If you disagree with trinitarian doctrine and comment on this video, please consider making your argument against the non-contested passages I work through in the video. If the non-contested examples stand, then the rule also stands in the two contested texts. The rule was not invented, it was discovered to hold true given the three parameters I mention in the video. I look forward to your comments!
I will certainly offer you a valid argument tomorrow after work. The Granville sharps rule is a theory proven inaccurate. Keep an eye out for my next comment. Have a good night.
@@letthebiblespeak8250 here are a few verses from the gospels that fit Sharp’s rule, please go through them and show that Sharp’s rule invalid. Mat 7:26 Mat 12:22 Mat 12:26 Mat 13:20 Mat 13:23 Mat 27:40 Mar 6:3 Mar 15:29 Mar 16:16 Luk 6:47 Luk 6:49 Luk 12:21 Luk 16:18 Luk 20:37 Joh 5:24 Joh 6:33 Joh 6:40 Joh 6:45 Joh 6:54 Joh 6:56 Joh 8:50 Joh 9:8 Joh 11:2 Joh 11:26 Joh 12:48 Joh 20:17 Thanks
@@kevinfromcanada4379 I only need one verse. If Jesus is God, the Granville sharps rule will be used every time God and jesus are side by side with kia in the middle. . 2 timothy 4:1 uses the article for The God and The Lord Jesus Christ. According to the rule these are not the same person. That makes the rule invalid because according to the rule, other places say Jesus and God are the same person. The bible doesn't contradict itself. This rule is a theory and the theory is false.
@@letthebiblespeak8250 sorry, Χριστος Ιησούς functions many times in the NT as a proper name (BDAG, 4th ed, 971). Therefore it doesn't fit Sharp’s rule. However, I'd be very happy to have this verse talking about one person. Care to look at the verses that demonstrate that Sharp’s rule is valid?
Amazing is that Jesus holds the glory of God. The glory of God appears when Jesus returns, but Jesus remains Jesus and Gods son and God, the God and father of Jesus remains only true God as claimed by Jesus in John 17,3. this „amazing“ Granville Sharp rule is only twisting truth and confusing in this case Titus 2:13 Jesus with God…..
I interpret the scriptures through comparing spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor. 2:13). I do not base in human wisdom like Grandville Sharp's rule who rejected the 2 Tes. 1:12. There are two possessive noun that appearing in Titus 2:13. The Glory of the great God (1st appearing), and saviour Jesus Christ (2nd apearing). 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 was invented only amidst 17th century. It is not the rules of the Apostles to interpret the scriptures. Paul said: EVER LEARNING AND NEVER ABLE TO COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH. 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.
No Jesus prayed to Jehovah we no that Jesus is divine it’s that simple the trinity is just a lie how do you explain rev 3 v 14 he’s the beginning of the creation of God and he’s the image invisible God first born of all creation then we have begotten son so that says you are a lier simple
Thank God for your ministry!!!! This is the most desperately needed thing in the evangelical church today.. a Greek scholar who can meticulously and objectively exegete CRITICAL VERSES that most people MISINTERPRET!!! I have been frustrated for years because the only biblical Greek scholar that I knew of that was accessible with James White, but he is not accessible as you are. With you, person can ask you to exegete a particular passage that's important and you will do it! James White, rarely has open phone calls and it's hard to get through. I have the deepest gratitude that you have paid attention and you have specifically taking care of: Ephesians 2:8-9 and John 3:16 !!!! I will soon give you some more that are extraordinary important and actually are not paid attention to. I will give you those later and once again I want to thank you for your ministry and it is providing the church and extraordinary service
At 13:00 you say that 2 Tim 4:1 isn't an example of the Granville Sharp rule, but according to Granville Sharp himself it is. That was one of the eight verses he used to prove the divinity of Christ. Also, God is likely to be considered as a proper noun in both 2 Peter 2:1 and Titus 2:14. Even though it can be pluralized, the main name for God in the NT is Theos, and not merely a title or a common noun. So the verses you lift up as proof for the GvSR don't follow the rule since they have proper nouns in them. The reason to why you see this as something obvious when speaking about "Christ" as a personal name, but not God, is because you are biased and want Paul and Peter to say that Jesus is God even though they never did. There are also a lot of exceptions to the GvSR in koine greek. For example, in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, 22.3, we read: "ho he doxa sun to patri kai hagio pneumati" (to whom be glory with the Father and Holy Spirit). According to GvSR the Father and the Holy Spirit would be the same person, and that would be a big problem for the trinity.
Please, need some help to understand Titus 1:4. Am argueing with a friend who is a modalist. You are saying that it is not a Granville sharp construction. Does that now mean it definitly have to be two personens or does it mean that it might be two persons but it cant be stated for sure?
The Granville Sharp rule applies when you have article, substantive, και, substantive. I assume you're referring to ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ which is not a Granville Sharp construction because there is no article prior to θεοῦ. So in this case there are two persons who are being referenced. Also just because something doesn't meet the requirements for the GVR doesn't mean the two substantives don't refer to the same person. The GVR argues that when the requirements are met the two substantives *always* refer to the same person. A clear example is Romans 15:6, δοξάζητε τὸν θεὸν καὶ πατέρα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ - glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, where θεόν and πατέρα refer to the same person and are in the TSKS construction. I don't know if this helps with Titus 1:4 (it's not a GSR) but hopefully it helps.
Thank you for this video! This is very helpful to me for when I share the Gospel with different groups of people. I am glad that you went through this material in a very kind manner. Thank you for showing Christ in the way you made the video
Concerning the “Granville Sharp Rule”, after all my reading and listening my basic understanding of it boils down to the following points:- 1/. When the copulative [and] joins two nouns of the same case, regarding personal description, attributes, office etc.……and the first noun has the article before it and the second noun doesn't, then both nouns refer to the same person. 2/. The article before the second noun is added when they refer to different persons [ie] Article, noun, copulative, article, noun. 3/. If any prevailing circumstances show that different persons are being spoken of, then the Insertion or removal of the second article is of no concern to the context. An example of point three are as follows:- 1/. If it's true that the “Granville Sharp Rule” doesn't apply to Hebrew, only to Greek, then we can legitimately refer to the LXX, a Greek translation of the Old Testament. Here Proverbs 24:21 presents us with the Granville Sharp construction [ie] Article, noun, copulative, noun. Yet, within the “context” of the verse, “[the] God and King” refer to different persons. Therefore, the insertion or removal of the article before the second noun makes no difference to the context. John 20:28 is a slightly different example. This is where many trinitarians give no regard to the addition of the second article, simply because they believe “context” is an overriding factor. Here, “[the] Lord of me and [the] God of me” [ie] Article, noun, copulative, article, noun, they insist refer to the “same” person [ie] to Jesus. Again, in this example, the insertion or removal of the article before the second noun makes no difference to their understanding of its context. Considering that contextual evidence is a determining factor, and Unitarians believe that the apostles never believed or taught the concept of the Trinity, then the insertion or removal of the second article in 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 makes no difference in their understanding of its context. 2 Peter 1:2 clears up the ambiguity of verse 1:- 2 Peter 1:2:- Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God [and] of Jesus our Lord” In the above, Unitarians believe that the author himself clears up any ambiguity concerning verse 1. Verse 2 talks clearly of God [and] Jesus as separate persons. Titus 1:4 clears up the ambiguity of verse 2:13:- Titus 1:4:- To Titus, my true son in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father [and] Christ Jesus our Savior. Again, In the above, Unitarians believe that the author himself clears any ambiguity concerning Titus 2:13 - Titus 1:4 talks clearly of God [and] Jesus as separate persons. Peace
And in spite of the false logic, invented rules and ignorance of biblical grammar and precepts, you have still found what Christ called life eternal. Instead of simply accepting what you have been told you’ve scrutinised it against the scripture, much like the noble Bereans. How great is יהוה our father that his spirit of truth still can guide us despite the prevailing false doctrine. May he continue to find favour with you, guide your steps and lead you to all truth.
@@thatwhichhasbeen-isthatwhi6575 Quote: "The article in Jn 20:28 is explained by the mou (mou, moo, “of me”) which normally requires the article before it; by its use with the vocative [case]...and by its presence in the established formula ‘the lord and the god’...It should be further noted that ‘the god of me’, whether it is taken as vocative [direct address] or nominative, [identification] is predicative in sense and so cannot be used as evidence either way to show whether the god in New Testament usage ever appears as subject of a statement referring to Christ.”-Karl Rahner, S.J., Theological Investigations, Vol. i, p. 136.
Sir, where have you been my last 42 years of knowing the Lord?? You explain it better than anyone I have studied!! Bless you in the unending war vs. those entities that know Jesus is God, but teach, in fear, that He isn't. Also, your demeanor is excellent. I am looking forward to all your teaching!
Except, the article τοῦ that modifies μεγάλου Θεοῦ [great God] in vs 13 has an anaphoric origin in the most clear sense in the very first chapter of Titus. [1:1,4] . Which makes it more probable that God the Father is the correct antecedent to the”Great God” title in Titus 2:13…
One of the issues with sharps rule is it was clearly invented not discovered. In fact from what we know about Sharp he was literally looking for proofs for ‘the deity of Christ’, not studying foundational Greek grammar and discovering the rule without bias. It like for example when we look at the average iQ of so called black and white peoples we find the average iQ of white peoples to be higher. One could then say white peoples are smarter. However is this something intrinsic to being white or something manufactured. Well it’s easy to deduce, the genes that makes someone ‘white’ (less than 1% of our genome) are not the same genes associated with intelligence. Therefore since the nature of being white doesn’t make you smarter the difference in average iQ must be attributed to nurture, i.e it’s manufactured and not intrinsic to being white. If one thought iQ was inherent to being white and held a bias to it, some of the following could happen. They could be presented with the entirety of the iQ data , shown that both the iQ of so called black and white populations exist on a bell curve and that there are black people who rank highly in iQ and conversely white peoples who rank low and vice versa. That bias individual could then say, ‘those intelligent black peoples don’t count because the majority of them are upper middle class so their intellect is due to their socioeconomic status and the white peoples below the average are largely lower middle class and so their lower iQ is likewise due to socioeconomic status.’ What the example bias person has not realised is their own words have proven their so called rule is not intrinsic to the underlying factors which dictate said rule. In this case that what makes one white is a particular set of genes, those same genes do not code for intellect. Moreover one can’t simply label the exceptions as exceptions simply because they don’t follow said rule, they must prove how the underlying factors respect these examples as exceptions. In the case given above the existence of intelligent black peoples obviously contradicts the idea that being white makes you smarter, especially as there are members of the black population who rank higher than some members of the white population. The bias individual chocking that up to socioeconomic status shows that socioeconomic factors and largely nurture not nature are what accounts for the observable differences in average iQ. Therefore the exceptions disprove the rule, and cannot simply be dismissed. Now in regards to sharps rule. Not only do we see example of non-names being used in the TSKS form in for example Proverbs 24:21 in the Greek LXX (Septuagint) but also the exceptions cannot simply be dismissed. Supporters of the Sharp rule must prove using foundational Greek grammar why names are allowed to be dismissed as exceptions, one can’t simply go ‘they refer to different persons’, this is the same as the above example saying ‘those intelligent black peoples don’t count because the majority of them are upper middle class so their intellect is due to their socioeconomic status...’. You must prove how the underlying factors respect these examples as exceptions, otherwise if we was being unbiased and intellectually honest, one could simply be disregarding examples that disprove the rule as exceptions to the rule. I invited anyone who supports Sharps rule to show how the underlying factors, in this case Greek, respect the supposed exceptions to Sharp’s Rule.
@@bma great I hope to watch it. I noticed that about 6:10 onwards you stated 3 exceptions to Sharp's Rule. May I ask based upon what are these regarded as exceptions, i.e they do not disprove Sharp's Rule are apart of Greek grammar? I hope the new video clarifies why. May God bless you and guide your steps
Pick up your Bible buddy right now. Hold it in your hand and look at its pages. Magnificent that you can actually have your own personal copy of holy scripture. Now answer this question - is the Word of God you are holding in your hand the actual author. Answer - No. But do those words reveal the heart of the author - yes indeed. That is the actually meaning of the greek Word "logos." It is a beautiful word that means more than the mere words on the page. More than the semantic structure, and grammar employed but what those words mean and intend to communicate. You could say they are God's communication of himself. That is exactly what John 1 is talking about. God is the author of his Word (his communication - He is the logos). The words that the prophets spoke and wrote are the "logos." They are God's communication of himself. And Jesus Christ is a living breathing embodiment of the logos. He was God's plan to communicate his heart to man. The truth is simple. That said, does the revealed word in written form reveal everything about God. NO. It reveals what we need to know to live righteously but it doesn't reveal everything. So is God greater than his revealed Word - the answer is YES. I like to say, God can't do less than his written Word when we believe but he can do more.
Does the rule apply - in classical Attic? (Some other dialects don't use ο as an article.) - in all Koine Greek? - in Modern Greek? - in Greek written by non-native speakers? (The Greek text of Revelation was obviously written by a Semitic speaker who didn't fully understand Greek grammar.)
Look up the article by Dan Wallace entitled, "Sharp Redivivus? - A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule". It does a good job of answering these questions.
The anti-Trinitarian view has been debunked countless times over the last 2,000 years. Just cause someone struggle or don't understand the Trinity doesn't mean that it's false, rather, the ownis is on the human.
@@scottgrey2877 God is not a man that he should lie, neither the son of man that he should repent. Yet Jesus is called the son of man and as our mediator he is called the man Christ Jesus in Timothy. The bible is clear Scott. Not once is Jesus Christ referred to as God the son in the scripture. He is called the son of God 68 times. All greek scholars understand the genitive of orgin is used describing Jesus as the son of (ek) God (Genitive of Origin). Jesus originated, found his orgins in God. Just like Adam ( he is called the last Adam for a reason). God has no origins - he just is, no beginning and end.
Was having a conversation of Jesus' deity with a JW and brought up this verse, 2 Peter 1:1. They said that because of the conjunction of 'and' in the verse, Savior and God are not the same. I had forgotten the name of this rule, but I'm really glad I found this video.
@@bma Hi Darryl. The simplest argument that shows Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet. 1:1 is not calling Jesus God is that Θεος is overwhelming used as a proper name for the Father in the NT. If you consider Χριστός and Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός as proper names for Jesus based on frequency of use then why don’t you consider Θεος a proper name for the Father by frequency of use as well?
You should be able to teach the Tinity from the Bible, so please show us form the Bible where it clearly states that the holy spirit is God and is equal to God.... after all the foundation of the trinity is "God the Son, God the Father and God the holy spirit" and that they are all co-equal, co-eternal and co-omniscient, So please show us form the Bible where it clearly states that the holy spirit is God and is equal to God ?
@@Kyroblox Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me. Psalm 51:11 Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! Psalm 139:7-8 Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the LORD. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the LORD. Jeremiah 23:24 The Holy Spirit is God's presence. He has to be God for God to be present and manifest His presence. If the Holy Spirit (and the Son also) aren't God then how is God then present in a given location? The Spirit of the LORD speaks by me; His word is on my tongue. The God of Israel has spoken; the Rock of Israel has said to me: ... - Samuel 23:2-3 Who is speaking to David? The Spirit of the LORD or the God of Israel? It is that the Spirit of LORD is the God of Israel, the Rock of Israel since they are the same being.
@@scottgrey2877 Did God presence Himself in the Temple? Who did Jacob say He wrestled with and are you saying He was wrong? 2 Chronicles 6:18 say's even the heavens cannot contain God, is your God not omnipresent and therefore everywhere? You need a theology that can answer all these questions.
@@scottgrey2877 My theology accounts for God not being a man, but it also accounts for Him becoming one. Read Gen chapters 18 through to 19, who was Abraham speaking to? Look at Gen 19:24 especially, how many persons are using the divine name? Instead of dodging Jacob wrestling with God give me an explanation. How do you explain Col 2:9 For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form?
You are assuming we all have some basic knowledge of the Greek. Would help if you could parallel the English along with the Greek or it's over our heads.
His channel is about learning Greek and is directed to those who either study or plan to study Greek. He does tell you the meanings of the words he mentions.
All TRINITARY SECT cannot prove that the Father is God, they cannot prove His divinity. They cannot present any indisputable facts that show Him as Almighty and Supreme.
I actually think this is excellent explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity. That said, I would prefer the word unity over union when describing the relationship of the divine persons to the being of God. Union sounds too much like an event that happened in time.
Genuine question as a non-Christian who respects the rigour of Christian theology: I understand and can intellectually accept the idea that the Christian God is fully represented in the persons of the Father and of the Son. However, one thing that's always confused me is, why is it considered necessary for the Holy Spirit to be distinct from them? I've always thought it would be cleaner if, the Holy Spirit is not a distinct being, but rather the mind-power of God taken as a whole. In other words, I've always thought it seems to make more sense for the Christian God to be regarded as a "Binity"- that is, consisting of the co-eternal Father and Son, whose unity of power and purpose is the Holy Spirit. It in itself is not a person. What Biblical basis is there, or what Bible-based inductive reasoning exists that, the Holy Spirit is a distinct person from the Father and the Son, rather than that aspect of both the Father and Son that acts upon our own world?
