us equal with God. Again it's nonsense relationship. He is our brother because he is the only begotten SON of God while we are adopted SONS of God. That i the only way that you can make sense out of his statement.
I totally agree that we can be saved by no one else but God. There are many times in the old testament we see that GOD is our salvation. Then in the New Tesrament it tells us there is no salvation in any other name but Jesus. The New Testament is a clear revelation of what the old testament was already saying. Thank you so much for this video so helpful blessings to you🙏🏻!!!
Are you aware that the NWT in Greek inserted the article before "Jesus Christ"?
της δικαιοσύνης του Θεού μας και του Σωτήρα Ιησού Χριστού
It appears that JWs could not leave the verse as it was for Greek speakers because they would realize that God and Saviour were referring to the same person, Jesus Christ, so they have to insert the article to make the titles refer to different people.
Actually, if someone denies the deity of Christ, they can’t ‘claim the name of Jesus’, or present themselves as Christians.
Really? Why is that?
@@jordandthornburg John 8:24 - Jesus took the title of “I AM” - (see Exodus 3:14)
@@mikem3789 that isn’t a referring to exodus 3 man. Very few trinitarian scholars even think so anymore. You can see the major translations for that. They almost all say “I am he” which is what the phrase means, probably referencing Jesus as the messiah as per John 4:26.
@@jordandthornburg no sir….’he’ is not in the original text. If you don’t believe Jesus is God, or in the Godhead (Father, Son, and Spirit- (3) persons - one God, one being….you can’t call yourself a Christian
@@mikem3789 yes it is. Ego eimi means. “I am he” hence all the translations that say that. John 8:24 does not count as evidence for that so what else do you have?
Wonderful work, thanks for sharing. When I watch this channel, I even want to learn Greek, even though I don't think I have enough time. The Lord Jesus Christ bless you!
Thanks for watching!
@@bmahow should John 20:28 be interpreted. The Lord of me and the God of me?
The Granville Sharp “rule” was discovered by someone who wanted to prove the deity of Christ. The trouble with the rule is it actually begs the question. It assumes that because Jesus is God, the Granville Sharp rule is therefore true, and thus applies to those verses (context be damned). Interestingly that rule was only “discovered” a relatively short time ago and isn’t universally accepted (despite the fact that the vast vast majority of scholars believe in the deity of Christ) - the NAB translators, for example, rejected the Granville Sharp rule. This is one of those arguments that is great for those who already accept the conclusion Sharp was trying to prove.
Even without the rule Jesus is still I AM
@@willscott596 the Greek ‘ego eimi’ translated “I am” is not a special construction and doesn’t even correspond grammatically to the Hebrew of Ex. 3:14. It’s a dubious connection rooted in wishful thinking.
@@eliasarches2575why would Jesus say it as he did and would the Jewish leaders accuse him of blasphemy
One of Granville's letters written in 1778 (published in 1798), propounded what has come to be known as The Granville Sharp Rule.
@@kellyblakeborough3371 Jesus was deemed a blasphemer simply because the Jewish leaders rejected his claim to be the Messiah (or Christ). Are you referring to something specifically?
Thank you for explaining this rule. Love this channel!
(Thomas speaking) "my Lord AND my God".....
Why does the μου in Phil 2:25 only applies on 'συστρατιωτην'? Why doesn't it apply to all three nouns? Epaphroditus being Paul's brother and fellow worker too as well.
You could conceivably take it to apply to all three, but most commentators regard it as applying to the latter. Thanks for watching!
Please do a video explaining the Personhood and Deity of the Holy Spirit.
Which holy spirit?
Matthew 27:50 "And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and gave up His spirit"
So we have two holy spirits, one father and Jesus body. In total we have 4 gods now.
@@logical-reasoning not following?
@@tagnenjosephs3124 Open any Bible, go to New Testaments, go to Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 27, verse 50 "And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and gave up His spirit"
Am I quoting correctly?
@@logical-reasoning i dont see how you got 4 gods, thats why im not following. Also im refering to The Holy Spirit of God
I don't think this is a fair representation of Matt 27:50. The Bible recognizes that man is a unity of material and immaterial, and that death separates these, which is what this verse is referring to. It certainly doesn't leave us with 4 divine persons. Thanks for watching!
Since "Of" is usually the sign of the Genitive Case; In regards to all fourteen different Greek words, viz., from, around, away, under, beside, upon, over, in, into, down, through, towards, with, and before, these appear to be all prepositions. Are there many verbs in the Greek language? Is there a Greek word for 'was'? If so, was it lost in translation in Gen 1:1 ('hayah' ; to become, became, caused to come to pass)?
If you've seen the Son , you've seen the Father. Emanuel , God with us.
Amen brother
Yes, because the Son is the "image" of the Father.
(Not that the Son is the Father as the Unitarians suppose)
G-Sharp Rule aside, you're missing the broader grammar and pattern in Titus. Jesus Christ is the "Glory of God." in Titus 2:13, just as Jesus is the "Goodness of God which appeared" in Titus 2:11, and the "Goodness and Kindness of God" in Titus 3:4. Paul is calling Jesus the "____" of God, followed by the verb "appeared," throughout the book.
Similar to Paul saying "Woman is the Glory of Man" in 1 Corinthians 11:7. Titus 2:13 is not calling Jesus "God," but rather the "Glory of God."
A second edition of Bowman's book is forthcoming.
*Finally!* Thanks, brother!
awesome video, my brother! and i think it's 2 Peter, not 1st Peter 😀 but informative video anyway! our Lord Jesus is God! all will bow in reverence and fear before His throne. even muhammad and those whom he has deceived. repent my muslim friends. repent.
Exactly. This atheistic, gentile nation ,the Mohammedans, currently sits on the Dome OF THE ROCK. And they will surely bow; even as the idol statue Dagon, who fell upon his face to the earth before the ark of the Lord. ....1Sam5:1-5
It is a bit challenging. Thanks for the books. It would be fabulous to discuss the claim that Jesus stated "I AM" I have never heard a preacher talk about the greek in this passage.
Great suggestion! Thanks!
@@bma How do you explain Revelation 3:12 "If you conquer, I will make you a pillar in the temple of *MY GOD* ; you will never go out of it. I will write on you the name of *MY GOD* "
@@t.scopperfield4943 first of all the main name word for Deity in the original language text of the New Testament used is o ων not the word Θεός Theos God. If you see a greek orthodox icon of Jesus Christ it never says on it Θεός God but ALLWAYS o ων. That is taken from scripture revelation 1:8 romans9:5 and Exodus 3 14 Septuagint text.. there the Ehyeh aser Ehyeh.Ehyer .in hebrew of Exodus 3 14 is translated from jews themselves in greek 200 BC as εγώ ειμί ο ων
ο ων. Ιs the main word that shows Deity in greek.
@@t.scopperfield4943 no about revelation 3:12 the word there is Θεός in scripture the word can be used for the Father as it is there or for the Trinity. If you see there actually the Trinity is showed the one talking is the Son the word Θεός is for the Father God and in verse 3:13 is the word Πνεύμα that is actually the person of the Holy Spirit.
@@bma "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth (Darryl Burling and Granville Sharp Rule), but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (1 Cor. 2:13)
There are two possessive phrase that appearing in Titus 2:13. The Glory of the great God (1st appearing), and saviour Jesus Christ (2nd appearing). In 2 Cor. 4:6 it says "The glory of God in the face of Christ". So the God in Titus 2:13 is the same God in 2 Cor. 4:6.
The grandville sharp rule was invented only amidst 17th century. It is not the rule of the Apostles to interpret the scriptures.
Apostle Paul said: EVER LEARNING AND NEVER ABLE TO COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH. (2 Tim. 3:17) THAT'S WHY TO THOSE WHO STRIVE TO UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES THROUGH THEIR OWN WORDLY KNOWLEDGE, WILL NEVER ABLE TO COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH.
If you don't know that Jesus is God, it is impossible to truly know God.
Says what verse or evidence?
@@jordandthornburg Experience.
@@vishyswa ok. You don’t have all experiences yet. You obviously haven’t met godly non Jesus = God believers. There are many out there, myself included.
@@jordandthornburg I'm not saying non Jesus = God people are not godly. I'm saying that if you don't know or understand the true nature of another person it is impossible to truly know them.
@@vishyswa you can’t be godly without knowing God.
Brother, have you done anything on Jhn 20:28? I have noticed that, that is one of the Unitarians pet verses to attack concerning the emphasis and Greek structure.
I agree , but the verse reads HIMSELF only . The conversation that is spoken is not only between Jesus and Thomas because the other apostles were there so there is common ground who the subject matter is applied to
_"Jesus is God"_
Nope.
The Bible makes it clear that a human descendant of David, not God, was the father of Jesus. The terms, "seed", "flesh", "root", "fruit of his loins", and "offspring" mean that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph.
Matthew 1:1
"This is the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David."
John 42
"They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
Acts 2:30
"Therefore being a prophet [David], and knowing that God had sworn an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne."
Hebrews 2:16
"For verily he [Jesus] took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham."
Acts 13:23
"Of David's seed hath God, according to his promise, raised unto Israel a saviour, Jesus."
Romans 1:3
"Concerning his son Jesus Christ, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."
2 Timothy 2:8
"Remember that Jesus Christ is the seed of David."
Revelation 22:16
"I, Jesus have sent my angel to testify unto you these things in the churches; I am the root (progeny) and the offspring of David."
John 1:45
“We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote; Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
Matthew 9:27
"When Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, thou son of David, have mercy on us."
God specifically warned against worshiping false saviors such as Jesus!
Isaiah 43:10
"Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior."
Hosea 13:4
"Thou shalt know no God but me, for there is no saviour beside me."
Exodus 20:2 and Deuteronomy 5:6
“You shall have no other gods besides me".
Isaiah 45:5
"I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God."
Numbers 23:19
"God is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind."
Isaiah 42:8
"I am the Lord; that is My name! I will not yield My glory to another."
It is Biblically impossible for Jesus to be the messiah.
Matthew 1:12 lists Jeconiah (also known as Jehoiachin or Coniah) as Jesus' ancestor, and God states in Jeremiah 22:30 that descendants of Jeconiah are cursed and that no ancestor of Jeconiah will ever sit on the throne of David (heaven) or ever rule in Judah.
Should we expect God to know what the Ten Commandments are?
What was Jesus's sixth commandment?
1. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself:
If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (Matthew 19:17-19)
2. Honor thy father and mother:
Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor thy father and mother. (Mark 10:19)
3. There was no sixth. Jesus listed only five commandments (notice that the five on Jesus' list are the secular ones that make no mention of God):
Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother. (Luke 18:20)
Heresy!!!!!
The Bible makes is very clear Jesus is God. If Joseph was his dad why is he ashamed and wanted to move Mary away to another city? You should read and study more
@@JesusIsGodAlmighty736
_"The Bible makes is very clear Jesus is God."_
False.
God specifically stated that he is one, not three:
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one."
(Deuteronomy 6:4)
For 3,000 years of scholarly study about the Old Testament, never was it stated that God was three or that the messiah is God.
God knows the last hour; Jesus does not. So, how could Jesus and God (and the Holy Spirit) be one?
The idea of a "trinity" was the result of a vote to resolve many inconsistencies, including God saying there is no savior other than him.
The word 'trinity' appears nowhere in the Bible; the concept was finalized at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE after years of debate. It was an attempt to articulate Christianity's belief in the oneness of God with their claims about Jesus and their experiences of the spirit.
The first of the early Church Fathers to be recorded using the word "Trinity" was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom in the context of a discussion of the first three days of creation, following the early Christian practice of identifying the Holy Spirit as the Wisdom of God.
Scripture makes it clear that the concept of a Trinity is anti-God:
Numbers 23:19
"God is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind."
It is Biblically impossible for Jesus to be the messiah.
Matthew 1:12 lists Jeconiah as Jesus' ancestor, and God states in Jeremiah 22:30 that descendants of Jeconiah are cursed and that no ancestor of Jeconiah will ever sit on the throne of David (heaven) or ever rule in Judah.
John 20:17
Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."
Matthew 23:9
"And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."
Matthew 27:45
"Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'"
John 14:28
"I go unto the Father; for my Father is greater than I."
Acts 2:22
"Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God..."
Mark 10:18
"Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good-except God alone".
Mark 16:19
"After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God."
Amen! Great God, and our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Great God, the Deity of Jesus as God, our Saviour, relating the to the Humanity of Jesus as the sacrifice for our sins. The dual nature of Jesus Christ. As Thomas said, my Lord, and my God. (John 20:28)
How is it critical to the doctrine of the atonement (as stated in the Bible) that we believe Jesus is God? I don’t see that anywhere. Can anyone share a verse or a passage which states that?
The quantity and even to some extent the particulars of what we need to believe for salvation is not explicit. But conversion will lead to a submission to the Word as this is part of the work of the Holy Spirit after salvation. I hope this helps.
I would like to see the other side of this argument. The Greek evidence suggesting they are separate beings. I’m interested to hear both sides
Is Matthew 28:19b a counter example of the Granville Sharp Rule? Three substantives,, each preceded by definite articles, requiring that they are not the same person?
How is Mat 28:19 a counter example to the rule? A counter example would require you to find a TSKS construction (with the 3 accompanying rules) that refers to two people, not one.
Mat 28:19 is a great trinitarian verse which shows that the singular name (ὄνομα) is shared by the three persons of the Godhead: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
You are correct that the article preceding the three substantives requires them to be distinct persons, which means modalism is false. Trinitarians teach that the one being (God) subsists in three distinct persons and point to this verse as evidence of that truth.
Bottom line, Mat 28:19 doesn't refute the Granville Sharp's rule.
If I understand you correctly, you're asking if Matt 28:19 is an example that helps prove the Granville Sharp rule by its use of the article, right? If so, I think you're right. The use of the article does indeed suggest three different people. :)
Playlist here explaining why the docrine of Trinity should be considered to be unscriptural: th-cam.com/play/PLXqPLxQMlGOdtub5els83Xqb9eQdiw04l.html
@@1corinthians8v69 i read only the original language text of the New Testament never translations so easy seen there the Trinity even in mark 12:29 i would be a satanic liar as i read the original language text and say that there is no Trinity
I heard a very interesting perspective on Jesus by Bill Donahue , he has multiple videos on TH-cam so you can check it out. But his perspective was that when Jesus referred to himself as God , he meant that God was in him, therefore making him the son of God . But the twist is that Jesus also told us that we are the sons of God , therefore telling us that God is in us as well, if we receive him . And this raises the question that what if Jesus was actually teaching us to find God within ourselves , and that the way to God was in our spiritual journey? Not that he intended for the apostles and us to worship him and see him as God. I’m very curious to know others perspective on this. Thank you
Darryl, is being God a linguistic thing?
Not only linguistic but the main route as that is the law (word of God) that holds God to ransome he has gone that route
So are you saying we are not saved by his grace through faith?