Great question Morgan. Hopefully you don't mind me providing an answer. In John's Gospel we see the triune God in mission. Jesus told the disciples that when he went away the Father would send the Holy Spirit in Jesus' name (John 14:26). Then, in John 15:26, Jesus told his disciples that he would send the Holy Spirit to them. “It is precisely the two sendings (of the Son by the Father, and of the Spirit by the Father and the Son) that reveal the fact that within the unity of the one God there are indeed three distinct persons. In other words, the fact that Jesus Christ is the sent one reveals something about the identity of ‘the only true God’ (17:3). The logic of this principle is as follows: ‘Sending is not a reflexive act’; a person cannot send himself or herself. Therefore, because the Father sends the Son, we must distinguish the Father from the Son personally. Moreover, because the Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, he too must be personally distinct from the Father and the Son.” Scott R. Swain and Andreas J. Köstenberger, Father, Son and Spirit: The Trinity and John’s Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016), 172. This is just one of the places we find the distinction between the persons of the Godhead. The Holy Spirit bares the same name as the Father and the Son in Matt 28:19. Regardless if you take "name" (όνομα) as a proper name (i.e., the divine name: Yahweh) or as meaning "authority," the Holy Spirit shares it equally with the Father and the Son. It makes no sense to mention the Holy Spirit in this verse along side the Father and Son unless he is a distinct person. These are just two passages. Hope this helps.
Thanks for your helpful response. To add to that, we see the Holy Spirit ascribed qualities that only work if He is regarded as a person in his own right.
@@morganhess6876 One of the best way to understand it is by understanding the attributes of God, attributes that only he has and does not share, omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, eternality, and each person of the Godhead has them(Father, Son, Holy Spirit) And also there are plenty of verses that shows the personhood of the Holy Spirit Here I will put 3 verses that shows the persons of our Triune God (the Angel of the Lord in the Old testament was Jesus preincarnate btw) Isaiah 63:8-10 English Standard Version 8 For he said, “Surely they are my people, *children who will not deal falsely.”* *_(person of the Father)_* And he became their Savior. 9 (A)In all their affliction he was afflicted,[a] *and the angel of his presence* saved them; *_(person of the Son)_* (B)in his love and in his pity *he redeemed them*; (C)he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old. 10 (D)But they rebelled (E) *and grieved his Holy Spirit*; **_*(only a Person csn be grieved)_* therefore he turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them
Now we are blessed to have the New Testament in its original language of Hebrew, how does your trinitarian linguistic argument work out in Hebrew language?
Logos has a dataset on GS, go to Bible Browser - Grammatical Construction - Greek - Granville Sharp. To seek especially for Jesus as God, narrow further to Supernatural Being - Name:Jesus - Name:God
Thank you so much for such an informative video. I am currently witnessing to a Jehovah's Witness and I am praying that she will see and receive this truth.
I think Stephen seeing Jesus standing on the right hand of the Father as 2 separate personages shows Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are not one and the same substance as the Nicean Creed falsely claimed to counter Arianism. I believe Arianism got it wrong that Jesus was not God. But right that he was a separate personage from the Father. That even prior to Arianism the early church saw God the Father and God the Son as separate personages. The Nicean Creed overextended itself to declare the Father and Son were one and the same substance to prevent anyone from ever claiming God the Father outranked Jesus. And to be seen as monotheistic. When in reality the Hebrew word for Eloheim is plural. And the Book of Psalms refers to the Gods in several places. Which explains Psalms 110:1 which says: "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." (Once again Jesus is at the righthand of the Father. Showing they are separate personages with individual body parts. In fact Moses saw Jehovah's back body parts when he turned around. And also saw him face to face. As a friend speaks to a friend.) The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost form 1 Godhood. They are on 1 team of equally perfect beings. As evidenced when Christ was baptized, God the Father's voice being heard from heaven, and the Holy Ghost descending in the form of a dove.
High Trinitarianism (the idea that the English word "God" understood in its definite sense is a being rather than just the Father in the NT) is surely linked to a series of linguistic fallacies concerning the Greek NT and the Hebrew OT: (1) failure to distinguish the anarthrous predicate usage of God in the Greek, such as in Jn 1:1c (denoting the state of divinity), from the definite usage of God (Gk: "theos") with the Greek article, as used by Jesus of his Father throughout the NT, and by John of the Father in Jn 1:1b, (2) failure to distinguish YHWH (who is the Father of Jesus e.g. Ps. 110:1) in the Hebrew from the Elohim usage (which includes YHWH's agents - see John 10:34-36), (3) failure to distinguish what is said to be "of God" (i.e. the Word, the Holy Spirit) from God the Father. The GS rule, which had an inbuilt exception for proper names, is not proven to apply to any passages comprising divine names and titles such as God and Father, or Jesus and Christ. It is only made to apply by artificially pretending that is not a title of the Father. Yet is unambiguously a synonym/title of the Father in the mouth of Christ (see John 20:17) and in nearly all other NT passages. The GS rule must pretend that is a mere noun to make itself relevant, which is inconsistent with the NT usage of .
Quick response to your three points. 1) Scholars do not "fail to distinguish" between anarthrous preverbal predicate nominative usages of _theos_ and articular usages of the same noun. Read any major commentary on John 1:1-virtually all will recognise that in this verse, the articular _theos_ refers to the Father, while the anarthrous _theos_ refers to Christ (in this case it is a qualitative PPN, meaning Christ shares all the essential attributes of the articular _theos_ [the Father], hence the NEB translation, "what God was, the Word was" cf. also the NET, "and the Word was fully God"). And the articular form of _theos_ does not always refer to the Father-Thomas referred to Jesus as _ho theos_ in John 20:28. The Father referred to Jesus as _ho theos_ in Heb. 1:8. Paul and Peter referred to Jesus as _tou theou_ in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, respectively (and no, you cannot argue that _theos_ is not being applied to Jesus here on the basis of systematic theology alone, you must also make a convincing grammatical argument). And Luke referred to Jesus as _tou theou_ in Acts 20:28. 2) If I'm understanding correctly, this is a massive claim, and one that is easily refuted. You are stating that the divine name Yahweh in the OT always refers to the Father, not Jesus? Yet NT authors repeatedly identify Jesus in parallel terms to Yahweh. To give just one example, Paul in 1 Cor. 1:2 writes, "σὺν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ," literally, "with all those who call upon the name of the Lord our Jesus Christ," or idiomatically, "with all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." Paul here takes a phrase from the OT ("call upon the name of the Lord") that in _each and every case_ is used of Yahweh-see Gen. 4:26; 12:8; 13:4; 1 Kings 18:24; Ps. 116:4; Joel 2:32 etc-and applies it to Jesus, implicitly identifying Him as Yahweh. The verbal parallels confirm this. In the LXX, the phrase in question is made up of a combination of _epikaleō_ ("to call upon") + _onoma_ ("name") + _kurios_ ("Lord," which translates the Heb. Yahweh). As you can see above, Paul uses the exact terms in 1 Cor. 1:2, making it unquestionably clear where he is drawing from. 3) Trinitarians do not fail to distinguish between the Word/Spirit of God and the Father-modalists do this by identifying them all as different modes of the same person.
One question to consider is; does God have a God? Jesus says that he has a God. “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. '" John 20:17 The Apostles believed and taught this also. “Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms.” Ephesians 1:2-3 Jesus said he was our brother. His Father and our Father is the one true God. Jesus praying to his Father said these words; “And this is this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” John 17:3 “Although God overlooked the ignorance of earlier times, He now commands all people everywhere to repent. For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising Him from the dead.” Acts 17:30-31 “Men of Israel, listen to this message: Jesus of Nazareth was a man certified by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did among you through Him, as you yourselves know. He was delivered up by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross. But God raised Him from the dead, releasing Him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for Him to be held in its clutches.” Acts 2:22-24
Jesus has a Father - hence He is the Son. But there is just one being with three persons, not three beings and thus three persons. This allows us to differentiate between Father and Son and also say they share the same essence (being).
Thank you for defending Greek grammar. All language has grammar that's normatively logically consistent. Greek is no different. People will try anything to justify their unbelief - even going so far as to attempt to eviscerate reliably logical things - like language. But, this need not be the case. They can continue in their unbelief without doing that. They still have to either deal with the Bible or ignore it, but by simply explaining basic Greek grammar, that choice becomes plain. Thank you.
Is John 1:1 Granville Sharp rule? What I see is "Kai The Subject (Word) kai The Subject." Followed by "was with The God." Verb preposition The God (Subject). καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
John 17:21 explains how Jesus and God are one by saying: "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." KJV Us being one with Jesus is how he is one with his Father. One in purpose and mind. Not of one substance, as the confusing Nicean Creed falsely claims.
Why you can ignore “Sharp’s Rule” July 31, 2022 Listen to this post: In my recent dialogue with Dr. William Lane Craig, I was surprised when he appealed to “Sharp’s Rule” in order to deduce “the deity of Christ” from a few verses. In this new discussion, I say what I should have said then about this bogus, theologically-motivated modern invention. The ordinary believer does not need to know the ins and outs of koine Greek grammar in order to evaluate “Granville Sharp’s Rule” - really, nowadays “Daniel Wallace’s Rule,” according to which 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 assert that Jesus and God are the same person. One need only look beyond the verses in question to see each author in a wider context assuming the distinctness of Jesus and God. Charity requires that we not view each author as contradicting himself within the space of a few verses, and so, he simply can’t be collapsing together Jesus and God by only using one “the” for both of them in one sentence. In fact, the two verses above are the two New Testament counterexamples which show the alleged universal rule to be false. In this new discussion with Josiah of Integrity Syndicate, we discuss the above, and also the odd history of this would-be grammatical discovery. THIS is a short dissertation on Granville Sharp. Granville sharp was made up by triniarians for trinitarians. Do your own research
Alexander, the great was truly remarkable. But what they didn't teach you in school is that along with his conquests he is famous for something else. When Alexander conquered to people, he gave them captive a choice, either join my army or die. Most picked the former as new recruits one of the things they had to learn his language. They had to know the grammar. The reason for this is great communication between troops and commanders. As he went around conquering the known world at that time, he did two things named many cities, Alexandria, and more important he spread his language that this genius created throughout the known world. It was called KOINE Greek or common Greek. The beauty of this language was that it only had one interpretation. The grammar was so precise that it became the greatest language for communication of thought in his day. By no accident, this language became the language of the New Testament, therefore, based on the grammar, there's only one interpretation. Learn the grammar and you are way ahead of everybody else.
*[No Trinity]* *IS THE TRINITY REASONABLE?* 🤔 ▪︎ God asked *[the essence of]* Himself and offered *[the essence of]* Himself as sacrifice to *[the essence of]* Himself to go to earth to save mankind Himself. ▪︎ Then He agreed with *[the essence of]* Himself and offered *[the essence of]* Himself as volunteer to do it Himself. ▪︎ Then He impregnated *his mother* with His Holy Spirit (which is also *[the essence of]* Himself) to give birth to Himself. ▪︎ While on earth, God prayed to *[the essence of]* Himself (John 17:1) and glorified *[the essence of]* Himself repeatedly. ▪︎ He prayed to *[the essence of]* Himself and offered supplications (Heb. 5:7-8) to *[the essence of]* Himself because he needed to strengthen *[the essence of]* Himself. ▪︎ Finally, God forsook *[the essence of]* Himself (Matt. 27:46) and sacrificed *[the essence of]* Himself to prove His loyalty to *[the essence of]* Himself (Heb. 3:2,6). ▪︎ While dead, He resurrected *[the essence of]* Himself (Acts 2:24), so that He could exalt *[the essence of]* Himself above *[the essence of]* Himself (Acts 2:33). ▪︎ Then He sat at *[the essence of]* His own right hand (Heb. 1:3, Psalm 110:1) and waited for *[the essence of]* Himself to place His enemies as a footstool under *[the essence of]* His own feet (1Cor. 15:25) 👎🏽 ~~~~~~~~ *[No Trinity: God Reveals Himself]* Almighty God *[Yahweh / Jehovah]* is *"not"* Mysterious or Incomprehensible: • *John 1:18* - *No man has seen God at any time;* the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has *explained [revealed]* him. ■ Genesis 40:8 - Interpretations belong to God ■ Daniel 2:28a & 29 - The God of the heavens is a revealer of secrets ■ Daniel 2:47- The *God of gods* is a *revealer of secrets* ■1 Corinths. 14:33 - Almighty God is not a God of *confusion but of peace.* *[Please Show Me These Terms in Scripture]:* • *"Co-Equal Essence of the Godhead"* • *God the Son* • *God the Spirit* • *"Trinity"*
Hi, can you please make more videos about Christ's as God. Because the Unitarian which I had a conversation here on RUclips and claimed to be a fluent Greek and Hebrew speaker and University teacher of those languages, claimed that in John 1:1 Jesus was created in the mind of God - being part of God's plan before the foundation of the world that why He was "foreknown." Also, he said that in Colossians 1:16 Jesus as "firstborn" was a created being and part of God's masterplan of salvation. And if Jesus were God He would not need to inherit or to be appointed with anything because with God everything is already inherited. That all thing were created "through" Christ who serves as an intermediary function and not God. There are some more that things that he said to deny Christ's deity but this what I can tell for now. Thanks.
I’m so happy I watched this some one was trying to say the Granville sharps rule was proving the opposite that they were not connected and that Jesus cannot be God in the construction of the framer thank you gb ❤
Very clearly presented. For those who genuinely ask for fish and bread and Truth, they will find this very helpful. For those who prefer serpents and stones and falsehood, they would just turn again and rend God if He were to offer them the true Gospel. God is only obvious in that God The Son is God and makes God obvious. If someone insists that Lord Jesus is not God, then there is no other obviousness by which they may know God, and likely they know a spirit-entity which is not God but rather poses in His place to the appeasement of itching ears. Lord Jesus explains it best, in John chapter-three.
Genesis 22: 1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. 2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. 3 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him. 4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off. 5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you, 6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together. 7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? 8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. 9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. 10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. II Genesis 22: 11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. 12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. III Genesis 22: 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. 14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen. 15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. 19 So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beer-sheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beer-sheba. IV Luke 2: 22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; 23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) 24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. 25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. 26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, 28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, 29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: 30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, 31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; 32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. 33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. 34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; 35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. 36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; 37 And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. 38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. - Bible Offline V John 10: 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. - Bible Offline VI Mark 16: 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. - Bible Offline If you take Genesis 22 into consideration, and in comparison to Mark 16:15, who was that in Genesis 22? Was it God according to the 11th verse? An angel of God according to the 12th verse? And if it were an angel of God, who was that exactly if Luke 2:34 as well as Mark 16:15 were to be taken into consideration and in liaison with the 13th of Genesis 22 to the end? There are a lot of intricacies involved in the relationship between God and his foes of heaven, and it behooves us to read the Bible between the lines to fully grasp the rationale behind some of the things that have been said about these two extremes. It wasn't surprising at all that a serpent was the one and only animal of all the animals of the earth handpicked by God to await the entry of the Satan in the Garden of Eden. By definition, you know that is really sneaky, it will show you it is headed in one direction, when in reality, it's going on the opposite. And if you don't pay close attention, the next thing you know, you're being being wrapped up and it's about to bite you and inflict its venoms in you. When God has cursed the serpent and has told the serpent that it will bite the descendant of Eve and that descendant will mess up its tail, was God talking literally here? Luke 2: 34 gives you how many versions of the very same Jesus? Two. One by whom the world will be redeemed, and another one that will be the source of troubles. Right or wrong? Historically speaking is that true or false? As we speak, in many parts of the world, that remains a source of confusion and troubles. Don't you know right now there are many who are being jailed, beaten, just for preaching the Gospel of Jesus? Not because they don't know the laws of their respective countries forbid that, but they feel obligated to do so regardless of the consequences as Jesus recommend them to do. In light of all that, what do you make of Luke 2:34? And you can come up with a whole lot more examples and biblical references to show you how enigmatic or even problematic some of those sayings of Jesus are, and how they fly in the face of what God has previously said. I do hope we break from the practice of taking everything at the face value simply because it is said to have been from God without thinking them through. The essence of the Garden of Eden isn't at all the notion of eating a fruit, since they are made for us to eat, but it's about Satan and his followers who are looking at every possible way to veer us away from the will of God. That's what the Garden of Eden entails, and if you broaden that, you can fit that in the context of the whole world from generation to generation until you get to the very end. You can't sense that Jesus was all over the place, and wanting to con us into believing that he is God just to make us worship him? If that wasn't the case, then it would have been senseless for God to have arranged an exchange between Jesus and Satan in Matthew 4. When did the revelation of in John 1 was made? Was it before, or after the resurrection of Jesus? Why, in the context of the Bible, didn't Jesus make these revelations in John 1 prior to his death while he was in his ministry alongside of his disciples?
I am not a Greek scholar, but wouldn't the concept of the Hebrew word Elohim trump the Greek word Theos? So when reading Theos we should be looking at it through the Hebrew understanding of the word Elohim. From what I can tell the word Elohim just means "mighty one(s)", since it is used in many different places in different ways (Yahweh, Gen. 2:4-5; Deut. 4:35; The members of Yahweh’s council, Psa. 82:1, 6; Dieties of other nations, Judg. 11:24; 1 Kgs. 11:33; Demons, Deut. 32:17; the deceased Samuel, 1 Sam. 28:13; Angels or the Angel of Yahweh, Gen. 35:7). I say all that to say. Jesus can be called the great God who died for us, but that still does not mean that Jesus is the Father. Wouldn't one think that Jesus would be a liar if he was the Father, but made a statement 'And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one [is] good, except one-God;'? (Luke 18:19)
Trinitarians don't think that Jesus is the Father. For Christians there is one God who subsists in 3 distinct persons-Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Second, Jesus did not deny being God in Luke 18:19. He telling the guy to think about his words. If God is the only person who is truely good and the the man is calling Jesus good, then who is Jesus? Notice that when the man asked what he must do to inherent eternal life Jesus mentioned the laws that are directed toward fellow man but doesn't mention the laws directed to God. When the man says he had kept all the laws directed toward fellow man. Then Jesus tells him to keep the laws directed toward God by doing what? Following Jesus. So who is Jesus claiming to be?