Thanks for the video, Darryl!
Can Granville Sharp's Rule rightly be called a rule? I have struggled with the fact that it previous to Granville, it was seen as a translation decision, which orthodox Christians saw as having no bearing on the doctrine of the deity of Christ. My understanding is that Granville Sharp based his rule solely off the text of the NT, with little reference to Church Fathers or the LXX. What started my questioning of the rule was reading Calvin's Commentary on the passage, which showed me that although older translations (Lutherbibel, Tyndale, Geneva, KJV, etc) do not follow the Granville Sharp Rule, it was still something that they grappled with when translating verses such as Titus 2:13 (and obviously the translators of those bibles had no issue with the deity of Christ). Calvin says:
It is uncertain whether these words should be read together thus, “the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, the great God and our Saviour,” or separately, as of the Father and the Son, “the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.” The Arians, seizing on this latter sense, have endeavoured to prove from it, that the Son is less than the Father, because here Paul calls the Father the great God by way of distinction from the Son. The orthodox teachers of the Church, for the purpose of shutting out this slander, eagerly contended that both are affirmed of Christ. But the Arians may be refuted in a few words and by solid argument; for Paul, having spoken of the revelation of the glory of “the great God,” immediately added “Christ,” in order to inform us, that that revelation of glory will be in his person; as if he had said that, when Christ shall appear, the greatness of the divine glory shall then be revealed to us.
Calvin, J., & Pringle, W. (2010). Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (pp. 320-321). Logos Bible Software.
There are four views on this passage, and Murray Harris covers them in detail in his book Jesus as God, which I recommend. He includes a discussion of the approach you mention. I believe the reading I've provided (and that Harris argues for) has the best explanatory power and fits best with the evidence we see of this construction. Thanks for your thoughtful comments!
@@bma Thanks, Darryl, I will add the book to my reading list!
@@pmachapman Hi Peter, if you are questioning the validity of Sharp's rule then I suggest reading Dan Wallace's monograph on Sharp's rule. It's very long but extremely thorough. Most people only hear of Sharp's rule in connection to the Christological passages of Tit 2:13 & 2Pe 1:1 and don't realize that there are approx. 80 other TSKS constructions that fit Sharp's rule. Everyone accepts the rule is valid in these other 80 places and only question the rule when it comes to Tit 2:13 & 2Pe 1:1... I wonder why?!
I concur with Darryl that Murray Harris's book 'Jesus as God' is an excellent book and well worth the read.
If you're looking for something short that basically gives you the Cole's notes of why Jesus is "our great God and Saviour," rather than viewing the passage as two persons (God [the Father] and Jesus) or viewing Jesus as the glory of God, then I suggest Benjamin Merkle's book 'Exegetical gems from Biblical Greek.'
@@kevinfromcanada4379 Thanks, Kevin - I am a Canadian in exile! I have read one of his early journal articles on it, but there are a few more (which are now on my reading list...). That is a good point you raise on it only being contentious RE: two specific passages.
I was taught to remember when encountering issues like this, that grammarians always come after the language, i.e. their rules are defined from what was said, rather than define what was said. This has made me perhaps more critical of grammatical rules than other aspects of exegesis and translation, with my conservative nature often requiring a large amount of convincing to change from an "old path". Nevertheless, I endeavour not to be obstinate, and I really appreciate your comment!
To call Granville Sharp's observation a "rule" is somewhat of a misnomer. Natural language is not like mathematics where hard and fast rules exist that always hold. With spoken and written languages, grammar "rules" frequently have exceptions or anomalies, and Granville Sharp is no different.
Even within the Septuagint, there is an exception to the "rule" (Proverbs 24:21). A detailed review of this verse (in an article on the NET Bible website), which considers three possible reasons why the "rule" is violated in LXX Proverbs, ends up admitting that it is indeed an exception to the rule: bible.org/article/sharp-redivivus-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule.
In other words, speakers and writers of Greek in the Koine period mostly did follow the pattern that Granville Sharp observed, but not always. It is not good or logical exegesis to base a defence of the doctrine of the Trinity on such a shaky foundation: asserting that a "rule" exists, even though that rule has a well-known exception in the Biblical Koine corpus.
Would you please link me to the video on How to Disagree with Grace? I don’t find it in a title search or what is the exact title, please? Thank you!
ALL I've ever heard is from the JWs and I've heard my pastor say for a long time that they are wrong, and others say the same thing. They'd come to my house, I'd invite them in, we'd talk for a while, and always get to John 1:1, and they'd come back with something I think was similar to Colwell's rule and quote it it, (or their version of it), and I never had a come back, because it always came down
to "my translation is better than yours", and I couldn't prove or disprove either, because I wasn't discipled. Now that I'm in poor health living with my sons in the Philippines, they never come my way. I lost out.
Another blog required you to have your first and last name in order to post. That might be a bit much, but as you can see, I adhere to that in this post.
What does Hebrew/Greek say on Jesus is God in the OT?
Consider ALL Paul's writings. Its plain he elevated 'God the Father' above 'The Lord Jesus Christ'. 1 Cor 11:3 for example "The head of the woman is Man, the head of man is the Christ, the HEAD OF THE CHRIST IS GOD" At Tit 2:13 Paul is speaking of 'our Great God' AND Savior ( OF US) Jesus Christ'. By leaving out 'of us' translators try to give the impression that Paul speaks of Just one person! Why do they leave out 'of us'? Because it CHANGES the meaning! clever but seen through!
What about jesus saying the father is the only true god ?
Jesus is God. The Greek clearly supports this as you have pointed out. Thank you!😊
Thank you. Kenneth Wuest's translation is he only translation that I know of that applies this rule.
Thank you. THIS is the kind of teaching that Christians need. Christians should also be aware of how The Apostles baptized: INTO THE NAME ΙΗΣΟΥ (I-e-sou/YA-SU), Acts 4:12, etc
_"Christians should also be aware of how The Apostles baptized..."_
None of the Gospel authors were witnesses to Jesus.
@@EvilXtianity Matthew and John were eyewitnesses of Jesus.
@@kevinfromcanada4379
_"Matthew and John were eyewitnesses of Jesus."_
There is no evidence either of them (or Jesus) existed.
John:
John reached its final form around AD 90-110, although it contains signs of origins dating back to AD 70 and possibly even earlier. Like the three other gospels, it is anonymous.
The Gospel of John was only attributed to John later in the second century when the Church Fathers were attempting to define who, in their opinions, wrote each of the gospels. There is no evidence that John even existed.
John 21:24-25 is written in the third-person, referring six times to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" -- "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true."
@@kevinfromcanada4379
_"Matthew and John were eyewitnesses of Jesus."_
There is no evidence either of them (or Jesus) existed.
Matthew:
Most scholars believe the gospel was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110; a pre-70 date remains a minority view. The work does not identify its author, and the early tradition attributing it to the apostle Matthew is rejected by modern scholars.
The Gospel of Matthew occasionally lets it slip that it was written long afterwards, such as the description of the Jewish authorities’ cover-up of the resurrection (“this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day." Matthew 28:15) and the story of the field of blood (“Wherefore that field was called the field of blood, unto this day," Matt. 27:8)
Ahh, you’re a Jesus mythist. You should listen to what the atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman says about Jesus mythists. There is exceptionally good evidence that Jesus existed and there are a number of points regarding his life that is undisputed among NT scholars and historians.
Second, while the gospels are anonymous (just as the Torah was), this doesn’t mean that people didn’t know who wrote them (just like the Torah, which is attributed to Moses). There is no reason to doubt that Matthew and John wrote the books that are attributed to them. There isn’t the slightest hint that anyone claimed someone else authored these books.