Whew! I'm sure glad there are much easier passages to use in support of the divinity of Jesus. One of the rules of hermeneutics is to always allow clear passages to interpret unclear passages. Grasping at grammar like this is like trying to get traction in the snow. It can be done but it's a lot of work. Php 2:6 - Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: I realize that our new Gnostic New Testaments have flipped that verse on its head but the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus says it the accepted way. Hebrews 1:8 - But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom. God is saying that (the above) to the Son. Is Jesus God? Well, God seems to think He is. Remember that Hebrews 1 is distinguishing between Jesus and a mere angel. Don't let those Christ deniers get away with calling Jesus an angel. It is my experience that all these Christ denying Jehovah's Witnesses are trying to do is win a debate. They are not sincerely pursuing God. At least none of the JWs I've ever met seem to be genuinely seeking God.
One problem with your presentation is that even if Jesus is called god in the two verses you reference, that no more establishes a Trinitarian understanding of God and Christ than does the fact that Moses was called “God to Pharaoh” at Ex. 7:1, and “god and king of the whole nation” by Philo, a monotheistic Jew, in On the Life of Moses I. The fact is that ancient Jewish monotheism was more like monolatry than like our modern, strict counterpart. Divine titles were applied to various agents of God in pretty much all forms of Jewish literature that existed around the time the biblical books were written, including the Bible itself, the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), Philo, and the Midrashim. In addition to the texts above about Moses, there is a midrash in which the Israelites at Sinai are called gods; depending on the translation one favors, human kings may have been called “O God” and “Mighty God” at Ps. 45 and Isa. 9; angels are called gods in a number of biblical texts, and in the DSS; the members of the Divine Council are called gods at Ps. 82; based on most reconstructions of the text of 11QMelch, Melchizedek wasn’t just called “God” but “your God” in a context in which the antecedent of “your” is the Jewish community. This text was found in the library at Qumran, which was probably owned by a sect of hyper-strict Essenes! He also had a YHWH or God (ELOHIM) text applied to him. One often finds a strange disconnect in the writings of so many scholars and religious commentators in that while they often discuss the uncontroversial application of divine titles to agents of God in the Bible and in the literature of the period, they fail to recognize that it is precisely because Jesus is God’s agent - his cosmic power-of-attorney - that we find divine titles applied to him. Once we recognize (a) the flexible use of such divine titles in the biblical period among monotheistic Jews, and (b) the contexts in which such applications were considered appropriate, then we come to realize something we might not have expected: Not only is it not surprising to find divine titles applied to Jesus in the New Testament, but in light of his unique status as God’s agent par excellence, it would have been downright shocking had we found that such titles were NOT applied to him!
@@dooglitas Paul's use of Greek rules out the notion that the Son created all things. Swiss Protestant theologian Emil Brunner and German theologian Eduard Lohse both clarified the result of Paul's careful use of prepositions: Emil Brunner: "…the world, it is true, was created through - διὰ - the Son, but not by - ὑπo - the Son, that it has been created in Him and unto Him, but that He Himself is never called the Creator.” (The Christian Doctrine of God), p. 308 Eduard Lohse: "It should be noted that ἐν (in), διὰ (through), and εἰς (for) are used, but not ἐξ (from). ‘From whom are all things’ (ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα) is said of God in 1 Corinthians 8:6. He is and remains the creator, but the preexistent Christ is the mediator of creation." (A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, The Hermeneia Series), p. 50, footnote 125 Additionally, notice Paul's use of the passive ἐκτίσθη (were created) at Col. 1:16. All things were created in or through the Son by another, and if you begin with vs. 16 and follow the verses back to verse 12, you'll see that it is the Father who creates. This is consistent with Paul's careful use of prepositions noted above.
@@dooglitas Paul’s use of Greek prepositions rules out the notion that the Son was Creator. Swiss Protestant theologian Emil Brunner and German theologian Eduard Lohse both clarified the result of this careful use of prepositions by Paul: Emil Brunner: "…the world, it is true, was created through - διὰ - the Son, but not by - ὑπo - the Son, that it has been created in Him and unto Him, but that He Himself is never called the Creator.” (The Christian Doctrine of God), p. 308 Eduard Lohse: "It should be noted that ἐν (in), διὰ (through), and εἰς (for) are used, but not ἐξ (from). ‘From whom are all things’ (ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα) is said of God in 1 Corinthians 8:6. He is and remains the creator, but the preexistent Christ is the mediator of creation." (A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, The Hermeneia Series), p. 50, footnote 125 Also, notice that at Col. 1:16, Paul used the passive ἐκτίσθη (were created), and if you follow the dialogue backwards from verse 16, you'll see who the creator is in verse 12, namely, God, the Father.
Only someone hurting would want to respond in the way they did. I think if they’d see themselves on camera they’d see that they don’t look happy and they definitely don’t seem like they have peace. It’s heartbreaking. I pray the Lord softens their heart and grants them repentance
@@scottgrey2877 I like that verse. I’m guessing you are assuming that by Jesus saying “my God” that he himself is not God? I’ve heard someone say that if my son calls me the man of the house..that does not imply that he is somehow less man or human than me. The trinity functions as an economy..meaning difference in function does not mean different in nature or that somehow the father is ontologically greater. Jesus says things like the father is greater than I. Again..the CEO of my company is greater than me..but that does not mean he is a superior being than me..he’s human just as much as I am. When you read that verse alone it absolutely would lead you in the direction you seem to be going in..that’s why it’s important to take in the full council of scripture..not to mention you have the help of so many great men who have come before you…don’t neglect church history and historical interpretation
@@scottgrey2877 is that not begging the question? You can ask how did God create something out of nothing? Or..was Jesus born of a virgin birth. To be able to answer every single question perfectly without any sense of mystery does seem to eliminate the realm of supernatural in place of the natural. I believe your question again is answered in the traditional orthodox view of the Trinity. Christ has more than 1 nature. Christ who is the Son of God has always existed coeternal with the father…however the “Son of God” has not always existed in the flesh in the form of who we know to be the historical Jesus. When Jesus was born this is when the Son of God took on a second nature..a human nature. The divine nature took on human nature. As a human Jesus was able to say things like “my god” because though he was God in the flesh he also was a human..he was just the perfect human. He lived perfectly in every way we could not. He gave us the perfect example of what we should strive to be. If I’m hearing you correctly it seems you are struggling with the idea that “God” can be both Father, Son, and Spirit? Yet John 4:24 says God is spirit. Would that not mean that God is not physical? It seems you are viewing God as only being able to be confined to one space at a time?..and yet the biblical God is not one that can be weighed..measured, or held. This God of the Bible is one who fills the whole earth. Such language does seem to be “contradictory”. How can God be “in heaven” yet also on earth…yet also be described as living in us? Yet this is all true based on scripture. Would you not agree? Yet when it comes to God living in the flesh as Jesus Christ it seems as though that is a stumbling block for you. I know that this is one of the biggest mysteries to try to explain..however with scripture I believe that it actually helps add to the appreciation and worthiness of our God..we serve a God who is truly not like any other and we serve a God who is truly beyond our understanding…if He were not beyond our understanding he would not be God. I do believe although I’m not able to fully comprehend God..I pray that I was able to at least provide some sort of truth. About God based on what I can apprehend about God based on Scripture
Am not really interested in Sharps rule, all you need to show weather Jesus is God or not is the Bible and an understanding of Koine Greek..............................If Jesus is God then WHO was he praying to ? ......If Jesus is God then why did he say "I am going back to MY GOD and MY FATHER ? So WHO is the God of Jesus, and what is his name, when you find the answer to that question then you will see the TRUTH behind WHO God is ! Jesus backed up that belief when in prayer to his heavenly father said,...”"This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ. John 17: 3. Notice how he calls his father the ONLY TRUE GOD! The first century Christians taught the same when they preached for example 1 Cor 15: 24-28 where we see in Vs 24 that Jesus has a GOD AND FATHER and that in Vs 28 he SUBJECTS himself to his God & Father! SOME do say however, that Jesus does address God as his God and his father because he was A MAN however one of the clearest scripture which shows that Jesus is NOT God is Rev 3:12 where we see Jesus as NOT a man but back in heaven: "The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name. New International Version Rev 1:1 a revelation from Jesus which God gave him. See how it was God who gave the revelation to Jesus. So WHO is the God Of Jesus, and what is his name ?
Its not clear from this whether you really understand the trinitarian position. We're not saying there are two beings, but two (actually three) persons - person and being are different concepts. I'm not seeing this understanding reflected in what you're saying here. Thanks for your comment!
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our Elohiym is “one Elohiym (God)”: Deu 4:35 Unto thee it was showed, that thou might know that the LORD he is God (Elohiym); there is “none else” beside Him. Who else said this? (This is repeated many times throughout the Word) Carefully listen to what Yashua (Jesus) says “FIRST”: The Great Commandment Mar 12:28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, (It’s the Shema) Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord (Elohiym): Mar 12:30 And thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. Mar 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. Mar 12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast SAID THE TRUTH: for THERE IS "ONE GOD" (The Father); and there is NONE OTHER BUT HE: Yashua is testifying that there’s only one Elohiym! But here is another:
Yashua speaking: Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God (Elohiym), and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Can we find more scripture to back this up? YES! 1Ti 2:5 For there is “one God (Elohiym)”, and “one mediator” (The Son) between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but “GOD IS ONE”.
Eph 4:6 “ONE GOD” and Father OF ALL, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 1Co 8:6 But to us there is but “ONE GOD”, THE FATHER, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.(see also Eph 3:9) Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for “ONE IS YOUR FATHER”, which is in heaven. Our Elohiym created Yashua (Jesus) to be His “Partner in creation”: Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship (means “Partnership”) of the mystery, which from the “BEGINNING OF THE WORLD” hath been hid in God (The Father), who created all things “by Jesus Christ”:
So who created “ALL THINGS”? The Father, our Elohiym
And who did the Father “create all things by"? Yashua (Jesus), His Son What was one of the four titles Yashua (Jesus) calls Himself? Yashua (Jesus) speaking: Revelation 3:14: Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things says the Amen (1), the Faithful (2) and True Witness (3), The BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD (4);
In the “Beginning” Light was created (Gen 1:3) 1st in time, place, and order In the “Beginning” The Word was created (John 1:1) 1st in time, place, and order That Light/Word is Yashua, The first day (Rev 3:14)! 1st in time, place, and order
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:9 That was the true Light (Yashua), which lights every man that comes into the world. Nothing existed prior to the “Light” that was created on the First Day!
Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was (The “partnership” in Eph 3:9).
Second day - The firmament, Third day - The earth, plants, and trees, Fourth day - The sun, moon, and stars, Fifth day - birds, and fish…, Sixth day - man
@@BasicBiblicalTruth "Beginning" means first in time, place, and order. Here Jesus calls Himself 4 titles, and the last one is "The Beginning" of the Creation of God! He tells us Himself. Rev. 3:14¶ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; John 17:3 Jesus says that the Father is the "ONLY TRUE GOD" John 17:3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee (The Father) THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. John 1:2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him (The Father); and without him was not any thing made that was made. "Which from the Beginning..." Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship (partnership) of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: I can say back to you that no scripture says that Jesus is infinite, He is however "Everlasting", but He had a "BEGINNING", if you believe the Word.
@@ronevartt7537 Ron, "beginning" (αρχη) in Rev 3:14 means "ruler" or "originator." In the context Jesus is on the throne, which means he is ... ruling. John 17:3 makes it clear that there is only one real God, all others are counterfeit. So when Thomas confessed Jesus as _his_ God (John 20:28) and Peter stated that Jesus is "our great God" (2Pe 1:1), they were either including Jesus within the identity of the one God or they had become polytheists. John 1:2 - the beginning (αρχη) here is the beginning of all things (Gen 1:1). The fact that he was (ην) in the beginning with God (the Father; cf. v.18) means that the Word (Jesus) is eternal. The word "was" (ην) is indefinite, which means that whenever the beginning took place, the Word already was. John 1:3 is speaking about all things being created by the Son (cf. Col 1:15-16; Heb 1:3, 10-12). Eph 3:9 says, καὶ φωτίσαι [πάντας] τίς ἡ οἰκονομία τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ ἀποκεκρυμμένου ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων ἐν τῷ θεῷ τῷ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι, 'and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God, who created all things.' Eph 3:9 is talking about the plan of God from eternity past to include the Gentiles. The word αρχη 'beginning' isn't used, nor is Jesus found in this verse. My friend, there is no verses that say that the Son had a beginning. The Son is the uncreated creator of all things.
@@BasicBiblicalTruth You said “Beginning” meant ruler or originator, but it doesn’t. Jesus was created to “Rule”, and be the partner with the Father (Eph 3:9), but “from the beginning”. The Father has no beginning, and as John states, “He (the Father) is the only creator (Jn 1:2), because the existence of “The Man Jesus” didn’t exist until after the statement that God (The Father) created all things. And as the Word says in Eph. 3:9 The Father created all things “By His Son”. Who created all things, the Father! By whom did He create all things? His Son. “Beginning” in Rev. 3:14 is G746 From G756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concrete) chief (in various applications of order, time, place or rank): - beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule. “Beginning” is from G756 Middle voice of G757 (through the implication of precedence); to commence (in order of time): - rehearse from the) begin (-ning). John 20:28 only shows he is “Supreme in Authority”, and a diety (The only begotten Son that was “given” all power and authority). He is the Way to the Father, but the Father is One. Jesus was born of His Father, sanctified by the Father, received all power and authority “from the Father”, The Father’s Spirit descended upon His Son, and I could go on and on… Read the Old Testament and how many times our Elohiym is said to be ONE. Jesus is definitely deity, but is not the infinite Father of all creation. Yes, I do know Jesus was one with His Father, but as it also says, “we’re to be one with the Father and His Son. Does it also not say, “We are gods”? Didn’t the Father send us His Spirit to have power and authority to do as His only begotten Son did? Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. Jesus states that the Father is the “Only True God” in Jn. 17:3 “ONLY TRUE GOD” ONLY - G3441 Probably from G3306; remaining, that is, sole or single; by implication mere: - alone, only, by themselves. TRUE - G228 From G227; truthful: - true. GOD - G2316 Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebraism very: - X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].
You are also trying to say the Father can’t create something “eternal” (The Son and His Word), but we too can be eternal and not have always been (Infinite). The Word is eternal, but not infinite, and was created for man’s loving instructions, and not for His instructions, in that He was already perfect in all ways. Mark 12:28-32 shows that Jesus spoke the truth when He quoted The Shema, Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: as being the greatest commandment.
@@BasicBiblicalTruth Salvation = Yashua (Jesus) The Light and Life/Word of mankind was created by one, our Father, and this Light and Life were for His children. Light comes from one source, and we are to be a reflection of that Light, but could never be perfect as His Only Begotten Son was, Jesus was the only pure reflection of the Light to save all who will follow. I'm not here to argue, but always looking to the Word for Truth. Thanks for your response, and we know who is really the only true and wise Elohiym.
Your throne is God or God is your throne are both completely correct because both throne and God have the article. There in no obvious verb in this verse because it's understood to be a predicate nominative. Typically, the nominative noun is modified by the predicate noun. The subject will be the more definite noun of the 2 nominative nouns in this order: pronouns, articular nouns, articular proper names, and proper names with no articular. Your throne oh God is an incorrect translation.
@@letthebiblespeak8250 The fact that there is no verb should 100% convince you that "Thy throne, o God..." is the correct translation. Regardless, this passage is quoted from the old testament, therefore the sentence structure should line up with the old Testament which by definition means the way I previously stated is correct
Both translations are grammatically possible, though "God is your throne" makes little sense. As the NETBible states in their note on this verse, "This translation is quite doubtful, however, since (1) in the context the Son is being contrasted to the angels and is presented as far better than they. The imagery of God being the Son’s throne would seem to be of God being his authority. If so, in what sense could this _not_ be said of the angels? In what sense is the Son thus contrasted with the angels? (2) The μέν…δέ (men…de) construction that connects v. 7 with v. 8 clearly lays out this contrast: 'On the one hand, he says of the angels…on the other hand, he says of the Son.' Thus, although it is grammatically _possible_ that θεός (qeos) in v. 8 should be taken as a predicate nominative, the context and the correlative conjunctions are decidedly against it. Hebrews 1:8 is thus a strong affirmation of the deity of Christ."
Comparing the rule with its exceptions and limitations... It in fact results in nothing more than this… General guidelines are to be followed using the article… Except when this fact is sufficiently determined by some other circumstance… The principle of exception just stated… is perfectly reasonable, when from any other circumstance, it could be clearly understood that different persons or things are spoken than the insertion or omission of the article is a matter of indifference. Normal use of the definite article is to add a the additional article when two distinct things are being spoken of. However, sometimes it is just a clear background assumption that the A and the B are one and the same or the A and B are distinct from each other. In the case where the two are clearly distinct, there is no need to add the definite article. Greek has some similarities to English in this sense. There is a relationship being established but it doesn't necessarily deal with identity. For instance if you said: "I serve the King and ruler of this empire. It is understand that there are not two people. The second noun is descriptive of the first. But if I said: I am attending a special ceremony in which the King and Queen will be present. There is no ambiguity that two different people will be there. Now there certainly is a relationship being drawn. Both are present representing the Monarchy. So the Granville-sharpe rule is a clear attempt by a very outspoken Trinitarian, one who did not hide his theological bias, trying to read into the text assumptions that the greek grammar does not in itself provide for. This is not exegesis but eisegesis at its finest. And the rule was "invented" not discovered because scholars are straining existing greek grammatical constructions in attempt to prove a theory and then naming the rule which is flawed given the amount of exceptions that need to be cited.