As Craig Blomberg says, “When all the evidence is amassed, there appears no conclusive proof for the apostle Matthew as author but no particularly cogent reason to deny this uniform early church tradition. Were the Gospel not written by him, the church surely chose a rather strange individual (in light of his unscrupulous past by Jewish standards) as a candidate for authorship. Without any ancient traditions to the contrary, Matthew remains the most plausible choice for author.” Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992), 44.
The same can be said for the gospel of John.
As you may know, Smyth and modern scholars don’t accept Sharps rule.
What about anything by John MacArthur?
I'm sure he has some good resources such his commentary on Titus, or some of his other books, but I just haven't been focusing my reading there. Thanks for watching!
To which Genitive Case would I apply this to? The Genitive of Possession , The Genitive of Material or the Genitive of Origin? Can two Genitives (of Possession and of Relation ) be apply here, since it appears that they depend on one another?
Beautiful! Thank you!
One can accept that Jesus is 'divine' and that he has deity' and STILL recognise that He in turn has a 'Deity' over and above him. The Apostle John tells us Jesus was 'God'. Then Later records that Jesus himself said "I am ascending to MY GOD & FATHER". ( John 20:17)
Tit 2:13 is a typical example of attempting to 'twist' the scriptures to fit in with a much later 'trinity' dogma! Its the way one reads Paul's words that can change the meaning! In Tit 1:4 Paul states "Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ". an obvious reference to TWO seperate persons. In his additional blessings at 1/2 Cor, Gal, Eph e.t.c Paul makes it clear that Jesus is NOT God" " Blessed be the God and Father OF the Lord Jesus Christ" ( Eph 1:3)
"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth (Darryl Burling and Granville Sharp Rule), but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (1 Cor. 2:13)
There are two possessive noun that appearing in Titus 2:13. The Glory of the great God (1st appearing), and saviour Jesus Christ (2nd appearing). In 2 Cor. 4:6 it says "The glory of God in the face of Christ". So the God in Titus 2:13 is the same God in 2 Cor. 4:6.
The grandville sharp rule was invented only amidst 17th century. It is not the rule of the Apostles to interpret the scriptures.
Apostle Paul said: EVER LEARNING AND NEVER ABLE TO COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH. (2 Tim. 3:17) THAT'S WHY TO THOSE WHO STRIVE TO UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES THROUGH THEIR OWN WORDLY KNOWLEDGE, WILL NEVER ABLE TO COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH.
Thank you brother ,Al an from Eastern churchr called Assyrian church speak ARAMAIC thank a lot
Excellent teaching ❣️
Jesus and the apostles all said that Father God is the only One. John 17:3 / 1 Corinthians 8:6 And that settled this issue for me. ...YHVH is 1 Lord.
Jesus and I have the same God and Father, Jesus is my elder brother, the sinless lamb of God that died for me on the cross. John 20:17
And then I looked into the early years when the people were discussing the matter, people believing various things about it all. But then the Catholic church draw the line in 381AD at The First Council of Constantinople, when people that I don't believe was true Christians, took a firm stand for the lie and made the Trinity the supreme law, and all other views were banned and the persecution began in earnest. Lasted for many centuries into the Catholic dark ages.
One cannot disagree with truth. A detractor can only maintain his opinion in the face of overwhelming proof to the contrary. And why? What is the downside of believing that Jesus is God? How is that going to help me? How can I possibly have a good life being a JW or other cultist? These groups keep their dupes in prison, whereas Christ came to set us free from the law of sin and death. Open their eyes and ears, Lord! Similarly, if you don't believe in eternal security or you don't believe in the deity of Christ, then you don't know God's grace and therefore don't know God.
It is quite clear why Jesus was called the son of man and preferred to call himself the son of man. It's because he was a man. This is an Aramaic expression quite commonly used in Jesus' day to refer to a human being. It was used profusely of Ezekiel for example. And it is quite clear that Jesus' teaching about blasphemy concerns the fact that blaspheming man is one thing, a forgiveable thing, but blaspheming God is another. "Coming on the clouds" is a reference to authority and judgment. God will judge through a man He raised from the dead and appointed to judge in His name.
God has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a MAN whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising him from the dead. Acts 17:30-31
Who is the cloud rider in Psalm 104:3? What does this tell us about Dan 7:13 and Rev 14:14? Is the Son of Man in Divine?
Where does the Son of Man sit in heaven (Mar 14:62)?
If angels belong to the Son of Man (Mat 16:27), who is he?
What does Jesus mean when he says, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM..." If Jesus is the Son of Man, whet does he mean when he says you will know that I Am? There is no predicate. Hint, look at Deu 32:39, Isa 43:10, etc., where "I am" is used without a predicate.
@@kevinfromcanada4379
Jesus means "I am he", i.e. the Son of Man, whom he just mentioned. It's not correct that there is no predicate in the passages from Deuteronomy and Isaiah. The Hebrew is _ani hu,_ which means "I am he".
Every time Jesus uses "ego eimi" in John without an explicit predicate, it has an implicit predicate (except in John 8:58, which is existential and affirms his pre-existence). He was not claiming to be "the I AM", since there is no such thing as "the I AM" (besides, he would have to say "I am the I AM" to claim that).
@@Bowen12676 There is no antecedent in the context pointing to a claim to be either the Messiah or the Son of Man. Richard Bauckham points out, Jesus could “hardly mean, ‘I am the Son of Man,’ because ‘the Son of Man’ is itself an enigmatic way of referring to himself that Jesus’ hearers in the Gospel do not understand.”[1]
The absolute έγώ είμι statements in John 8:24, 28 should be taken as pair. Unlike Jesus’ predicated έγώ είμι statement in v. 18 which speaks to Jesus’ role as the servant of Yahweh, these verses concern his identity as Yahweh. The fact that the Jewish leaders respond to Jesus’ first statement by asking, “Who are you?” (v. 25) demonstrates that “there is no plausible antecedent in the context, as though Jesus could be saying ‘I am that one about whom we have just been speaking.’”[2]
In John 8:58, “Jesus claims not merely preexistence-in that case, he could have said, ‘before Abraham was born, I was’-but deity.”[3]
Jesus appropriates to himself the self-designation of Yahweh from Deuteronomy 32 and Isaiah 40-55, which are built upon the self-revelatory name in Exodus 3:14. The Jewish leaders know exactly what Jesus is claiming and immediately take up stones to stone him for blasphemy.[4]
[1] Richard Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple : Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), ePub, Monotheism and Christology
[2] Ibid.
[3] Andreas J. Köstenberger, “John,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), ePub, Jesus at the Feast.
[4] Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God : The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York, NY: Harperone, 2015), ePub, Did Jesus Claim to Be God?
@@kevinfromcanada4379
You missed my point that in Isaiah and Deuteronomy, God says "I am _he";_ he doesn't simply say "I am". There is a predicate. Now, I understand that you're referring to the later Greek translation, but Jesus was almost certainly not speaking in Greek (he was speaking to the Jewish Leaders, probably in an Aramaic language). So, the alleged verbal parallel between his words and God's words in Deuteronomy and Isaiah seems tenuous at best.
Even so, I think Jesus' answer to the Jews' question "who are you?" provides us with a plausible predicate for John 8:24 and 28: "just what I have been telling you from the beginning". In other words, when Jesus said "I am he", he was claiming to be what he has been telling them he is from the beginning: the Messiah, the son of God.
In John 8:57, Jesus was asked about his age and how he could have existed. The use of the present verb "eimi" in verse 58 conveys that Jesus' existence continues to the present. In Greek, when a present verb is modified by an expression of past time, it signals an action that begun in the past and continues to the present. One example is John 14:9. An interlinear would read:
"So much time with you I am"
The present "eimi" is used here too, but since Jesus is talking about something that begun in the past and has continued up to the present, pretty much all translations render it "have been". John 8:58 is the same, since it has a present verb ("eimi") modified by an expression of past time ("prin Abraam genesthai"). As such, Greek grammarian Dr. Kenneth L. McKay wrote that it "would be most naturally translated 'I have been in existence since before Abraham was born' were it not for the obsession with the simple words 'I am' " (Expository Times 1996, p. 302).
@@Bowen12676 First, Jesus almost certainly spoke Greek. I suggest you read G Scott Gleaves's book, "Did Jesus Speak Greek?: The Emerging Evidence of Greek Dominance in First-Century Palestine." (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2015).
There are many external and internal reasons for concluding that Jesus spoke Greek.
If we can trust the NT authors then Jesus cited from the Greek OT (cf. Luke 4:18 - compare the difference between the Greek and Hebrew of Isaiah 61:1-2).
So if Jesus cited the Greek there, why would we assume that Jesus is not citing Isaiah 43:10 in Greek in John 8? And even if Jesus didn't speak Greek, this is the connection that the writer intends the reader to understand.
Second,
I've already dealt with the fact that there is no antecedent in John 8:24 & 28.
Third,
Wallace demonstrates that there are several problems grammatically with seeing εγω ειμι as a historical present:
1) “historical presents are usually wedged in between aorist (or imperfect) _indicatives,_ not infinitives.”
2) This would be the only historical present in the NT that uses εἰμί.
3) This would be the only historical present in the NT that is not in third person. For these reasons, Wallace says “The burden of proof, therefore, lies with the one who sees εἰμί as _ever_ being used as a historical present.”[1]
If Jesus simply wanted to express preexistance he would simply have used ημην (I was), but he didn't.
Finally, the reaction of the Jews demonstrates that they understood his claim to be that of deity, not simple preexistance. If he simply claimed to be older than Abraham they would have laughed at him but they understood his claim to one of diety and so they tried to kill him for blasphemy.
[1] Daniel B Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics : An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997), 530.
What if everyone in the world does believe he is God, I learned to worship the creator and not the created, but I get how he can be God in flesh
Jesus is GOD! 🛐
Being human does not mean necessarily being sinful. The same people who believe Jesus is God also believe that Adam was sinless before he sinned. Paul said that Adam brought sin and death into the world when he sinned. So it is possible to be human and be pure and sinless.
And if sin is passed on (“original sin”) somehow genetically through Adam’s seed, then Jesus is also clear of that since he was conceived in a virgin through the Holy Spirit.
So that argument for Jesus being God has no weight.
I'm not sure that you're following your argument here. Your reasoning (which I agree with) leads to the opposite conclusion to the one you conclude with. If Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit the implication is that He is the offspring of God directly and being conceived in a woman provides the human part of the incarnation. So Jesus is both God and Man.
You should debate Gino Jennings that would be great...
Thanks for your presentation. Just have to comment on one aspect with your opening words please.
Fascinating that you mention at the beginning those three points about if Jesus is a god then the following is the case:
1/ If Jesus is not God he is a human being
2/ Then he is bound with sin
3/ Then he cannot be a perfect substitute and we cannot be saved
Never heard those conclusions before. But think these scriptures below will clear up some confusion and teach the truth of the matter, from what I can humbly see.
(Joh 3:13; 6:38, 62; 8:23, 42, 58)
Jesus came from heaven to earth - sent by God
((Mt 1:18, Lu 1:35, Lu 2:7)
Born as a human and Mary made pregnant with Jesus in her womb through Holy spirit. So no human father.
(John 1:14, Heb 10:5, 1Ti 3:16; Philippians 2:7)
Jesus "became or made" flesh to live on earth so he wasn't flesh before he came to earth through Holy spirit.
(Heb 7:26; Joh 8:46; 1Pe 2:21, 22)
Jesus' father was God in the heavens so was a perfect human so had no sin - He had no imperfect father who caused his birth
(John 17:5, John 8:23)
Jesus is Gods son in heaven before he came to earth as he was WITH his father in heaven before then
(Lu 3:38; 1:35, Mar 1:11, Gal 4:4)
Jesus had been God’s Son on earth from the time of his birth, even as the perfect Adam had been the “son of God.”
(1 Peter 3:18, 1 Ti 3:16, Heb 1:2. Eph 1:17, 20, Rom 4:24)
After his resurrection he was raised a spirit (not flesh) back to the heavens. Only his father raised him from the dead. His father has installed his son at his own right hand. Jesus is Gods son in heaven as God is his father.
(I Cor 15:50-52, Job 38:7, John 4:24) Only spirits can live in heaven, not humans. Angels are sons of God in heaven, and they are not flesh but are spirits like God
Any other scriptures have a bearing? Not talking about disputed grammar verses. Scholars and bible translators have different views. So, what does the bible teach consistently on this overall.
Thanks for your time. Hope this all helps in your ongoing search for Bible truth about Jesus 😊
Thanks for your reply. Its not clear whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me here, so I'm not sure a) where the confusion is or b) how it is clearer now. The points you raise are not entirely contrary to where I stand, but at points need further clarification. It seems like you've denied a bodily resurrection which would be the only major point we'd differ on. Thanks for watching!
ANOTHER Great video
Jesus called our God and Father his God and Father at John 20:17
See also Rev. 3:12
1:25 "if you claim the name of Christ in any way" lol well said. So even if your a deity denying cult member your cult leader should've taught you to be civil
The Granville Sharpe Rule was completely unknown to Greeks of the New Testament era (both the rule and the name of the rule). Sharpe didn't discover this rule; he invented it. His whole purpose was to find a way to “prove” that Jesus is God. The rule has been thoroughly debunked. Bible translators apply the rule because the majority of those who buy Bibles are Trinitarians.
Howdy sir. just wanted to say, your make a lot of assertions; can you provide any links or cite sources for your claims please? Thank-you.
Actually the greek original language text of the New Testament shows the deity of Lord Jesus Christ with the words o ων.
and on numerous occasions with ego eimi in John. I know it could be referring to normal people, but many of the places in John (If I remember correctly, around 21 times) the use of Ego Eimi seems to reflect the I AM phrase from Exodus.
@@VicRibeiro777 actually the exodus 3 14 is in greek is the words εγώ ειμί ο ων that we see for Jesus Christ as o ων said in the New Testament john 1:18 romans 9:5 John 3:13 john6:46 revelation 1:4 1:8 etc in 2 cor 1131 it is said for the FATHER God.
@@VicRibeiro777 in greek the main word for Deity is o ων.see the greek speaking saint john the Damascian in his work the exact expodition of the orthodox faith ch 9 he says that then he says is the word Θεός Theos_God showing from which greek verbs is that word from θεειν θεασθαι αιθειν.If you see an orthodox icon of Jesus Christ around his head is never the word God Θεός but allways o ων. O ων is in greek the one talking to mosses at exodus 3 14 jews themselves translated into greek BC period that and wrote for Ehyeh aser Ehyeh.Ehyeh..Εγω ειμί ο ων ο ων...
.
Good stuff. Thanks.
Daryl, peace to you my friend but I must point out a few concerns. At the video range 2:10 - 2:30 minutes, you highlighted what, in some ways, resembles the ancient Gnostic heretics, i.e. that being human makes you sinful. 1 John attacks this.