And the Holy Spirit is God: 2 Samuel 23:2,3 The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue, vs. 3 The God of Israel said, the rock of Israel spake to me…. Acts 5:3 Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit. Vs. 4 He didn’t lie to men but to God.
The argument of Sharp is defended by Bishop Middleton in his Doctrine of the Greek Article. His rule is this: When two or more attributives, joined by a copulative or copulatives, are assumed of [relate to] the same person or thing, before the first attributive the article is inserted, before the remaining ones it is omitted.” The limitations and exceptions to the rule stated by him are as follows: I. There is no similar rule respecting “names of substances considered as substances.” Thus, we may say “the stone and gold,” without repeating the article before “gold,” though we speak of two different substances. The reason of this limitation of the rule is stated to be that “distinct real essences cannot be conceived to belong to the same thing;” or, in other words, that the same thing cannot be supposed to be two different substances. In this case, then, it appears that the article is not repeated, because its repetition is not necessary to prevent ambiguity. So the question naturally arises whether theological belief shapes your approach to the rule. To the early Christian who converted from Judaism there was no ambiguity between God and his anointed, the Messiah. They were two different things. Also, Granville Sharp was an English philanthropist, who began to study the grammar of the New Testament in order to demonstrate that his Trinitarian beliefs were correct and that Christ was God. So Daryl, respectfully, it appears that you are endeavouring to do the same. If anyone wants to understand Christianity from a "Mono-theistic" biblical point of view then I invite you to read: One God & One Lord: Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith, by John W Schoenheit and Mark Graeser.
Thank you for taking time with that response. I do a good bit of old testament study and used to fo a good bit of 2nd temple Judaism study. With that said, I'm not a trinitarian, but I dnt think that's required to see that the new testament not only acknowledges Yeshua as God, but specifically as YHVH. I would point out, that to claim there was no ambiguity between God and the messiah is on one hand slightly misleading, and on the other hand highly misleading. I don't think there's anyway to understand that statement as accurate with how you intended it. At minimum it was a debated topic based on a handful of old testament passages, and on the broader end of the scale the messiah is equated with the Angel of the LORD or possibly greater. There is zero doubt to me this is how John viewed him, zero on how Jesus presented himself in the Synoptics especially in the later chapters, and zero on how Paul understood him. I can't say Paul theologized it identical to John, but it's no less, that's for certain. Nor in Revelation. Edit: I'd also point out Deuteronomy 6:4 doesn't clame we have one YHVH. It claims that YHVH IS one. This is not a statement of an individual, static number
@@brenosantana1458 with all due respect, I've been studying this off and for 8 years from both camps, and started learning Hebrew going on 5 years ago just so my theology was in line with how the nt writers understood the ot, and not developing my theology off of the new and reading it in backwards as most Christians have up until the last century or two. You make the same mistake the last guy made in possibly a different manner by assuming that Jewish doctrine on this issue of God, or more specifically God and the messiah was concrete at that time. It wasn't. And it isn't today other than saying there's only one. But that's no different than a trinitarian would say. Not sidestepping, nor intending to create a second topic here, but can you clarify your stance on Paul? Just for my own clarity of understanding your position. Not for arguing
@@brenosantana1458 Jesus I think was pretty clear on who he thought he was in Matthew 24 and matthew 26 and several other places prior hinted at in the gospels. And if anyone misses it, it's because they're slacking I. Their old testament reading
Easy to find this rule, and, knowing some Greek, I will conclude that all the exceptions of not applying to plurals are just way too narrow this down to it can take just one passage that this rule fits, or maybe to where it’s a greeting and you’re making a greeting substantively create a second god within a Godhead. That’s not Greek that’s wishful thinking, pretending to be Creek grammar. Four if it was true, then it would have to fly to the plural, but you’re saying it isn’t true winner or plural. But why would that be? If one and one equals two and 2+2 = 4. That’s the only difference so why would a Greek Connect 170 to another substance is the same person, but not follow the same point when there’s two persons in each substantive. So don’t you see this was made up just to fit a verse or two where there’s a greeting or a reference to just Jesus and the god harmlessly, with no intent to Beiley, God’s most sacred principal there’s only one God? And so you are teaching people to violate the most sacred command of God there’s only one God, and violate Jesus is most in Fattic statement and John, 17 1 to 3 on the basis of a species rule? Do you know, God will judge every teacher, whether we talk country to God’s word. And nothing could be more country to God’s word into Jesus, his own statements, and what you’re teaching. I suggest you simply say this is obviously a rule concocted to fit one verse, or maybe two to make only those two versus subject in this role, but any other verse that we disprove that is already discounted by making up a special rule the plurals don’t count.
Brother If you believe jesus was Messiah then his teachings should never contradict Old testament . Isaih 47 and exodus 20 Makes it very clear that God is one. At the end God will not guide everyone guidance depends on our own deeds. But remember anyone who believes in Trinity Or worship god other than creator of heavens and earth He will have no share in paradise and his enjoyment is only in the life of this world.
God is one. This is not in debate in this video. Your comment about those who believe in the trinity is entirely unfounded though. Thanks for watching!
Immanuel =God with us (Isaiah) Agape =Everything in One Word It is not to be more like God,following the Christ,to be the branches of the vine is not just following his Commands or example is to deny ourselves and carry the Holy Spirit ,not become like Him but to be a vessel of Him. The term is Agape because it's all the Faith in one Word. In Corinthians 1:13 is Agape not just love or Charity ,includes love and Charity and the Law and the Prophets (The Greatest Commandenend and the second),the Body that describes Paul in Corinthians and the different roles of each member of the Body in Unity,it's Union with God not like God or with God. The Early Church,it's Agape feasts not love feasts or Charity feasts all in One Word,it's not God is love,God is Agape,not just the kind of love to know the difference,Agape is the Faith and the Bible the Gospel both faith and actions everything in One Word. The Eastern Orthodox Apostolic Church has these teachings though Tradition Directly from the Early Church (and the ancient Greek language is the language the New Testament was written) the Christ in Revelation says I AM Alpha and Omega, Omega means:Oh Mega (Mega as Great as in the Great I AM),the first and the last letter of the Greek Alphabet. Agape is the Word IS God ,the Trinity of the Godhead of the Body of God on Earth,Connected by the Holy Spirit all members in one accord,all connected to the Vine in action that is the True Church and the Church of Philadelphia in Revelation (Philadelphia means loving the brother literally) and this why when one member hurts all the Body hurts,thus the Church,thus our Husband,thus the Bridegroom thus God,thus when we do good or bad to anyone we do it to Christ we do it to it to God thus don't sin and greave the Holy Spirit (God) thus servants and God's children thus hated and percecuted thus wherebtwo or three in His Name is Church and this is why Faith without Works is dead (we don't do the Works it is not us it's the Holy Spirit). This is why is so important. A Corinthians is so important. Please read the link Agape is Everything in One Word,God ...doesn't speak a language?The Word of God ? Immanuel (God with us). Even the Apostles in Pentecost were speaking other languages when they got the Holy Spirit it's not up to any discussion. The translation of the name as Jesus comes from the Ancient Greek Iésous 2.000 years now directly from the Apostles and the Early Church Tradition and this tradition gave the Bible the New Testament was written in Ancient Greek coming from this Apostolic Tradition and was translated in English. And Ancient Greek was that time what English is to today world ,universal. The term Agape is Universal and universal to Christianity and was translated as just Love or Charity when it's all the Faith. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape Alpha and Omega (Revelation) are the first and the last letter of the Greek Alphabet (of course Alpha originates to Aleph but the Hebrew last letter is Tav and means Truth mentioned in Genesis ) but to Omega of the Ancient Greek. (Mentioned in Revelation) John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than He that is in the world. 1John 4:4 KJV We walk in the Spirit and by the Will of God,not the mind and the Discernment of the Spirit of God,He tells us right from wrong it's not the Three of Knowledge but the Tree of Life. Matthew 7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
The appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior/the Father/ is Jesus christ Here Jesus is not being refered as God and savior rather the apearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour/The father/ ,who is one person/. Jesus is the glory of God the father .When he appear our great God and Saviour / the father will appear. If there is a theological and grammatical possibility of interpretating this text without breaking your rule why don't you consider it and atlist try to refute it? I think you are doing something dishonesty .It is unusual in paulian theology to call Jesus our great God and Saviour which makes your interpretation problematic if there is a single possibility of interepreting this verse otherwise
Again, you are not defining your position. This is just word salad. What does it mean to say Jesus is the "appearing of the glory of God"? Just word salad. Besides, the text does not say Jesus is the "appearing" of God. It says that we look forward to the appearing of the great God and our savior. What is appearing is "the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ." There is nothing problematic in what Dr. Daryl B. is saying. What is problematic is your own comment.
Vicariously I discovered the truth, in me what I perceive and what I do it is apparent, to me that I choose destiny of the construct of this duality, I find myself in the shadow of the hand of the most high I'm an arrow with his quiver 2 are 1 full of the light that's right!""" we all humans are but of two mind spirit, which houses the soul ,the mind that which belongs to know, and you understanding ,the pain" and the joy "!that we live in life "move on and grow, understanding in this we defeat our foes, like a river Face like a river strong May continuously flow, understanding of this truth so to know, is the spark! of divine when in us who that universal truth" #1 in him I am I am "received "when I understand ,the relativity" corresponds to his majesty Yeshua master of time conqueror of death, I realize I am not fear , knowing I am fine comforted, on the spirit of his truth that is in me. may it be found in you ,because the construct of understanding ,the synergy I'm just undoubted unwavering fact, I'll rise to ascend cuz that one is already laid down for me and risen himself up again that I only have to rise. cuz the one that's in me E⚡ equals MC squar🔯2😑📶↔👀🔯🌀🌐 like the universe Within I spiral all through Serpentine Parma .I begin and find . Life comes then wisdom Tree of Life! over the tree of knowledge wormwood. To his ashes and dismay it will not again conveyed after its day never to rise again only smoke which cannot be transmuted nightly disrupted by his own construction of its end of its consistency of disobedience in fruit of the spirit I grow ,happily in his wisdom that which comforts me of his spirit of the Kingdom that's in me and in the end he. knows me as kinship of the spirit and may the Covenant of his truth. that understanding realizing Sublime fact""" not one of his words his precious words shall not lack any. only and his wisdom that brings true knowledge. of the truth people understanding to not coincide with their ignorance causing the only to inferior perdition, constructive infection single-minded design. Bases of the universe and always standing and Falls properties just as Fusion from a star and accelerated light travels finite Mass the , finite Mass it's dark matter the platform that gives glory to the light for it is the platform with light stands on and all this brilliance, light photon particles are made up of that of antimatter just like them human minds tries to accelerate in understanding if not accepting truth it cannot come understanding of the spiritual, counterpart of the truth that the basis of the universe ,constructed if it cannot accept the truth you'll find yourself cast It Down cast it out like the enemy it would be casted away and judged of the one"" who spoke it they will never find themselves in their heart standing in the truth how can they ever come in contact with the. induction to its counterpart accelerate mass and finite to Event Horizon to relativity, in the spaces Within transform on the fire with it Purge from the ignorance from the mud I have transcended mud to the ashes Ashes to the chaff and my soul rises again ever more so found as choice silver transform into gold, and the furnace of his righteousness that light that heat ,for the love grace and mercy is that light that fire and Heat I am that I am, and knowing death has its place and I do not underline myself with it know my soul grows in the truth and may every day it because of my spirit I'm duly noted this for sure spiral not out of contro,l finding that Dharma not plagued by the cave or perdition of karma, in its perjury I find not myself fow , but only one persistent to grow and understanding A know,A Cure spiraling transmuting spiraling words talking into like energy on the platform of finite Mass to the ears if they Allure .taking the tour that I am not mistaken by the subtleness conthittled not by no means.!!!!! 58 to the induction of its counterpart 58 exclaimed the radius of Pi 29 to induction 29 coordinates the Stargate acceleration a synergy and confusion like radiation drove to the star to its plasma so does finite Mass charge to this conclusion constructive is relativity antimatter speed of light constructivist induction to his counterpart related acceleration of all energy in the universe and that one part moves finite Mass instead of moving through I'm moving around me placement of tachyon moving event Horizons around me to the pantheon that I Break On Through 115 intensity positive acceleration too that's one understanding is this nothing passes 116 to that Photon core because that one understanding is this one and one and six equals 8 cognit continuous consistency event Horizons on a particles accelerator of this place spoken by the divine the universe we move around we go Nova but not to pass away or stray but we bring the understanding of this Pantheon it's to this core ever spiraling of infinity surrounded by the finite Mass of that lightning plasma intensity I am baptized in the Lake of Fire and I'm raised up again purified because of the one who is divinity eternity Perfection of all symmetry611 1st will be the last Yeshua 8🌀8 yoshua Stone 7 eyes 🔯116 eternity begins with him that one and is end I am that I am says this. In you let this understanding begin.you.Well done in your vicarious and curiously astute, nothing promiscuous only straightforwardness of your primordial example, and validation and your deluge I say!! it was much in this dubious as people are you, inquisitively most validated assertion of the facts, hearken to ears must hear ,to cut chords off indeed circumcision umbilical unconventional biblical of the pigeon that is religion that defecates in the rooftop of all thinking , for Spirit fills souls to the brim, are the souls filled with the hollows of whim & sin , for the light of them if be within they only have to rise ascend , not sync to the abyss because of the truth they missed but if they not be found in them he's found where they are to be as hey hey above So Below the truth Within . Where do they begin and end ? The master Yeshua reaches out from the inside pip pip good day to you and a good night be right so the soul filled with the spirit truth take flight.👈 You said:" to antimatter particles at the speed of light crashing into each other surpassing the light energy all SpaceTime planets was created accelerated by this finite acceleration from the first reaction element 115 UPENTIUM radius of Pi 29 induction of 29 29 is 58 induction 58 and 58 116 first to be the last last me the first six and two ones and six is eight eight representative Infinity sign the core of our universe Infinity would look like a rainbow which is a core of our universe we're all finite Mass is balanced every Star that ever went over Event Horizon accelerated this Mass connected to this core for all energy is accelerated heated and placed back throughout the Universe through relativity the lines between those spaces which is the pantheon Event Horizon surpass the energy greater than that the light travels on light being the fastest on this platform you have the energy greater you can manipulate correlate accelerate that finite Mass around you instead of traveling to it you move it around you when you think UFOs do aerial phenomenon vehicles some of these beings are good serffronm's cherubims well within a will cuz Israel had sinned against Yahweh that's why he said to Ezekiel on your knees son of man I will speak to you from sending you to a rebellious house to Israel Yahweh ahead and pull back his presence from the temple so you didn't lay judgment to the Earth cuz the one people on Earth that had a covenant with and angered until he had to ride and the covering wing of a saffron will and will and the rims were high and terrible and their wings touched on all sides and eyes all around about them and their hands were tucked out of their wings that's how they control the crap plates and thought acceleration of light being transferred this information to have wires let me sort of fiber optic cables came in I think the government was able to hurdle down the hollow ones it's for a living creatures standing in the presence of Yahweh they were even able to hurdle down these Hollow ones Tesla's weapon of laser that he created in 1935 he demonstrated the World's Fair he died 1938 and the CIA obtained that his prescriptions they tried to prescribe during World War II he made a bigger version of it and his craft are made in a plasma field from a different round different place world the reason why anything is of the Earth take off that shoes Moses for the place you stand on his holy cuz the enemy has been cast here and better than the Earth on the asteroid Satan and his demons is Legions were Bound in the crust of the Earth the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil yeah Samuel 1:16 now awesome
EWTN Bible 1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: 2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. 2 Peter 1:1-2 RSV-CE EWTN Bible 11 For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, 12 training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world, 13 awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds. 15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. Titus 2:11-15 RSV-CE
This is just yet another example of willful Trinitarian eisegesis, the faulty practice of imagining something into the text which is not there by an act of their own will, something which the text, nor the context, ever suggests. It does not take much thought by anyone to realize this claim is as empty as a drunkard's bottle-formulated philosophy add to by men But for some odd reason, there seems to be many Trinitarians who just don't seem to be able to see their obvious error concerning this particular claim.Titus 2:13. The facts show that "our great God and Savior" in this verse is the Father. Not Yahushua-the-human-agent-of-Yahuwah. Shaliah שָלִיחַ · (shaliach) and ; שׇׁלוּחַ · (shaluach), both of which mean "one who is sent". The person whom the agent is representing is known as the meshaleach ( ; מְשַׁלֵּחַ · ) Not God the Father who sent him!
There was no "imagining" going on here. Saying so does not make it so. "The facts show that "our great God and Savior" in this verse is the Father. Not Yahushua-the-human-agent-of-Yahuwah" The facts show nothing of the kind. The complete sentence is "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." It seems pretty clear. Jesus is the eternal Creator of all things. That makes Him God.
@@dooglitas The facts show that "our great God AND Savior" in this verse is the Father. and the son TWO separate PERSONS as you TRINIES like to use And your lack of Torah and Law of agency as his Yahushua-the-human-agent-of-Yahuwah" is clearly taught not a Trinity!
@@Zipfreer What facts? You're just saying stuff. Calling us "Trinies" is an irrelevant trick, using insults instead of actual biblical exegesis. The word "Father" does not appear in Titus 2:13 or anywhere in the entire chapter. You are just blathering. You use the phrase "Law of agency." No idea what you are talking about. I believe this is a phrase that Unitarians have come up with. It is not in the Bible. Do you actually have any real facts? All you are doing is making assertions and insults. Assertions are not facts. Did you even watch this video? I doubt you did. You're just another hunter-troll.