The OT prophesied that Jesus had to be the Seed of both Abraham and David, hence why the NT calls him the son of both. He was fully human but his Spirit was divine, i.e. the Word that came forth from God. God is spirit said Jesus and the Word is Spirit that came forth from him. Hence why the earliest manuscripts we have for John 1:18 says "no one has ever seen God, but the only begotten God, he has explained him". And Jesus said if you have seen me, then you have seen the Father.
Jesus was fully human and yet his Spirit was divine (is divine), i.e. the God-man, but he is not his Father. Paul says there is one God, and he is the Father. The begotten Son who is divine came forth from him, and John and other passages in scriptures say.
You asked and said in your logical analysis that
1. being human inherently makes you sinful, not a product of a person choosing the lusts of the flesh (as Romans 7 - 8) indicates falsely translated as "covetous" but lusts that brought sin, explained often in Paul's letters that brings temptation, the devils use to tempt people into sinning, thus bringing condemnation and separation).
1 John 4:2 ...Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3
and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
* Jesus came in the flesh is an idiom meaning = Jesus was human (the Latin word Human, as you must know, suggests humans came from Adam, just as the scriptures indicate Jesus came from Abraham and King David, and therefore Adam). The ancient Gnostics said "No because that would make him sinful" just like the heresies abounding today.
2. that Jesus is a perfect substitute for us and therefore his death on the cross cannot save us.
(To that I say the NT says his Resurrection is what saves us. 1 Peter 3:21
Satisfaction theory invented this recent millennium is nonbiblical. The NT says a half a dozen times that he was a Ransom for our sins (e.g. Titus 2:14). Why does the Penal Substitution (PS) theory or Satisfaction theory (ST) of Atonement not consider:
* why Satan entered into Judas? Was Satan working with Father God? ridiculous
* why Satan asked to sift Peter as wheat?
- PS or ST of the Atonement does not consider Satan's role and therefore misses why the Ancient understanding saw it as Ransom, and that Jesus battled with Satan on the cross, not with his Father, "who is in the Son and the Son in the Father" suffered with His son, knowing that the cross was necessary to set the captives free and the Son to rightly be given the Kingdom for his victory taking back what Adam had lost in the beginning.
Another reason why "the Atonement" is important is because "being saved" means being rescued from Darkness (the devil's slavery). This Christ did. This does not mean that a person not following Jesus, i.e. if one does not obey Jesus' commands, he will not be sanctified nor be welcomed by Jesus in his Kingdom. Jesus' preaching in the gospels makes that clear. So many people ignore the King's own words. John 14 and 15 are very clear from Jesus' own mouth. The Holy Spirit warns us of Satan's coming deception in 2 Peter 3:15-17 that indicates half of the NT written by Paul is very hard to understand. Many today point to Paul (and their misinterpretation) for the gospel rather than to the words of Jesus. This is not how ANYONE in the first few centuries handled the gospels except the Gnostics who were lovers of Paul's letters because they were twistable as 2 Peter 3:15-17 points out.
Maybe you have not read much in the early church writings (aka Ante Nicene Fathers) but I have read many times the earliest writings found in the first few volumes.
Things to consider about the Historic Faith that over centuries of Catholicism polluted especially starting with Augustine of Hippo (400s AD).
What manipulation of Greek can change what John clearly stated.
'No man has SEEN God AT ANY TIME.' - 1 John 4:12,20.
This from someone who grew up with Jesus and was Jesus' beloved Apostle.
The thing you don’t understand is that JESUS is NOT THE WORD, JESUS is THE WORD OF GOD, BUT HE IS NOT THE WORD HIMSELF.
Jesus said; THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK, ARE NOT MY OWN. That settles the case.
I AM THE PARAKLETOS
Jesus is the Word (John 1:1). In the beginning was THE WORD (Jesus).
Jesus isn't the only parakletos-the Holy Spirit is also the parakletos (John 14:16).
Amen.
You got some GOOD POINTS. But I know Unitarians and Arians DISAGREE.
Well they where answered from so may Farhers in the Ecumenical councils
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας True. There were many theological discussions back then. Sacred tradition has preserved them .Part of the Dogmatic foundations of Christendom both West and East.
Christ and sanctification, he sanctified himself, and we must too.
God cannot sanctify himself. To sanctify means to set aside for a holy purpose.
John 10:36 do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
@@tongakhan230 Jesus said, "And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth", John 17:19.
Jesus sanctified himself, and we must too.
I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' for the truth
Jesus is not God, when he does miracles it is not by Jesus, but from God in him as the Holy Spirit, as John 10:38.
@@simonskinner1450 : Sanctified means set apart for holy service,
God CANNOT be set apart for any holy service. He himself is HOLY.
People who are not interested in Bible truth can read the Bible till they are blue in the face, but God withholds understanding from them. Compare Daniel 12:9,10.
@@tongakhan230 Not God. Jesus said. Jesus was a man who could be sanctified. God was pleased with him .
@@simonskinner1450 :Exactly! Jesus could sanctify himself.
Psalms 40:7 Then I said: “Look, I have come. In the scroll it is written about me. 8 To do your will, O my God, is my delight, And your law is deep within me.
John 4:34 Jesus said to them: “My food is to do the will of him who SENT ME and to finish HIS WORK.
God cannot set himself apart to do God's will. It would make no sense.
Jesus was never God.
However one manipulates the language of the bible, its is incontravertable that though Jesus is called 'God' twice in the NT 'theos', he is never called THE God, Ho theos. ( See John 1:1, John 20:28) Since the greek word 'theos' simply means 'a powerful godlike one' in the literal greek Jesus himself spoke of his Father as God! "I am ascending to MY GOD AND YOUR GOD" ( To Mary John 20:17 )Paul intros his letters with "Blessed be the GOD & Father OF our Lord Jesus Christ" ( Eph 1:3).
Amen brother!
The new world translation ADDS a word to make Jesus not Jehovah
“And our great God AND of our savior...”
What is the best explanation using Greek how to prove that Allah in Muslim is not God?
I'm sorry, I haven't really researched this area. You might consider reading James White's What Every Christian Should Know about the Qua'ran (amzn.to/3V4w1HC).
Every time the NT speaks of One God, the Only God, the True God, or similar, it is always speaking of the Father, and never Jesus. Eph 4:6, 1 Tim 2:5, 1 Cor 8:6-8, John 17:3, John 8:40, John 5:44).
Does the Greek also support the Deity of The Holy Spirit?
i can help with that
Then you shall know that I am in the midst of Israel: I am the LORD your God And there is no other. My people shall never be put to shame.
And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions.
Joel 2:28
Who else is the Spirit of the LORD
Than God?
And in matthew we say baptize in the
NAME (Singular) Father , Son , Holy Spirit
Just want to tell you no argument
No, breath is not a deity.
@@Thebibleauthority actually the original language text of the New Testament shows the Deity of the Holy Spirit. By the way because you are absolutely ignorant about the greek of the New Testament the word πνεύμα has different meanings in the text. .you have to see it in context.
@@jahtruthdefender clear we see the Deity of the Holy Spirit in the original language text of the New Testament
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας you keep repeating the same nonsense, show me chapter and verse.
Are you afraid of people hearing a different view?
And I agree....
Jesus God from the get go ......guns and bibles Amen.....and highly compelling !
On Psalm 45:6-7he psalmist said that the Messiah would be God, but that he would also bow to God. How can this be?