@@dooglitas @dooglitas Proskyneo: The word proskyneo simply means "to bow down before," or to prostrate one's self before another in the sense that one is acknowledge his low estate as compared to the high estate of the person he is bowing down before. It is a gesture of submission to a higher authority. This Greek word does not come packed with the constellation of religious ideas that we have with the English word "worship." Latreuo. This Greek word is still not exactly the same as the English word "worship" but it is much closer and usually denotes religious worship. It carries the idea of serving a higher authority in a religious or spiritual sense. While this word also does not itself connotate service to a divine being, the concept of serving a divine being is indeed usually implied.
When we have all the facts before us the truth is plain to see. People all over the Bible are bowing down before higher authorities who are not God. The Israelites were not allowed to bow down before other gods since doing so would be a gesture that they were submitting to the authority of these gods and not to Yahweh their God, a jealous God. And when we come to the New Testament, we find people appropriately bowing down before the higher authority Jesus because he is the King of Israel and because he is the Son of God Most High. He was royalty and humans bow down before royalty, their King, and rightly so. God has appointed all authorities in heaven and on earth. And when the man Jesus is resurrected and ascends to the very throne of God, all creation is subject to him. We are told this resurrected man is above all other authority and rule with all the angels subject to him. Indeed, we are told that God made him "Lord" in his resurrection (Acts 2:30-36) and have given him all this authority (Matthew 28:18) having sat down at the right hand of God until he puts all his enemies under his feet. The Trinitarian claim is a farce.
John uses the greek word 'edento' when describing the 'word' when coming to earth. He did NOT use 'Hieroprepes' which means 'becoming', that is 'fitting' ' pleasant' e.t.c. Paul uses the same 'edento' at 1 Cor 15:45. "The first man (Adam BECAME a living soul ( greek psyki) the last Adam a life giving spirit". Thus just as Adam was a total human person a 'soul'. No part of him was anywhere else! So that when John said "The Word BECAME flesh" we must accept what it means! That is that the heavanly Spirit Son of God actually BECAME, totally, fully a perfect human being, nothing more or less. His 'Soul' was not still in heavan as a '2nd part of a so called 'trinity'! Hence Paul states "Though he was rich, he BECAME ( edento) poor for our sakes" ( 2 Cor 8:9) The fact Jesus asked the Father to "Glorify me with the GLORY I HAD" ( John17;1,2) proves the point.
I don’t think the granvile sharp rule was what the inspired writer used Jesus is not God if you want any help watch jws film he gos on to explain just like John 1 v 1 c is divine or a god
*[Almighty God Appoints other gods]* Just because someone bears the title *"GOD,"* this does not make them *worthy of being worshipped!* Worship belongs to Almighty God The Father alone, Jehovah (Yahweh). 🚩 *Angels are gods* 🛑 So, if Almighty God appoints angels as *gods* in Hebrew & Greek Texts (Old & New Testament), are they *"false" gods?* 🤔 *[Authorized King James Version]* • *Job 1:6; 2:1* - Angels are called *sons of God* *[Heb: benehʹha·ʼElo·himʹ ]* • *Psalm 8:5[a]* - For thou *[Almighty God]* hast made him *[Jesus]* a little lower than the angels *ʼ(elo·himʹ* /🚩 *gods;* LXX Greek Septuagint) • *Hebrews 2:9[a]* - But we see *Jesus,* who was *made a little lower than the angels* *[Reference]* *Lexicon for Latin Vulgate translation of the Holy Bible* (1958), page 51, page 134: *Angels are called:* • *(individual) divine beings* • *gods* 🚩 • *"the (single) gods* 🚩 *Humans are called gods* • *Exodus 7:1 (KJV)* - GOD [Yahweh / Jehovah] appoints Moses as *[a] god* over Pharaoh (KJV) ▪︎ *Was Moses a false god? 🤔 No!* ▪︎ *Was Moses "Almighty God?" 🤔 No!* • *Psalm 82:1* - *God* stands in the divine convention, pronounces judgment *in the midst of "gods."* *Were these False Gods?* 🤔 *(This verse refers to "GOD" ruling over the Israelite Leaders)* • *Psalm 82:6* - I have said, *‘You are gods,* All of you are sons of the Most High. *(same here)* • *John 10:34* - Jesus answered them: *“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’?* *(Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 to the Jewish Leaders) ~~~~~~~~~ *[What Does "GOD" Mean?]* The Hebrew word *'El* [In English- God] is a TITLE (not a name)... It denotes "might & strength" *[Mighty One or Strong One]* ~~~~~~~ 🚩 *JESUS / Mighty God* 🚩 *The Real Truth About "Mighty God"* *[Isaiah 9:6]* It is true that at Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is prophetically referred to as *"Mighty God" (Hebrew, ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ).* So is the Father in some texts.... Yet, no where in scripture is Jesus ever referred to as *God Almighty (Hebrew ʼEl Shad·daiʹ)* as in Gen. 17:1) This title *ONLY* applies to the Father *(YHWH: Yahweh or *Jehovah in English ).*
In linguistics and grammar words have functions. Linguistics will show every part that make a word. By itself, a word is meaningless. There must be an agreed and common lexicon. There must be a context which may be a word to phrases, chapters long! The functions of words and their meanings are DERIVED. "In the beginning God created the ..." This states the time of reference. We cannot go beyond that time. It also locates God in the beginning! And that He created what we call Earth and Life! "God breathed in man's nostril and then he became a living soul" Functions: noun, verb, preposition, anexo, article, adjectives. Who acted? God breathed. Where? In man's nostril. So God had created Man with a nostril design for respiration. What resulted? Man became a living soul. That implies that he wasn't alive though he had a body! So by God's action we are here alive! "Let us make man in our image and likeness" Who spoke? God. To whom? The text does not state. Yet we invent! "in our image" Didn't God formed man from the ground? Wasn't he an image then? By the way, does a spirit has an image a visible form? God is Spirit! Didn't Jesus have a body? Was his body that of human? "Our likeness"? What does not mean? Behaviors? Intelligence? Five senses? "Abraham in you shall all the earth be blest" That was a promise to Abraham. The Jews believe that they are blest because they are in the bosom of Abraham. God blessing Abraham meant a blessing of his offspring o descendants even yet unborn. They see Abraham as 'father Abraham'! The Son of God got his name by which he was called and referred to only after his birth! So Jesus was born both the Son of God(spirit) and of Mary(human). We do not precede our bodies. Do o we? Where in the Bible does it states that God had a Son aparte from the Begotten Son born to Mary? Jesus is a part of Mary as he came from her loins, her flesh. A husband and wife. Doesn't the Bible say that they'll become 'one flesh'? But are they literally 'one flesh'? Didn't Christ pray for our unity that it may the unity of he and His Father? The Father is in him; and he in the Father? When we accept Jesus, we die to Sin and we made alive in him because he lives in us or quickens us. None of these mean that we are literally one organism! We still possess our uniqueness and individuality. We are a reflection and 'image' of God! "Christ in the Father, Christ in us" Jesus is in more than one person plus in himself? "Father, why have you forsaken me!" What did Jesus mean? That he ceased to be God? Or was he found outside of God? If so, where was he? Or was he crying in lament of a literal disppear, physical agony? What sorry he bore for our sins! If there are there persons in one being what is it aspect? How does it look? How many heads? Which is ruler? God is not devided! There's still One God! Who is Jesus Father? The Holy Spirit of God or God Himself? For the virgin was with a child conceived of the Spirit! So, is the Spirit the Father? God is Spirit. Or maybe Jesus is his own father with his mother? Is that what the Trinity desires? It already exalts Mary as the 'mother of God '! Jesus taught reverence and obedience to the Father. And he identified this Father as his and 'Our Father'! It's prudent to follow Jesus! He's now Mediator between two persons -God and man. The Father sent His Spirit to lead us and guide us to Him! Delegating to the Son doesn't mean ceasing to be Father! Didn't God glorify His Son! Believe in One God who sent us His Son Jesus: and His Holy Spirit to be our Comforter does not make less any of them! It only helps us to the Greatness of God, His Salvation and Care for us! Making 3 into 1 is like not respecting the One!
24:00 You're using the opinion of another to validate your opinion. I have listened to linguistics but they never tried to 'steer' my biblical beliefs. Rather, they help me speak the languages that I speak. I've never studied Greek. Also, your method is not the way teach a foreign language! In English grammar words have functions. Their context give their meanings. Also, our reality helps us to understand. God sent His Son implies that God is Father. The same Father to whom Jesus prayed and taught us to say *Our Father..."! The Son of God was promised! That's the Word of God! It was the Spirit that came on Mary when she became pregnant with a child. So, shouldn't be the Spirit the Father of Jesus? Ah! Remember, God is a Spirit. Trying to pin down or confine God to persons is a dishonor and lack of the Greatness of God. God has not beginning nor end. Note. Alpha & omega are the Greek characters which represent the first and last character. "I'm Alpha and Omega " is descriptive. In linguistics, words have functions. Nouns are what name people, things, animals, objects, and ideas! To qualify these nouns we use adjectives; and certain adverbs functioning like adjectives. Articles are indicatave adjectives. God sent obj- means from God came the object. God sent His Son. Son - establishes a relation to the parent - Father. Father - the one who engender the son His - is a possessive adjective indicating to whom the Song belongs to.
Amazing is that Jesus holds the glory of God. The glory of God appears when Jesus returns, but Jesus remains Jesus and Gods son, and God, the God and father of Jesus remains only true God as claimed by Jesus in John 17,3. this „amazing“ Granville Sharp rule is only twisting truth and confusing in this case Titus 2:13 Jesus with God…..
"The righteousness of God" Is Jesus .The writer is saying the righteousness of God and Savior not God and saviour.Jesus is both the righteousness of God and saviour simply .Jesus is not God and Saviour but the righteousness of God and Saviour
Great job! Mormons believe Jesus is a God, not THE God. JW says Jesus is not God. Tertullian in the 2nd century coined the term Trinity for God in 3 persons.
I am a trinitarian but I do have to admit it is hard to accept savior Jesus Christ is not a name but Lord Jesus Christ is a name. It sounds like making special exceptions so this rule will work.
I understand. But we just don’t see (even today). People generally referring to Jesus as “Savior Jesus” like we do “Jesus Christ” or “the Lord Jesus.” We refer to “the savior” and then append “Jesus” but the “Jesus” is simply to define what we mean by “savior.” Thanks for your comment!
So Christ is technically a title not a name. It means anointed, from Chrio meaning to rub. This rubbing was done when oil was poured on the head of someone being anointed for a mission or purpose. Messiah carries a similar meaning. mâshı̂yach is anointed one. These are titles in the truest sense.
@@deanlangenfeld495 you obviously don’t understand the rule. Literally every place in the Bible that has the words in the order that the Granville Sharpe refers to follows that rule without question. It’s only in this one way that it’s uncomfortable for Unitarians. Most of the places where the gravel sharp rule is applied has nothing to do with deity at all.
Yeshua , I pray you remove all confusion and deception for the minds of our brothers and sisters that all may call onto you and accept you as their savior ! Hear my prayer Yeshua , heed my prayer Yeshua in your most blessed name in your father's blessed name Yahusha and the Holy Spirit ! Amen ! 😇
People would understand better if they knew what WORDS meant. Father is Source & Jesus was man with God's Word inside. So when Jesus prayed to The Father it was His Word talking to His source. Fire & Light! You can not separate Him
Paul often commences his letters with the blessing "May God the Father and the Lord jesus Christ...et.c". It is totally twisting the scriptures to assume he is speaking of ONE person! How do we Know? Because several times he concludes with "To the glory of God the Father" ( ie Phil 2:11) or distinguishes between Father & Son by saying "Blessed be the God AND FATHER OF our Lord Jesus Christ" ( Eph 1:3. 2 Cor 1:3 ). Its quite clear from all Paul's writings he seperated The Father from the Son, always indicating the Father's superiority! ( 1 Cor 11:3. 1 Cor 15:28 )
So do you not believe that the Bible doesn't teach that the Sons of God are god's and that those same Sons of God that are angels are never referred to as gods. It all over the Bible. The Bible shows that there are lesser gods (Sons of God)(angels) that can act as God(father) or the Father speaks through them. Using them to speak to people.
Thanks for your comment! In the Old Testament the term "sons of God" refers without fail to angels. But that doesn't mean that the term in the New Testament used in the singular with reference to Jesus means that Jesus is an angel. The church has always rejected the idea that Jesus was an angel.
@@bma John 10 :34 he is being accused of although being a man make yourself God or a god. He answered with Psalms 82, Jehovah says that you are god's referring to the Sons of God, and he says are you saying it's blasphemy because I am God's Son. So Jesus is defending the fact that he was a god, being the Son of God. The Jews just either didn't understand and ignored his claim because they didn't believe he was the Messiah. So Jesus called himself a god like the other Sons of God are by using that text to defend the charge of being God or a god. I imagine majority Bible say God. Are you saying that his defense is no good because they called him a singular god and he answered with a plural gods. There other times in the Bible that Angels in the singular are called a god. Please elaborate one the idea that Jesus doesn't use the singular to describe him being a god.
@@bma 1st Thessalonians 4 :16 . because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. The Lord as an Archangel because he has an Archangel voice. He is a chief Angel so that makes him different from the other Sons of God that are angels ,but and Angel none the less.
No. It is perfectly consistent to say that God is one being yet three distinct persons who are all equally God, that can function in a monotheistic context perfectly there’s no contradiction. Yes I don’t find the evidence for John 5:7 to be sufficient, that doesn’t mean the trinity is false though there’s plenty of other places within scripture to support the doctrine of the trinity.
@@vishyswa no polytheism is the view that there’s more than one God, trinitarian do not believe there is more than one God they believe there is one God in three persons. You do not understand the doctrine of the trinity at all if you think it’s polytheism. Also you you failed to see the distinction between being in person being is what you are a person is who you are.
@@vishyswa Yes person describes your individualism and who you are, being an substance describe what you are. Now do you understand the definition of a polytheist? Polytheism is the view that there is more than one God, you’re getting Tritheism and trinitarianism mixed up Trinitarian‘s believe that there is one God, the mode of personhood describe the individualism of the persons within the Godhead not the being or substance they are equal in substance and nature.
Christ being separate from and subordinate to God, as well as being finite (the beginning and the end) does not destroy the intrinsic nature of love in God. It in fact solidifies it because He GAVE HIs only begotten Son out of love for the world. That Word was declared in the beginning (was with God and WAS God), the Word that embodies God's love (the message that rides on the ruach or pneuma, the breath of God which will not return to Him void). In fact, it goes on even further than that. If one truly believes in the love of God they would understand what "as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" means (ie; that everything on the earth and under the earth will bow to Christ). This is the power of the love of God, that all of creation longs for love, love that only extends from Him, THOUGH His Son, BY His holy Spirit. Classical, Nicean Trinitarianism is wrong. It fears the all-encompassing power of the love of God which extends even to the lowest hell. "The love of God is greater far Than tongue or pen can ever tell It goes beyond the highest star And reaches to the lowest hell The guilty pair, bowed down with care God gave His Son to win His erring child He reconciled And pardoned from his sin Could we with ink the ocean fill And were the skies of parchment made Were every stalk on earth a quill And every man a scribe by trade To write the love of God above Would drain the ocean dry Nor could the scroll contain the whole Though stretched from sky to sky Hallelujah O love of God, how rich and pure! How measureless and strong! It shall forevermore endure The saints' and angels' song" Niceanism presents a corrupted Christ and Gospel. Arianism and Universal Reconciliation represent the true Christ and the true Gospel. Yes, as you said, union. Union through covenant. A Word. A Word that was declared in the beginning as a covenant with all of creation (because God can swear by no one but Himself). Christ is God because God exalted His Son to the name of above all names to the glory of the Father. Christ is worthy to be called God because He is the heir of God (just as the Bible says we are also heirs of God in Christ). He is no more God than we are because we are said to be heirs of Christ. That doesn't make me Christ. We will sit on Christ's throne with Him, but that doesn't make any of us Christ. In other words, God is more a station or position in relation to Christ, but as a person (or more accurately spirit) in the Father. We are said to be the body of Christ ("the hands and feet of Jesus") and this is the ministry of reconciliation, that each will come to God in their own order, and Christ will turn to the Father, who will be all in all. "Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death... And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all." The Father has ordered everyone to worship His Son as God because His Son demonstrated His love for the world perfectly. This is the ministry of reconciliation, that no one should come to the Father but THROUGH His Son and BY His holy Spirit. No one has seen God at any time, but the Son has made Him known.
Thanks for your comment. I haven't read all of it (there are a crazy number of comments on this video already), but here is my initial thoughts: First, you're not really dealing with the GS rule here so this is an attempt to defend Arianism. If Jesus is finite, then he had a beginning, If he had a beginning, then you have God alone in eternity without relationship, and thus without a basis for relational concepts such as love, faithfulness, subordination, etc. to exist. This means those concepts are dependent on creation to exist OR it means that God changes and is not immutable. This implies that either God's character or His being is dependant on creation, which should be obvious cannot stand. You have to have relational character prior to creation for God's character to be behind passages like John 3:16 and behind salvation.
@Master Biblical Languages If God is love then all the characteristics that extend from love come from Him. Love is not dependent on creation to exist. It is dependent on God and exists as a part of His character eternally just as wisdom exists as a part of His character eternally. We wouldn't say that wisdom is dependent on relationship since who is there to consider Him wise? Since God can swear by no one but Himself this is perfectly reasonable. God can be "alone" and create out of love (actually if God is eternal and emcompasses everything before creation then He is not technically alone. He just is.). Who is anyone to say otherwise? He is God. He is love. One might say that God created us BECAUSE He loves. He gave us free will BECAUSE He loves. He allowed us to option to sin BECAUSE He loves, because He doesn't want automatons. He wants us to choose Him out of love. No, He doesn't depend on our love, but He does require it for our own salvation, not out of tyranny but due to the fact that creation was made in love, depends on love and yearns intrinsically to be near to Him out of love (upward worship). His Son demonstrated this love by obedience to His command to come to Earth, preach the Gospel and die for our sins so that we can come near to God THROUGH Him. That's what John 3:16 is speaking about. We wouldn't come to a king through his right hand advisor and say that his advisor is equal to the king, not unless the king *told* us to treat his advisor as they would treat him. An understanding of the nature of the Trinity is not a hard concept and it is no "mystery." The eternality of three persons in one God *is* a mystery. It was a compromise by the early ecumenical Catholic Church (which really started to exert its influence during Constantine's time) to make the gnostic and pagan-influenced Christians happy. That doctrine was created out of political motivations. Yet, there is a Trinity in the *position* or *station* of God. See Tertuallian: He who delivered up the kingdom, and He to whom is delivered up-and in like manner, He who subjected all things, and He whom they were subjected-must necessarily be different Beings. The Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, just as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He who sends is one, and He who is sent is another, and again, He who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another. That which has come forth out of God [the Father] is at once God [deity] and the Son of God, and the two [Father and Son] are one… *He [the Son] is made a second in manner of existence-in position, not in nature* . And He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth [from the Father]. Tertullian, C. AD 200, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol 3, pages 34, 600, 604 What I'm saying is not unique among the early church fathers. Here are a few examples of how they expounded upon some of the Bible verses I was pulling from in my previous comment: (I'll have to break this up since RUclips has limits on comments)
@@bma But as for me, who derive the Son from no other source but from the substance of the Father, and (represent Him) as doing nothing without the Father’s will, and as having received all power from the Father, how can I be possibly destroying the Monarchy from the faith, when I preserve it in the Son just as it was committed to Him by the Father? The same remark (I wish also to be formally) made by me with respect to the third degree in the Godhead, because I believe the Spirit to proceed from no other source than from the Father through the Son. Look to it then, that it be not *you rather who are destroying the Monarchy, when you overthrow the arrangement and dispensation of it* , which has been constituted in just as many names as it has pleased God to employ. Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 4, c. AD 200 But since they will have the Two to be but One, so that the Father shall be deemed to be the same as the Son, it is only right that the whole question respecting the Son should be examined, as to whether He exists, and who He is and the mode of His existence. Thus shall the truth itself secure its own sanction from the Scriptures, and the interpretations which guard them. There are some who allege that even Genesis opens thus in Hebrew: In the beginning God made for Himself a Son. As there is no ground for this, I am led to other arguments derived from God's own dispensation, in which He existed before the creation of the world, up to *the GENERATION of the Son* . For before all things God was alone - being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 5, c. AD 200 If, again, he alleges His own word when He said, “I and the Father are one,” let him attend to the fact, and understand that He did not say, “I and the Father am one,” but are one. For the word are is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power. He has Himself made this clear, when He spoke to His Father concerning the disciples, The glory which You gave me I have given them; * *that they may be one, even as we are one* * : I in them, and You in me, that they may be made perfect in one; that the world may know that You have sent me. What have the Noetians to say to these things? Are all one body in respect of substance, or is it that we become one in the power and disposition of * *unity of mind* * ? In the same manner the Son, who was sent and was not known of those who are in the world, confessed that He was in the Father in power and disposition. For the Son is the one mind of the Father. We who have the Father's mind believe so (in Him); but they who have it not have denied the Son. And if, again, they choose to allege the fact that Philip inquired about the Father, saying, Show us the Father, and it suffices us, to whom the Lord made answer in these terms: “Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip? He that has seen me has seen the Father. Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?” and if they choose to maintain that their dogma is ratified by this passage, as if He owned Himself to be the Father, let them know that it is decidedly against them, and that they are confuted by this very word. For though Christ had spoken of Himself, and showed Himself among all as the Son, they had not yet recognized Him to be such, neither had they been able to apprehend or contemplate His real power. And Philip, not having been able to receive this, as far as it was possible to see it, requested to behold the Father. To whom then the Lord said, “Philip, have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me? He that has seen me has seen the Father.” By which He means, “If you have seen me, you may know the Father through me.” For through the image, which is like (the original), the Father is made readily known. But if you have not known the image, which is the Son, how do you seek to see the Father? And that this is the case is made clear by the rest of the chapter, which signifies that the Son who has been set forth was sent from the Father, and goes to the Father. Hippolytus, Against Noetus, 205 AD Writing to the Corinthians, [Paul] said, “I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. Therefore, neither is he that plants anything, not he that waters, but God who gives the increase. Now he that plants and he that waters are one (1 Corinthians 3:6-8)” And who does not perceive that Apollos is one person and Paul another, and that Apollos and Paul are not one and the same person…? Apollos indeed is one, and Paul another, so far as respects the distinction of persons, yet as far as respects their agreement both are “one.” Novatian, AD 235, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, pages 637-638
@@bma You will say, then, to me: “You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise?” Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, * *being His own mind and thought* * . But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” showing that at first *God was alone, and the Word in Him* . Then he says, “The Word * *was* * God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence.” The Word, then, being God, and being naturally * *produced from God* * , whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place. Theophilus to Autolycus. Book II. Chapter XXII.-Why God is Said to Have Walked. "For he speaks to this effect: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'" and "...'Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' And by this He showed, that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. *For the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested.* The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this truth." Hippolytus (c. 170-236 AD), Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Ch 14. There are many more examples of the Son being separate from, subordinate to the Father, as well as explanations of "begotten" meaning born in the sense of generation from the Father. Also remember that any Latin translations from the original Greek could well have been corrupted. The Catholic Church, for example, commissioned Rufinus to rewrite Origen's works to support the Nicean definition of the Trinity. His original Greek writings were Arian in nature. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find enough examples to outweigh the Arian views of the earliest church fathers. The Bible agrees with them.
@@bma Sorry to reply with so much text. I hope it's not coming across as overly zealous. I mean it all in a civil manner. I also wanted to apologize for not addressing the GS rule. I feel it is a superfluous detail in the face of surmounting evidence. Grammar is important, but the big picture of what the Bible and the early church fathers paints a much clearer picture to me.
If you disagree with trinitarian doctrine and comment on this video, please consider making your argument against the non-contested passages I work through in the video. If the non-contested examples stand, then the rule also stands in the two contested texts. The rule was not invented, it was discovered to hold true given the three parameters I mention in the video. I look forward to your comments!
I will certainly offer you a valid argument tomorrow after work. The Granville sharps rule is a theory proven inaccurate. Keep an eye out for my next comment. Have a good night.
@@letthebiblespeak8250 here are a few verses from the gospels that fit Sharp’s rule, please go through them and show that Sharp’s rule invalid.
Mat 7:26
Mat 12:22
Mat 12:26
Mat 13:20
Mat 13:23
Mat 27:40
Mar 6:3
Mar 15:29
Mar 16:16
Luk 6:47
Luk 6:49
Luk 12:21
Luk 16:18
Luk 20:37
Joh 5:24
Joh 6:33
Joh 6:40
Joh 6:45
Joh 6:54
Joh 6:56
Joh 8:50
Joh 9:8
Joh 11:2
Joh 11:26
Joh 12:48
Joh 20:17
Thanks
@@kevinfromcanada4379 I only need one verse. If Jesus is God, the Granville sharps rule will be used every time God and jesus are side by side with kia in the middle. . 2 timothy 4:1 uses the article for The God and The Lord Jesus Christ. According to the rule these are not the same person. That makes the rule invalid because according to the rule, other places say Jesus and God are the same person. The bible doesn't contradict itself. This rule is a theory and the theory is false.
@@letthebiblespeak8250 sorry, Χριστος Ιησούς functions many times in the NT as a proper name (BDAG, 4th ed, 971). Therefore it doesn't fit Sharp’s rule.
However, I'd be very happy to have this verse talking about one person.
Care to look at the verses that demonstrate that Sharp’s rule is valid?
@@kevinfromcanada4379 Lord is no more a proper name than Saviour is.
Lord Jesus christ, saviour Jesus christ. Both Lord and Saviour are titles.
Dr. Darryl, your explanation about Titus 2:13 was great. The Granville Sharp rule is amazing. Thanks for everything!
Amazing is that Jesus holds the glory of God. The glory of God appears when Jesus returns, but Jesus remains Jesus and Gods son and God, the God and father of Jesus remains only true God as claimed by Jesus in John 17,3. this „amazing“ Granville Sharp rule is only twisting truth and confusing in this case Titus 2:13 Jesus with God…..
I interpret the scriptures through comparing spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor. 2:13). I do not base in human wisdom like Grandville Sharp's rule who rejected the 2 Tes. 1:12.
There are two possessive noun that appearing in Titus 2:13. The Glory of the great God (1st appearing), and saviour Jesus Christ (2nd apearing). 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 was invented only amidst 17th century. It is not the rules of the Apostles to interpret the scriptures.
Paul said: EVER LEARNING AND NEVER ABLE TO COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH. 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.
Great video! I’m encouraged by the clarity that comes from the study of the Greek.
Awesome! Clarity is one of the primary benefits of reading the original languages!
No Jesus prayed to Jehovah we no that Jesus is divine it’s that simple the trinity is just a lie how do you explain rev 3 v 14 he’s the beginning of the creation of God and he’s the image invisible God first born of all creation then we have begotten son so that says you are a lier simple
Thank God for your ministry!!!! This is the most desperately needed thing in the evangelical church today.. a Greek scholar who can meticulously and objectively exegete CRITICAL VERSES that most people MISINTERPRET!!!
I have been frustrated for years because the only biblical Greek scholar that I knew of that was accessible with James White, but he is not accessible as you are. With you, person can ask you to exegete a particular passage that's important and you will do it! James White, rarely has open phone calls and it's hard to get through.
I have the deepest gratitude that you have paid attention and you have specifically taking care of: Ephesians 2:8-9 and John 3:16 !!!! I will soon give you some more that are extraordinary important and actually are not paid attention to. I will give you those later and once again I want to thank you for your ministry and it is providing the church and extraordinary service
I second that. It's why I've started learning Greek.
At 13:00 you say that 2 Tim 4:1 isn't an example of the Granville Sharp rule, but according to Granville Sharp himself it is. That was one of the eight verses he used to prove the divinity of Christ.
Also, God is likely to be considered as a proper noun in both 2 Peter 2:1 and Titus 2:14. Even though it can be pluralized, the main name for God in the NT is Theos, and not merely a title or a common noun. So the verses you lift up as proof for the GvSR don't follow the rule since they have proper nouns in them. The reason to why you see this as something obvious when speaking about "Christ" as a personal name, but not God, is because you are biased and want Paul and Peter to say that Jesus is God even though they never did.
There are also a lot of exceptions to the GvSR in koine greek. For example, in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, 22.3, we read: "ho he doxa sun to patri kai hagio pneumati" (to whom be glory with the Father and Holy Spirit). According to GvSR the Father and the Holy Spirit would be the same person, and that would be a big problem for the trinity.
Please, need some help to understand Titus 1:4. Am argueing with a friend who is a modalist. You are saying that it is not a Granville sharp construction. Does that now mean it definitly have to be two personens or does it mean that it might be two persons but it cant be stated for sure?
The Granville Sharp rule applies when you have article, substantive, και, substantive. I assume you're referring to ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ which is not a Granville Sharp construction because there is no article prior to θεοῦ. So in this case there are two persons who are being referenced. Also just because something doesn't meet the requirements for the GVR doesn't mean the two substantives don't refer to the same person. The GVR argues that when the requirements are met the two substantives *always* refer to the same person. A clear example is Romans 15:6, δοξάζητε τὸν θεὸν καὶ πατέρα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ - glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, where θεόν and πατέρα refer to the same person and are in the TSKS construction. I don't know if this helps with Titus 1:4 (it's not a GSR) but hopefully it helps.
Thank you very much for making this video, Darryl - you have cleared up the lingering questions I have had about this rule.
You are very welcome. Great to hear from you again!
Thank you for this video! This is very helpful to me for when I share the Gospel with different groups of people. I am glad that you went through this material in a very kind manner. Thank you for showing Christ in the way you made the video
Thanks for your kind words!
Wow. Thank you for this. Praise be unto the Triune God! - Jeff Chavez, Greek Mastery Student
Jesus worships God John 4:22 KJV
this is not saying Jesus worshipped God@@scottgrey2877
Concerning the “Granville Sharp Rule”, after all my reading and listening my basic understanding of it boils down to the following points:-
1/. When the copulative [and] joins two nouns of the same case, regarding personal description, attributes, office etc.……and the first noun has the article before it and the second noun doesn't, then both nouns refer to the same person.
2/. The article before the second noun is added when they refer to different persons [ie] Article, noun, copulative, article, noun.
3/. If any prevailing circumstances show that different persons are being spoken of, then the Insertion or removal of the second article is of no concern to the context.
An example of point three are as follows:-
1/. If it's true that the “Granville Sharp Rule” doesn't apply to Hebrew, only to Greek, then we can legitimately refer to the LXX, a Greek translation of the Old Testament. Here Proverbs 24:21 presents us with the Granville Sharp construction [ie] Article, noun, copulative, noun. Yet, within the “context” of the verse, “[the] God and King” refer to different persons. Therefore, the insertion or removal of the article before the second noun makes no difference to the context.
John 20:28 is a slightly different example. This is where many trinitarians give no regard to the addition of the second article, simply because they believe “context” is an overriding factor. Here, “[the] Lord of me and [the] God of me” [ie] Article, noun, copulative, article, noun, they insist refer to the “same” person [ie] to Jesus. Again, in this example, the insertion or removal of the article before the second noun makes no difference to their understanding of its context.
Considering that contextual evidence is a determining factor, and Unitarians believe that the apostles never believed or taught the concept of the Trinity, then the insertion or removal of the second article in 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 makes no difference in their understanding of its context.
2 Peter 1:2 clears up the ambiguity of verse 1:-
2 Peter 1:2:- Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God [and] of Jesus our Lord”
In the above, Unitarians believe that the author himself clears up any ambiguity concerning verse 1. Verse 2 talks clearly of God [and] Jesus as separate persons.
Titus 1:4 clears up the ambiguity of verse 2:13:-
Titus 1:4:- To Titus, my true son in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father [and] Christ Jesus our Savior.
Again, In the above, Unitarians believe that the author himself clears any ambiguity concerning Titus 2:13 - Titus 1:4 talks clearly of God [and] Jesus as separate persons.
Peace
And in spite of the false logic, invented rules and ignorance of biblical grammar and precepts, you have still found what Christ called life eternal.
Instead of simply accepting what you have been told you’ve scrutinised it against the scripture, much like the noble Bereans.
How great is יהוה our father that his spirit of truth still can guide us despite the prevailing false doctrine.
May he continue to find favour with you, guide your steps and lead you to all truth.
@@TheDoctrineDetectiveChannel Thank’s for your encouraging words.
Peace
The more Unitarians try and change simple meanings and type a thousand words to try and explain the more the Deity of Christ jumps off the page
@@thatwhichhasbeen-isthatwhi6575
Quote:
"The article in Jn 20:28 is explained by the mou (mou, moo, “of me”) which normally requires the article before it; by its use with the vocative [case]...and by its presence in the established formula ‘the lord and the god’...It should be further noted that ‘the god of me’, whether it is taken as vocative [direct address] or nominative, [identification] is predicative in sense and so cannot be used as evidence either way to show whether the god in New Testament usage ever appears as subject of a statement referring to Christ.”-Karl Rahner, S.J., Theological Investigations, Vol. i, p. 136.
Great lesson! Thanks for your work. Very clear presentation and explanation. Hopefully the RUclips algorithm promotes this video.
Thanks for watching!
Sir, where have you been my last 42 years of knowing the Lord?? You explain it better than anyone I have studied!! Bless you in the unending war vs. those entities that know Jesus is God, but teach, in fear, that He isn't. Also, your demeanor is excellent. I am looking forward to all your teaching!
Thank you for your kind comment! I look forward to serving you!
@@bma brother, I am just so glad I found you and to see all your professional recommendations. You are among us as one who serves.
Excellent work, thanks for taking the time to put this together!
Thanks for watching!
Except, the article τοῦ that modifies μεγάλου Θεοῦ [great God] in vs 13 has an anaphoric origin in the most clear sense in the very first chapter of Titus. [1:1,4] . Which makes it more probable that God the Father is the correct antecedent to the”Great God” title in Titus 2:13…
Tell me with this one.. Jesus Christ is our brother.. is God our brother?
Yes
Yes.
One of the issues with sharps rule is it was clearly invented not discovered. In fact from what we know about Sharp he was literally looking for proofs for ‘the deity of Christ’, not studying foundational Greek grammar and discovering the rule without bias.
It like for example when we look at the average iQ of so called black and white peoples we find the average iQ of white peoples to be higher. One could then say white peoples are smarter. However is this something intrinsic to being white or something manufactured. Well it’s easy to deduce, the genes that makes someone ‘white’ (less than 1% of our genome) are not the same genes associated with intelligence. Therefore since the nature of being white doesn’t make you smarter the difference in average iQ must be attributed to nurture, i.e it’s manufactured and not intrinsic to being white.
If one thought iQ was inherent to being white and held a bias to it, some of the following could happen. They could be presented with the entirety of the iQ data , shown that both the iQ of so called black and white populations exist on a bell curve and that there are black people who rank highly in iQ and conversely white peoples who rank low and vice versa. That bias individual could then say, ‘those intelligent black peoples don’t count because the majority of them are upper middle class so their intellect is due to their socioeconomic status and the white peoples below the average are largely lower middle class and so their lower iQ is likewise due to socioeconomic status.’