The writer of Hebrews explained it in chapter 1, that Jesus is God's heir in all things, blessed to have a better inheritance, a better name and that he was the one spoken of by the Psalmist in 45:6-7, saying...
"But unto the Son, he (Father God) saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."
Although going into the original languages is both fun and often quite enlightening...
The answer to the question of "Is Jesus God" is written in Hebrew and Greek, both translated faithfully into our language in Psalms 45:6-7 and Hebrews 1:8-9. Sadly...
Pointing out what is already properly translated obviates having to use one's education in understanding Greek.
Even so, COME, Lord Jesus!
I did notice that you stopped communicating with me, after I posited the idea that there were "a few" persons named in the Bible who did in fact keep the Word of God, i.e. all HIS commandments, judgments, decrees, statutes, etc. I am just guessing that you know why I put "a few" in quotes? And the only requirement to be in God's Kingdom, if you do sin is to repent, see for example Ezekiel chapter 18. And that Paul made lists of sins that disqualify persons from entering into the Kingdom of God that comes straight from the Torah, to wit idolatry, witchcraft, etc. and therefore the Torah is valid. Also, that Jesus is not a personal savior per Hebrews 10:26. Jesus is NOT God, that is to say he is NOT YHVH. "I am, and there is none like Me." There are a few examples of the judges being called "Elohim", in the "Old Testament". What is one definition of "Elohim"? Are there other definitions of "Elohim"? Could it be that the writers Paul and Peter were using the alternate definitions of "theos" or its derivations. Peter and Paul would be horrified to know that you are calling Jesus "God", something that never entered their minds, see for example 1 Corinthians 8:6, "But to us there is but one God, the Father..." And continuing in verse 7 "Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge..." Yes, yes, I know I used ellipsis. See also 2 Peter 1:2 where there is a distinction between God and Jesus.
Hey sorry, Darren. I don't have time to engage in detail with every comment on TH-cam and I have customers who I prioritize. I'll come back to this subject at some point in the future, and perhaps we can interact again then. It's not your arguments that are the problem, it's my time. 😀
@@bma OK, I look forward to your counterarguments, however they may be formed.
@@bma I also realize that the Bible was written TO CONFUSE, so that only those who humble themselves before God can get the truth, i.e. those who study under the tutelage of the professors and scholars will Never Ever understand what it says. See for example Psalm 25 and 110 & 119.
But Darryl, if JESUS was God, he would have never denied been God, and JESUS clearly taught and repeatedly said; the words that I speak are not my own. Well, God would never say anything like that, God would never say; the words that I say are not my own.
Jesus never denied being God. The NT writers claim Jesus was/is God (John 1:1, 18; etc.), Jesus did and said things that only God can do and say (like forgiving sins [Mar 2:7]), Jesus claimed to be God (John 8:58; etc.), and his disciples confessed him as God (John 20:28).
Jesus Christ said he must be honor as the Father is!!! How the Father is honor as what?
Jesus Christ is a distinct person from The Farher what you post means that as one God he has no district will but the will in the Deity is one people saw him there as just a man and a lot of times Jesus Christ speaks to them in the sense they see him as just beeing a man.
@@kevinfromcanada4379 again, JESUS said, the words that I speak are not my own. You said “Jesus said things that only God can do and say”. That’s right, God said them, THROUGH JESUS.
AGAIN. JESUS SAID, THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK ARE NOT MY OWN, I ONLY SPEAK WHAT I HEAR FROM THE FATHER.
IT IS CLEAR AS WATER.
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας
You are twisting scripture. Jesus also said; he who believes in me, BELIEVES NOT ON ME, BUT ON HIM WHO SEND ME. RIGHT THERE JESUS REMOVES HIMSELF FROM THE EQUATION.
I don’t know any Greek, and I bet any of you suppose Greek scholars, that you cannot translate John 14:17 correctly, and I can. Any bets?
Can you show in the greek that Jesus is not the Father... the oneness stuff is driving me crazy right now 😳
Jesus is the literal son of God.
John 20:31
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Yes! The purpose of John's writing is that people might believe (or continue to believe) that Jesus is the Messiah, who is also God (Son of God in John speaks of Jesus' divine nature). John begins his gospel by stating that Jesus is God (1:1; 1:18), and demonstrates it by recording the things he does and says. Jesus proclaims to be God throughout the book-which is explicit in John 8:58. His disciples confess that he is God (forming an inclusio) in John 20:28. Jesus is God!
Now that being said, Jesus is not a δυτερος θεος (second God; polytheism) but finds his identity within the one God of Israel (monotheism). How does he fit within the one God? He is the person of Son, a subsistence within the one God. This is something that Jesus attempts to explain in John 5 & 10 to the religious leaders.
You know God is not the
Author of confusion. Never once, is the term God the Son used in scripture. But over 54 times it says Son of God.
Ephesians says Bleesed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I believe making Christ Jesus who doesn't even know the day or hour of his return, God.
Is idolatry.
@@kevinfromcanada4379 you added to that passage, which is spiritual taboo.
Not once does the book of John say "God the Son". But how many times does it say Son Of God?
Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God, redeeming for mankind what was lost by the first Son of God, Adam.
@@acheloua7919 You are correct that the Bible never uses the phrase "God the Son" but that doesn't make it untrue. Jesus is identified as God (John 1:1; 1:18; 20:28; etc.) but he is not God the Father, rather he is the Son-God the Son.
Now who is Thomas's God according to John 20:28?
@@kevinfromcanada4379 Didymus
Yeah God but not The God (Father), else you get Modalism, given law of identity. A=A
After doing my own research I've come to the conclusion that the Granville Sharp rule is completely bogus. Here's my problem with it:
The rule only works in a very specific case. There are exceptions or exclusions to the rule that betray the fact that the rule isn't really anything of substance. These exceptions include things like material objects (gold and silver). The reasoning? Because everyone would know that gold and silver aren't the same thing. It also doesn't apply to abstract ideas. Why? Because everyone would know that abstract ideas are not the same thing. There are a number of these and they are all justified the same way. Essentially, the rule doesn't need to be followed if people would commonly not identify two things as being the same for some reason.
That begs the question if the rule is valid at all. If for inanimate objects and abstract ideas and whatever else you don't need to follow the rule then what makes anyone think it needs to be followed at all? If I all those cases common sense would invalidate the rule then why not common sense when it comes to personal substantives?
People will often claim this rule works in English. This is great because it's an easy way to demonstrate that these people don't know what they're talking about and how the rule really doesn't hold water. If I say, "I spoke to his mother and his father about the incident." Does that mean I spoke to one individual? What about if I say, "I had a meeting with the President and Chief Justice John Roberts." Does that mean the John Roberts is both President and Chief Justice? If you didn't know about American politics you might make that conclusion but if you do know about American politics you'd know he can't be both and I must be talking about two individuals.
Responding to your brief argument against non-divine Christologies:
1. It doesn't follow that Jesus is bound with sin if he is a man. This would not become less true if he were also God: being 100% man, he would still be bound with sin. He could be a human who is not bound with sin, perhaps by virtue of the miraculous conception. Also, what does it mean to be "bound with sin" and yet never sin?
2. You said "Therefore we can only be saved by Christ and some other thing." This is a straw man. This is not a charitable argument. I would say if God says the atonement purchased by a perfectly obedient human is sufficient, then it is sufficient.
3. Ironically, you are adding to biblical faith. It is not enough to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and that God raised him from the dead (the overwhelming thesis statement of the New Testament). You must also believe that Jesus is God in order to be saved. But this idea is not in the bible.