What the example bias person has not realised is their own words have proven their so called rule is not intrinsic to the underlying factors which dictate said rule. In this case that what makes one white is a particular set of genes, those same genes do not code for intellect. Moreover one can’t simply label the exceptions as exceptions simply because they don’t follow said rule, they must prove how the underlying factors respect these examples as exceptions. In the case given above the existence of intelligent black peoples obviously contradicts the idea that being white makes you smarter, especially as there are members of the black population who rank higher than some members of the white population. The bias individual chocking that up to socioeconomic status shows that socioeconomic factors and largely nurture not nature are what accounts for the observable differences in average iQ. Therefore the exceptions disprove the rule, and cannot simply be dismissed.
Now in regards to sharps rule. Not only do we see example of non-names being used in the TSKS form in for example Proverbs 24:21 in the Greek LXX (Septuagint) but also the exceptions cannot simply be dismissed. Supporters of the Sharp rule must prove using foundational Greek grammar why names are allowed to be dismissed as exceptions, one can’t simply go ‘they refer to different persons’, this is the same as the above example saying ‘those intelligent black peoples don’t count because the majority of them are upper middle class so their intellect is due to their socioeconomic status...’. You must prove how the underlying factors respect these examples as exceptions, otherwise if we was being unbiased and intellectually honest, one could simply be disregarding examples that disprove the rule as exceptions to the rule.
I invited anyone who supports Sharps rule to show how the underlying factors, in this case Greek, respect the supposed exceptions to Sharp’s Rule.
I've been meaning to do an updated video on Sharps rule. Thanks!
@@bma great I hope to watch it. I noticed that about 6:10 onwards you stated 3 exceptions to Sharp's Rule. May I ask based upon what are these regarded as exceptions, i.e they do not disprove Sharp's Rule are apart of Greek grammar? I hope the new video clarifies why.
May God bless you and guide your steps
Not only is Jesus God , he is the author of the Word , the Way the Truth & the Life , the light, the Lion & the Lamb .John 1:1-5
His father is God. Jesus is not the word of John 1 1. Isaiah 44 24
Pick up your Bible buddy right now. Hold it in your hand and look at its pages. Magnificent that you can actually have your own personal copy of holy scripture. Now answer this question - is the Word of God you are holding in your hand the actual author. Answer - No. But do those words reveal the heart of the author - yes indeed. That is the actually meaning of the greek Word "logos." It is a beautiful word that means more than the mere words on the page. More than the semantic structure, and grammar employed but what those words mean and intend to communicate. You could say they are God's communication of himself. That is exactly what John 1 is talking about. God is the author of his Word (his communication - He is the logos). The words that the prophets spoke and wrote are the "logos." They are God's communication of himself. And Jesus Christ is a living breathing embodiment of the logos. He was God's plan to communicate his heart to man. The truth is simple.
That said, does the revealed word in written form reveal everything about God. NO. It reveals what we need to know to live righteously but it doesn't reveal everything. So is God greater than his revealed Word - the answer is YES. I like to say, God can't do less than his written Word when we believe but he can do more.
@Michael Cee yes my mistake. I miscommunicated that.
@@michaelevans1499 2 Chronicles 6:18 KJV God cannot dwell on earth
@@deanlangenfeld495 What are you saying?
Does the rule apply
- in classical Attic? (Some other dialects don't use ο as an article.)
- in all Koine Greek?
- in Modern Greek?
- in Greek written by non-native speakers? (The Greek text of Revelation was obviously written by a Semitic speaker who didn't fully understand Greek grammar.)
Excellent questions.
Look up the article by Dan Wallace entitled, "Sharp Redivivus? - A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule". It does a good job of answering these questions.
The anti-Trinitarian view has been debunked countless times over the last 2,000 years. Just cause someone struggle or don't understand the Trinity doesn't mean that it's false, rather, the ownis is on the human.
God cannot be contained in a body
@@scottgrey2877 is anything too difficult for GOD?
@@bossmanceo God cannot dwell on earth as a man
@@bossmanceo God cannot lie, so God in His Word does tell us what he can and cannot do.
@@scottgrey2877 God is not a man that he should lie, neither the son of man that he should repent. Yet Jesus is called the son of man and as our mediator he is called the man Christ Jesus in Timothy. The bible is clear Scott. Not once is Jesus Christ referred to as God the son in the scripture. He is called the son of God 68 times. All greek scholars understand the genitive of orgin is used describing Jesus as the son of (ek) God (Genitive of Origin). Jesus originated, found his orgins in God. Just like Adam ( he is called the last Adam for a reason). God has no origins - he just is, no beginning and end.
Is Matthew 28:19 an example of the Granville sharpe rule??
Thank you for what you do!
Thanks for watching and your support!
Was having a conversation of Jesus' deity with a JW and brought up this verse, 2 Peter 1:1. They said that because of the conjunction of 'and' in the verse, Savior and God are not the same.
I had forgotten the name of this rule, but I'm really glad I found this video.
Thanks for sharing. I hope this was helpful!
Excellent teaching, thank you good sir.
You're very welcome!
This is awesome! God bless you brother and His work through you.🙏🏼💙👍🏼
Thank you, Darryl. I needed this explanation to help defend our Trinitarian Beliefs. You are a blessing my friend!
You are very welcome
@@bma so many find the trinity doctrine offensive blasphemous
@@bma Hi Darryl. The simplest argument that shows Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet. 1:1 is not calling Jesus God is that Θεος is overwhelming used as a proper name for the Father in the NT.
If you consider Χριστός and Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός as proper names for Jesus based on frequency of use then why don’t you consider Θεος a proper name for the Father by frequency of use as well?
You should be able to teach the Tinity from the Bible, so please show us form the Bible where it clearly states that the holy spirit is God and is equal to God.... after all the foundation of the trinity is "God the Son, God the Father and God the holy spirit" and that they are all co-equal, co-eternal and co-omniscient, So please show us form the Bible where it clearly states that the holy spirit is God and is equal to God ?
@@Kyroblox
Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me. Psalm 51:11
Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
Psalm 139:7-8
Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the LORD. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the LORD. Jeremiah 23:24
The Holy Spirit is God's presence. He has to be God for God to be present and manifest His presence. If the Holy Spirit (and the Son also) aren't God then how is God then present in a given location?
The Spirit of the LORD speaks by me;
His word is on my tongue.
The God of Israel has spoken;
the Rock of Israel has said to me: ...
- Samuel 23:2-3
Who is speaking to David? The Spirit of the LORD or the God of Israel? It is that the Spirit of LORD is the God of Israel, the Rock of Israel since they are the same being.
Trinitarian Ethics
Part 1: ruclips.net/video/Elur4nHwCtg/видео.html
Part 2: ruclips.net/video/1_dOFFgDFQ0/видео.html
Nicely said, without the doctrine of the Trinity the bible descends down a hole of hopless inconsistencies.
God is not a man Numbers 23:19
@@scottgrey2877 Did God presence Himself in the Temple? Who did Jacob say He wrestled with and are you saying He was wrong? 2 Chronicles 6:18 say's even the heavens cannot contain God, is your God not omnipresent and therefore everywhere? You need a theology that can answer all these questions.
@@Bamba1955 It clearly states God cannot dwell with men on earth it clearly states God is not a man
@@scottgrey2877 My theology accounts for God not being a man, but it also accounts for Him becoming one. Read Gen chapters 18 through to 19, who was Abraham speaking to? Look at Gen 19:24 especially, how many persons are using the divine name? Instead of dodging Jacob wrestling with God give me an explanation. How do you explain Col 2:9 For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form?
@@Bamba1955 Genesis 19:24 KJV context verse 13
Doesnt your comment " Non contested" suggested an intransigent & dogmatic approach?
You are assuming we all have some basic knowledge of the Greek. Would help if you could parallel the English along with the Greek or it's over our heads.
His channel is about learning Greek and is directed to those who either study or plan to study Greek. He does tell you the meanings of the words he mentions.
People that watch his channel do know Greek or basic Greek. That’s the whole point of his channel. To learn Greek
That is fair. Thanks for reminding me. I'll try to remember this in the future. But also, I encourage you to learn a little Greek. 😉
Thank so much for excellent and clear explanation of the Granville Sharp rule, Valuable material,May God continue to use you and bless you greatly
All TRINITARY SECT cannot prove that the Father is God, they cannot prove His divinity.
They cannot present any indisputable facts that show Him as Almighty and Supreme.
I actually think this is excellent explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity. That said, I would prefer the word unity over union when describing the relationship of the divine persons to the being of God. Union sounds too much like an event that happened in time.
Union can also be understood as a stative concept, which how I tend to consider it.
Genuine question as a non-Christian who respects the rigour of Christian theology: I understand and can intellectually accept the idea that the Christian God is fully represented in the persons of the Father and of the Son. However, one thing that's always confused me is, why is it considered necessary for the Holy Spirit to be distinct from them? I've always thought it would be cleaner if, the Holy Spirit is not a distinct being, but rather the mind-power of God taken as a whole. In other words, I've always thought it seems to make more sense for the Christian God to be regarded as a "Binity"- that is, consisting of the co-eternal Father and Son, whose unity of power and purpose is the Holy Spirit. It in itself is not a person. What Biblical basis is there, or what Bible-based inductive reasoning exists that, the Holy Spirit is a distinct person from the Father and the Son, rather than that aspect of both the Father and Son that acts upon our own world?
Great question Morgan. Hopefully you don't mind me providing an answer.
In John's Gospel we see the triune God in mission. Jesus told the disciples that when he went away the Father would send the Holy Spirit in Jesus' name (John 14:26). Then, in John 15:26, Jesus told his disciples that he would send the Holy Spirit to them. “It is precisely the two sendings (of the Son by the Father, and of the Spirit by the Father and the Son) that reveal the fact that within the unity of the one God there are indeed three distinct persons. In other words, the fact that Jesus Christ is the sent one reveals something about the identity of ‘the only true God’ (17:3). The logic of this principle is as follows: ‘Sending is not a reflexive act’; a person cannot send himself or herself. Therefore, because the Father sends the Son, we must distinguish the Father from the Son personally. Moreover, because the Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, he too must be personally distinct from the Father and the Son.” Scott R. Swain and Andreas J. Köstenberger, Father, Son and Spirit: The Trinity and John’s Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016), 172.
This is just one of the places we find the distinction between the persons of the Godhead.
The Holy Spirit bares the same name as the Father and the Son in Matt 28:19. Regardless if you take "name" (όνομα) as a proper name (i.e., the divine name: Yahweh) or as meaning "authority," the Holy Spirit shares it equally with the Father and the Son. It makes no sense to mention the Holy Spirit in this verse along side the Father and Son unless he is a distinct person.
These are just two passages. Hope this helps.
@@kevinfromcanada4379 It does, thank you very much!
Thanks for your helpful response. To add to that, we see the Holy Spirit ascribed qualities that only work if He is regarded as a person in his own right.
@@bma Ah, lovely! What are those qualities, and where do we see them ascribed to the Holy Spirit?
@@morganhess6876
One of the best way to understand it is by understanding the attributes of God, attributes that only he has and does not share, omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, eternality, and each person of the Godhead has them(Father, Son, Holy Spirit)
And also there are plenty of verses that shows the personhood of the Holy Spirit
Here I will put 3 verses that shows the persons of our Triune God (the Angel of the Lord in the Old testament was Jesus preincarnate btw)
Isaiah 63:8-10
English Standard Version
8 For he said, “Surely they are my people,
*children who will not deal falsely.”* *_(person of the Father)_*
And he became their Savior.
9 (A)In all their affliction he was afflicted,[a]
*and the angel of his presence* saved them; *_(person of the Son)_*
(B)in his love and in his pity *he redeemed them*;
(C)he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.
10 (D)But they rebelled
(E) *and grieved his Holy Spirit*; **_*(only a Person csn be grieved)_*
therefore he turned to be their enemy,
and himself fought against them
Now we are blessed to have the New Testament in its original language of Hebrew, how does your trinitarian linguistic argument work out in Hebrew language?
The NT was originally written in Greek. The Hebrew NT manuscripts we have are translations from Greek.
I don't hold to the Hebrew source theory. Here is my fairly recent video on it: ruclips.net/video/si2GWsaOpGA/видео.html
Logos has a dataset on GS, go to Bible Browser - Grammatical Construction - Greek - Granville Sharp. To seek especially for Jesus as God, narrow further to Supernatural Being - Name:Jesus - Name:God
Thank God for I have found this channel, God bless you dear brother
Thank you so much for such an informative video. I am currently witnessing to a Jehovah's Witness and I am praying that she will see and receive this truth.
I think Stephen seeing Jesus standing on the right hand of the Father as 2 separate personages shows Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are not one and the same substance as the Nicean Creed falsely claimed to counter Arianism.
I believe Arianism got it wrong that Jesus was not God. But right that he was a separate personage from the Father.
That even prior to Arianism the early church saw God the Father and God the Son as separate personages. The Nicean Creed overextended itself to declare the Father and Son were one and the same substance to prevent anyone from ever claiming God the Father outranked Jesus. And to be seen as monotheistic. When in reality the Hebrew word for Eloheim is plural. And the Book of Psalms refers to the Gods in several places. Which explains Psalms 110:1 which says:
"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." (Once again Jesus is at the righthand of the Father. Showing they are separate personages with individual body parts. In fact Moses saw Jehovah's back body parts when he turned around. And also saw him face to face. As a friend speaks to a friend.)
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost form 1 Godhood. They are on 1 team of equally perfect beings. As evidenced when Christ was baptized, God the Father's voice being heard from heaven, and the Holy Ghost descending in the form of a dove.
High Trinitarianism (the idea that the English word "God" understood in its definite sense is a being rather than just the Father in the NT) is surely linked to a series of linguistic fallacies concerning the Greek NT and the Hebrew OT: (1) failure to distinguish the anarthrous predicate usage of God in the Greek, such as in Jn 1:1c (denoting the state of divinity), from the definite usage of God (Gk: "theos") with the Greek article, as used by Jesus of his Father throughout the NT, and by John of the Father in Jn 1:1b, (2) failure to distinguish YHWH (who is the Father of Jesus e.g. Ps. 110:1) in the Hebrew from the Elohim usage (which includes YHWH's agents - see John 10:34-36), (3) failure to distinguish what is said to be "of God" (i.e. the Word, the Holy Spirit) from God the Father.
The GS rule, which had an inbuilt exception for proper names, is not proven to apply to any passages comprising divine names and titles such as God and Father, or Jesus and Christ. It is only made to apply by artificially pretending that is not a title of the Father. Yet is unambiguously a synonym/title of the Father in the mouth of Christ (see John 20:17) and in nearly all other NT passages. The GS rule must pretend that is a mere noun to make itself relevant, which is inconsistent with the NT usage of .
Quick response to your three points.
1) Scholars do not "fail to distinguish" between anarthrous preverbal predicate nominative usages of _theos_ and articular usages of the same noun. Read any major commentary on John 1:1-virtually all will recognise that in this verse, the articular _theos_ refers to the Father, while the anarthrous _theos_ refers to Christ (in this case it is a qualitative PPN, meaning Christ shares all the essential attributes of the articular _theos_ [the Father], hence the NEB translation, "what God was, the Word was" cf. also the NET, "and the Word was fully God").
And the articular form of _theos_ does not always refer to the Father-Thomas referred to Jesus as _ho theos_ in John 20:28. The Father referred to Jesus as _ho theos_ in Heb. 1:8. Paul and Peter referred to Jesus as _tou theou_ in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, respectively (and no, you cannot argue that _theos_ is not being applied to Jesus here on the basis of systematic theology alone, you must also make a convincing grammatical argument). And Luke referred to Jesus as _tou theou_ in Acts 20:28.
2) If I'm understanding correctly, this is a massive claim, and one that is easily refuted. You are stating that the divine name Yahweh in the OT always refers to the Father, not Jesus? Yet NT authors repeatedly identify Jesus in parallel terms to Yahweh. To give just one example, Paul in 1 Cor. 1:2 writes, "σὺν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ," literally, "with all those who call upon the name of the Lord our Jesus Christ," or idiomatically, "with all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Paul here takes a phrase from the OT ("call upon the name of the Lord") that in _each and every case_ is used of Yahweh-see Gen. 4:26; 12:8; 13:4; 1 Kings 18:24; Ps. 116:4; Joel 2:32 etc-and applies it to Jesus, implicitly identifying Him as Yahweh. The verbal parallels confirm this. In the LXX, the phrase in question is made up of a combination of _epikaleō_ ("to call upon") + _onoma_ ("name") + _kurios_ ("Lord," which translates the Heb. Yahweh). As you can see above, Paul uses the exact terms in 1 Cor. 1:2, making it unquestionably clear where he is drawing from.
3) Trinitarians do not fail to distinguish between the Word/Spirit of God and the Father-modalists do this by identifying them all as different modes of the same person.
Didn’t Jesus use “Father” as a proper name? How can that be included with this rule
One question to consider is; does God have a God? Jesus says that he has a God.
“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. '" John 20:17
The Apostles believed and taught this also.
“Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms.”
Ephesians 1:2-3
Jesus said he was our brother. His Father and our Father is the one true God.
Jesus praying to his Father said these words; “And this is this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” John 17:3
“Although God overlooked the ignorance of earlier times, He now commands all people everywhere to repent. For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising Him from the dead.”
Acts 17:30-31
“Men of Israel, listen to this message: Jesus of Nazareth was a man certified by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did among you through Him, as you yourselves know. He was delivered up by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross. But God raised Him from the dead, releasing Him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for Him to be held in its clutches.” Acts 2:22-24
Jesus has a Father - hence He is the Son. But there is just one being with three persons, not three beings and thus three persons. This allows us to differentiate between Father and Son and also say they share the same essence (being).