I say that "this is eternal life, that they may know you [the Father], the Only True God, and Jesus the Messiah, whom you have sent." "Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God through many signs and wonders which God did through him." "But for us we have one God, the Father... and one Lord, Jesus the Messiah." "Believe in God, believe also in me [Jesus]." "And that by believing you may have life in his name."
Keep up the good fight never mind the trolls
If Jesus is God, who raised him from the dead. Also, if he is God how come only the FATHER (God) knows the day and hour of his return?
*Answer to question 1:*
Jesus raised himself from the dead (John 2:19; 10:18).
*Answer to question 2:*
What does Mark 13:32 mean when Jesus says, “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father”?
While unitarians attempt to use this verse as a proof text against the deity of Christ, Mark has told his reader in his prologue that Jesus is Yahweh (God; Mark 1:2-3). If Jesus is God in flesh, why then does he not know the day of his return?
Christians have answered this in two ways, 1) his humanity and 2) his functional subordination to the Father.
1) His humanity
Some Christians understand this verse as a reference to Jesus’s true humanity. In becoming human, he became truly human which involved having a human mind. During his lifetime he did not make use of his divine mind but was wholly dependent on God his Father. We see this in the fact that Jesus “increased in wisdom” (Luke 2:52). The omniscient God cannot learn, but in subjecting himself to true humanity he experienced the learning process just like every other human.
2) his functional subordination to the Father.
Other Christains have understood “know” in this verse to be declarative, meaning that while Jesus knew the day of his return, it was not in his prerogative to make it known. Benson’s commentary points out that ειδεω properly means “I know” but is used in this verse in the sense to make others know. 1Co 2:2 supports this understanding. Paul says, “For I decided to know (ειδεναι) nothing among you except zJesus Christ and him crucified” (ESV). Paul is saying that I decided to ‘make known,’or to preach nothing among the Corinthians except the crucified Jesus. Paul was well acquainted with Greek philosophy and could have used it to support Christianity as Philo sought to do with Judaism, but he was determined to proclaim nothing but Christ Jesus and him crucified. Some Christians understand this verse as pertaining to a first century Jewish wedding custom. Christ as the bridegroom has gone to prepare a place for his bride. While he and the servants know when the Father will send the Son to get his bride, it is the Father’s prerogative to make it known publicly. In this case Jesus is saying that it is not his prerogative to make his coming known so the disciples (his bride) are to be ready, watching expectantly for his return.
No matter which option you choose, the deity of Christ is not at stake. The purpose of the pericope was to emphasize the necessity for Christians to vigilantly wait in expectation of Christ’s return. In fact “the passage points to a high implicit Christology. The threefold reference to the Father, Son, and angels indicates a heavenly hierarchy (and preexistence?), in which the Son is higher than the angels. This goes beyond a merely adoptionistic or messianic sonship to God.”[1]
[1] Mark L. Strauss, Mark : Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), ePub, 13:24-27.
Who is Thomas's God according to John 20:28?
@@kevinfromcanada4379
That's why his name is Didymis. He missed it.
@@acheloua7919 You didn't answer the question.
Didymis (which just means "Twin") is another name for Thomas.
I think John 5:19 explains well that Jesus could do nothing of himself but what he saw the Father do. Father knows best and coached Christ who was tempted in ALL was as we are, yet without Sin.
Can God be tempted by Sin? Yet, Jesus was because he was Son of Man and Son of God. Man's redeemer.
How do you reconcile you belief based on disputed grammar rule even among trinitarians and 1 Timothy 2:5 there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and man, the man, Christ Jesus. Also, other scriptural proof texts of Jesus, being a man alone, like the first sermon given in the book of acts by Peter, Jesus words himself when he says that he is a man sent by God. I don’t want to sit here and debate you, rather, I would just ask you to take an unbiased look at what scripture plainly says, and meditate on whether or not Granville sharps Greek grammar rule that was basically constructed to support a dual nature doctrine about Christ that even Christ himself did not claim. I pray that you seek truth over belonging.
Also, I do not believe that Jesus inherited sin when he was born, because God was his father, he didn’t have a human father. Also, if Jesus was God, then how did he die on the cross? Think about what the apostle John says, or the apostle Paul says when they warn about preaching another Christ.
Jeff Dueble has a book called Christ before creeds. He is Australian. Worth checking out what he has to say. Dale Tuggy has a great channel called trinities podcast and can articulate much better than I on Granville sharp as well as the argument of Jesus being solely a man. Not to diminish him or his work but rather to see from clearly understood texts that Jesus was only ever presented as a man. The doctrine of the hypostatic Union is gnostic and its origin and any serious inspection of early Christianity and competing belief systems of the time only proves this to be true.
Yahushua is no doubt diety and although he is the exact representation of his Father YAHUAH, he is not YAHUAH, he is His son.
Peace to you my friend. At 2:12 you stated ‘If we don't recognize that Jesus is God, then Jesus is a human being, if Jesus is a human being then he is bound by sin like the rest of us’. Now I will invite you to explain what you mean by that but with most application of what you said, this is biblically false.
The first application could be that Jesus sinned, that is he trangressed the Torah(Law). Jesus never did this. As I explain with the witness of a Jew in my video ‘Keys Facts True Christians MUST Know🔥 Do you know them🤔’, Jesus was accused of transgressing the tradition of elders by Pharisees as they keep a different law along side the Torah. He never trangressed the Torah.
The second application is based upon the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’. This doctrine is based upon truth but is often misapplied. The true biblical doctrine of original sin, is that as Adam and Eve are the fruit we are left vulnerable to sin and only by the holy spirit could we overcome sin. Now does this apply to Christ? No. For it is written, “And answering, the angel said to her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, and for this reason the begotten Holy One will be called Son of God.” (Luk 1:35). Christ was not born of fallen flesh like we was, he was begotten (procreated) by the power of the Most High, Christ was Holy from his birth so was not ‘bound by sin’.
Prayerfully you receive what I've said brother or any who read and if there was another meaning of ‘bound by sin’ you had meant I would love to hear it. May Almighty יהוה bless you.
Jesus is Lord and God (see John 1:1; John 10:30; John 8:58; ect)
I read John 1:1 is some Bibles. It says that 'and the Word WAS God'.
Since WAS is the past tense of IS, wouldn't it mean that Jesus is NO LONGER GOD?
Is Jesus his Father ?
So, by proving that others think Jesus is God, and you treat that is holy scripture, you prove Jesus, is a liar, because he said the father is the only true God and John 17 Verde 1 to 3. What other solution have you given us so in pursuing the proofs of Jesus, his deity, instead of proving Jesus, truly, God, you’ve proved he’s a liar. So what you would have to conclude instead is the alleged scripture that proves Jesus is God is false prophecy so that Jesus is true, and every man is a liar.
'deity' is a missleading word! it is a translation of Theotes' 'divine nature' The son's divine nature does not make him God or even equal to God since at 2 Peter 1:4 Peter promises that the saints will ALSO share in 'divine nature'! They wont be God will they? Worthy to mention also is the other missleading word 'godhead'. It does NOT appear in scritpure. At Col 2:9 the word 'theotes' is again wrong translated as godhead INSTEAD of 'divine nature' J.Wycliffe first used 'godhead' in the 13th century.
Where can I get these books can I get them off of your internet please text me the list and site that I can attain them I am in an trinitarian Church. I believe in this and I need something to back me up when I speak to these people.. even a complete Jew believes that Jesus is God.
I'll just take the word of our Lord Jesus. He said he was the son of God, not Yahweh. God never claims to be a man.
Except in John 10:30?
💯