Thank you for defending Greek grammar. All language has grammar that's normatively logically consistent. Greek is no different. People will try anything to justify their unbelief - even going so far as to attempt to eviscerate reliably logical things - like language. But, this need not be the case. They can continue in their unbelief without doing that. They still have to either deal with the Bible or ignore it, but by simply explaining basic Greek grammar, that choice becomes plain. Thank you.
Is John 1:1 Granville Sharp rule? What I see is "Kai The Subject (Word) kai The Subject." Followed by "was with The God." Verb preposition The God (Subject). καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Nope. No GSR there.
Thank you for this channel. I newly subscribed and look forward to your videos.
Thanks for subbing!
John 17:21 explains how Jesus and God are one by saying:
"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." KJV
Us being one with Jesus is how he is one with his Father. One in purpose and mind. Not of one substance, as the confusing Nicean Creed falsely claims.
Jesus is our brother. Is God your brother?
@@deanlangenfeld495 so is jesus God?.. asking because jesus is our brother
@@deanlangenfeld495 so jesus is not the true God
Do you say 'ijakub' as well???
Again. Thanks for a lesson in Greek so important for our faith.
Why you can ignore “Sharp’s Rule”
July 31, 2022
Listen to this post:
In my recent dialogue with Dr. William Lane Craig, I was surprised when he appealed to “Sharp’s Rule” in order to deduce “the deity of Christ” from a few verses. In this new discussion, I say what I should have said then about this bogus, theologically-motivated modern invention.
The ordinary believer does not need to know the ins and outs of koine Greek grammar in order to evaluate “Granville Sharp’s Rule” - really, nowadays “Daniel Wallace’s Rule,” according to which 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 assert that Jesus and God are the same person. One need only look beyond the verses in question to see each author in a wider context assuming the distinctness of Jesus and God. Charity requires that we not view each author as contradicting himself within the space of a few verses, and so, he simply can’t be collapsing together Jesus and God by only using one “the” for both of them in one sentence.
In fact, the two verses above are the two New Testament counterexamples which show the alleged universal rule to be false.
In this new discussion with Josiah of Integrity Syndicate, we discuss the above, and also the odd history of this would-be grammatical discovery.
THIS is a short dissertation on Granville Sharp. Granville sharp was made up by triniarians for trinitarians. Do your own research
Alexander, the great was truly remarkable. But what they didn't teach you in school is that along with his conquests he is famous for something else. When Alexander conquered to people, he gave them captive a choice, either join my army or die. Most picked the former as new recruits one of the things they had to learn his language. They had to know the grammar. The reason for this is great communication between troops and commanders. As he went around conquering the known world at that time, he did two things named many cities, Alexandria, and more important he spread his language that this genius created throughout the known world. It was called KOINE Greek or common Greek. The beauty of this language was that it only had one interpretation. The grammar was so precise that it became the greatest language for communication of thought in his day. By no accident, this language became the language of the New Testament, therefore, based on the grammar, there's only one interpretation. Learn the grammar and you are way ahead of everybody else.
*[No Trinity]*
*IS THE TRINITY REASONABLE?* 🤔
▪︎ God asked *[the essence of]* Himself and offered *[the essence of]* Himself as sacrifice to *[the essence of]* Himself to go to earth to save mankind Himself.
▪︎ Then He agreed with *[the essence of]* Himself and offered *[the essence of]* Himself as volunteer to do it Himself.
▪︎ Then He impregnated *his mother* with His Holy Spirit (which is also *[the essence of]* Himself) to give birth to Himself.
▪︎ While on earth, God prayed to *[the essence of]* Himself (John 17:1) and glorified *[the essence of]* Himself repeatedly.
▪︎ He prayed to *[the essence of]* Himself and offered supplications (Heb. 5:7-8) to *[the essence of]* Himself because he needed to strengthen *[the essence of]* Himself.
▪︎ Finally, God forsook *[the essence of]* Himself (Matt. 27:46) and sacrificed *[the essence of]* Himself to prove His loyalty to *[the essence of]* Himself (Heb. 3:2,6).
▪︎ While dead, He resurrected *[the essence of]* Himself (Acts 2:24), so that He could exalt *[the essence of]* Himself above *[the essence of]* Himself (Acts 2:33).
▪︎ Then He sat at *[the essence of]* His own right hand (Heb. 1:3, Psalm 110:1) and waited for *[the essence of]* Himself to place His enemies as a footstool under *[the essence of]* His own feet (1Cor. 15:25) 👎🏽
~~~~~~~~
*[No Trinity: God Reveals Himself]*
Almighty God *[Yahweh / Jehovah]* is *"not"* Mysterious or Incomprehensible:
• *John 1:18* - *No man has seen God at any time;* the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has *explained [revealed]* him.
■ Genesis 40:8 - Interpretations belong to God
■ Daniel 2:28a & 29 - The God of the heavens is a revealer of secrets
■ Daniel 2:47- The *God of gods* is a *revealer of secrets*
■1 Corinths. 14:33 - Almighty God is not a God of *confusion but of peace.*
*[Please Show Me These Terms in Scripture]:*
• *"Co-Equal Essence of the Godhead"*
• *God the Son*
• *God the Spirit*
• *"Trinity"*
Hi, can you please make more videos about Christ's as God.
Because the Unitarian which I had a conversation here on RUclips and claimed to be a fluent Greek and Hebrew speaker and University teacher of those languages, claimed that in John 1:1 Jesus was created in the mind of God - being part of God's plan before the foundation of the world that why He was "foreknown."
Also, he said that in Colossians 1:16 Jesus as "firstborn" was a created being and part of God's masterplan of salvation. And if Jesus were God He would not need to inherit or to be appointed with anything because with God everything is already inherited.
That all thing were created "through" Christ who serves as an intermediary function and not God.
There are some more that things that he said to deny Christ's deity but this what I can tell for now.
Thanks.
I’m so happy I watched this some one was trying to say the Granville sharps rule was proving the opposite that they were not connected and that Jesus cannot be God in the construction of the framer thank you gb ❤
Very clearly presented. For those who genuinely ask for fish and bread and Truth, they will find this very helpful. For those who prefer serpents and stones and falsehood, they would just turn again and rend God if He were to offer them the true Gospel. God is only obvious in that God The Son is God and makes God obvious. If someone insists that Lord Jesus is not God, then there is no other obviousness by which they may know God, and likely they know a spirit-entity which is not God but rather poses in His place to the appeasement of itching ears. Lord Jesus explains it best, in John chapter-three.
Genesis 22: 1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. 2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. 3 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him. 4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off. 5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you, 6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together. 7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? 8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. 9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. 10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
II
Genesis 22: 11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. 12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
III
Genesis 22: 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. 14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen. 15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. 19 So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beer-sheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beer-sheba.
IV
Luke 2: 22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; 23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) 24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. 25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. 26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, 28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, 29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: 30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, 31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; 32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. 33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. 34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; 35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. 36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; 37 And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. 38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. - Bible Offline
V
John 10: 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. - Bible Offline
VI
Mark 16: 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. - Bible Offline
If you take Genesis 22 into consideration, and in comparison to Mark 16:15, who was that in Genesis 22?
Was it God according to the 11th verse?
An angel of God according to the 12th verse? And if it were an angel of God, who was that exactly if Luke 2:34 as well as Mark 16:15 were to be taken into consideration and in liaison with the 13th of Genesis 22 to the end?
There are a lot of intricacies involved in the relationship between God and his foes of heaven, and it behooves us to read the Bible between the lines to fully grasp the rationale behind some of the things that have been said about these two extremes.
It wasn't surprising at all that a serpent was the one and only animal of all the animals of the earth handpicked by God to await the entry of the Satan in the Garden of Eden.
By definition, you know that is really sneaky, it will show you it is headed in one direction, when in reality, it's going on the opposite. And if you don't pay close attention, the next thing you know, you're being being wrapped up and it's about to bite you and inflict its venoms in you.
When God has cursed the serpent and has told the serpent that it will bite the descendant of Eve and that descendant will mess up its tail, was God talking literally here?
Luke 2: 34 gives you how many versions of the very same Jesus?
Two.
One by whom the world will be redeemed, and another one that will be the source of troubles.
Right or wrong?
Historically speaking is that true or false?
As we speak, in many parts of the world, that remains a source of confusion and troubles. Don't you know right now there are many who are being jailed, beaten, just for preaching the Gospel of Jesus?
Not because they don't know the laws of their respective countries forbid that, but they feel obligated to do so regardless of the consequences as Jesus recommend them to do.
In light of all that, what do you make of Luke 2:34?
And you can come up with a whole lot more examples and biblical references to show you how enigmatic or even problematic some of those sayings of Jesus are, and how they fly in the face of what God has previously said. I do hope we break from the practice of taking everything at the face value simply because it is said to have been from God without thinking them through.
The essence of the Garden of Eden isn't at all the notion of eating a fruit, since they are made for us to eat, but it's about Satan and his followers who are looking at every possible way to veer us away from the will of God. That's what the Garden of Eden entails, and if you broaden that, you can fit that in the context of the whole world from generation to generation until you get to the very end.
You can't sense that Jesus was all over the place, and wanting to con us into believing that he is God just to make us worship him?
If that wasn't the case, then it would have been senseless for God to have arranged an exchange between Jesus and Satan in Matthew 4.
When did the revelation of in John 1 was made?
Was it before, or after the resurrection of Jesus?
Why, in the context of the Bible, didn't Jesus make these revelations in John 1 prior to his death while he was in his ministry alongside of his disciples?
I am not a Greek scholar, but wouldn't the concept of the Hebrew word Elohim trump the Greek word Theos? So when reading Theos we should be looking at it through the Hebrew understanding of the word Elohim. From what I can tell the word Elohim just means "mighty one(s)", since it is used in many different places in different ways (Yahweh, Gen. 2:4-5; Deut. 4:35; The members of Yahweh’s council, Psa. 82:1, 6; Dieties of other nations, Judg. 11:24; 1 Kgs. 11:33; Demons, Deut. 32:17; the deceased Samuel, 1 Sam. 28:13; Angels or the Angel of Yahweh, Gen. 35:7).
I say all that to say. Jesus can be called the great God who died for us, but that still does not mean that Jesus is the Father. Wouldn't one think that Jesus would be a liar if he was the Father, but made a statement 'And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one [is] good, except one-God;'? (Luke 18:19)
Trinitarians don't think that Jesus is the Father. For Christians there is one God who subsists in 3 distinct persons-Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Second, Jesus did not deny being God in Luke 18:19. He telling the guy to think about his words. If God is the only person who is truely good and the the man is calling Jesus good, then who is Jesus?
Notice that when the man asked what he must do to inherent eternal life Jesus mentioned the laws that are directed toward fellow man but doesn't mention the laws directed to God. When the man says he had kept all the laws directed toward fellow man. Then Jesus tells him to keep the laws directed toward God by doing what? Following Jesus. So who is Jesus claiming to be?
Whew! I'm sure glad there are much easier passages to use in support of the divinity of Jesus. One of the rules of hermeneutics is to always allow clear passages to interpret unclear passages. Grasping at grammar like this is like trying to get traction in the snow. It can be done but it's a lot of work.
Php 2:6 - Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
I realize that our new Gnostic New Testaments have flipped that verse on its head but the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus says it the accepted way.
Hebrews 1:8 - But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.
God is saying that (the above) to the Son. Is Jesus God? Well, God seems to think He is. Remember that Hebrews 1 is distinguishing between Jesus and a mere angel. Don't let those Christ deniers get away with calling Jesus an angel.
It is my experience that all these Christ denying Jehovah's Witnesses are trying to do is win a debate. They are not sincerely pursuing God. At least none of the JWs I've ever met seem to be genuinely seeking God.
One problem with your presentation is that even if Jesus is called god in the two verses you reference, that no more establishes a Trinitarian understanding of God and Christ than does the fact that Moses was called “God to Pharaoh” at Ex. 7:1, and “god and king of the whole nation” by Philo, a monotheistic Jew, in On the Life of Moses I. The fact is that ancient Jewish monotheism was more like monolatry than like our modern, strict counterpart. Divine titles were applied to various agents of God in pretty much all forms of Jewish literature that existed around the time the biblical books were written, including the Bible itself, the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), Philo, and the Midrashim. In addition to the texts above about Moses, there is a midrash in which the Israelites at Sinai are called gods; depending on the translation one favors, human kings may have been called “O God” and “Mighty God” at Ps. 45 and Isa. 9; angels are called gods in a number of biblical texts, and in the DSS; the members of the Divine Council are called gods at Ps. 82; based on most reconstructions of the text of 11QMelch, Melchizedek wasn’t just called “God” but “your God” in a context in which the antecedent of “your” is the Jewish community. This text was found in the library at Qumran, which was probably owned by a sect of hyper-strict Essenes! He also had a YHWH or God (ELOHIM) text applied to him.
One often finds a strange disconnect in the writings of so many scholars and religious commentators in that while they often discuss the uncontroversial application of divine titles to agents of God in the Bible and in the literature of the period, they fail to recognize that it is precisely because Jesus is God’s agent - his cosmic power-of-attorney - that we find divine titles applied to him. Once we recognize (a) the flexible use of such divine titles in the biblical period among monotheistic Jews, and (b) the contexts in which such applications were considered appropriate, then we come to realize something we might not have expected: Not only is it not surprising to find divine titles applied to Jesus in the New Testament, but in light of his unique status as God’s agent par excellence, it would have been downright shocking had we found that such titles were NOT applied to him!
Except that Moses did not create all things that were created. Jesus was who created all that is created. That's a point you missed.
@@dooglitas Paul's use of Greek rules out the notion that the Son created all things.
Swiss Protestant theologian Emil Brunner and German theologian Eduard Lohse both clarified the result of Paul's careful use of prepositions:
Emil Brunner:
"…the world, it is true, was created through - διὰ - the Son, but not by - ὑπo - the Son, that it has been created in Him and unto Him, but that He Himself is never called the Creator.” (The Christian Doctrine of God), p. 308
Eduard Lohse:
"It should be noted that ἐν (in), διὰ (through), and εἰς (for) are used, but not ἐξ (from). ‘From whom are all things’ (ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα) is said of God in 1 Corinthians 8:6. He is and remains the creator, but the preexistent Christ is the mediator of creation." (A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, The Hermeneia Series), p. 50, footnote 125
Additionally, notice Paul's use of the passive ἐκτίσθη (were created) at Col. 1:16. All things were created in or through the Son by another, and if you begin with vs. 16 and follow the verses back to verse 12, you'll see that it is the Father who creates. This is consistent with Paul's careful use of prepositions noted above.
@@dooglitas Paul’s use of Greek prepositions rules out the notion that the Son was Creator. Swiss Protestant theologian Emil Brunner and German theologian Eduard Lohse both clarified the result of this careful use of prepositions by Paul:
Emil Brunner:
"…the world, it is true, was created through - διὰ - the Son, but not by - ὑπo - the Son, that it has been created in Him and unto Him, but that He Himself is never called the Creator.” (The Christian Doctrine of God), p. 308
Eduard Lohse:
"It should be noted that ἐν (in), διὰ (through), and εἰς (for) are used, but not ἐξ (from). ‘From whom are all things’ (ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα) is said of God in 1 Corinthians 8:6. He is and remains the creator, but the preexistent Christ is the mediator of creation." (A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, The Hermeneia Series), p. 50, footnote 125
Also, notice that at Col. 1:16, Paul used the passive ἐκτίσθη (were created), and if you follow the dialogue backwards from verse 16, you'll see who the creator is in verse 12, namely, God, the Father.
Man is body, soul, and spirit, per Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and in Hebrews 4:12.
Where is it mentioned on the bible that Jesus said "I am son of God"
Only someone hurting would want to respond in the way they did. I think if they’d see themselves on camera they’d see that they don’t look happy and they definitely don’t seem like they have peace. It’s heartbreaking. I pray the Lord softens their heart and grants them repentance
Jesus highly exalted has a God Revelation 3:12
@@scottgrey2877 I like that verse. I’m guessing you are assuming that by Jesus saying “my God” that he himself is not God?
I’ve heard someone say that if my son calls me the man of the house..that does not imply that he is somehow less man or human than me.
The trinity functions as an economy..meaning difference in function does not mean different in nature or that somehow the father is ontologically greater.
Jesus says things like the father is greater than I. Again..the CEO of my company is greater than me..but that does not mean he is a superior being than me..he’s human just as much as I am.
When you read that verse alone it absolutely would lead you in the direction you seem to be going in..that’s why it’s important to take in the full council of scripture..not to mention you have the help of so many great men who have come before you…don’t neglect church history and historical interpretation
@@SundayVibesmusic How can one God have a God?
@@SundayVibesmusic Jesus gets his power from God John 17:2 KJV Acts 2:22 KJV
@@scottgrey2877 is that not begging the question? You can ask how did God create something out of nothing? Or..was Jesus born of a virgin birth. To be able to answer every single question perfectly without any sense of mystery does seem to eliminate the realm of supernatural in place of the natural.
I believe your question again is answered in the traditional orthodox view of the Trinity.
Christ has more than 1 nature. Christ who is the Son of God has always existed coeternal with the father…however the “Son of God” has not always existed in the flesh in the form of who we know to be the historical Jesus. When Jesus was born this is when the Son of God took on a second nature..a human nature. The divine nature took on human nature. As a human Jesus was able to say things like “my god” because though he was God in the flesh he also was a human..he was just the perfect human. He lived perfectly in every way we could not. He gave us the perfect example of what we should strive to be.
If I’m hearing you correctly it seems you are struggling with the idea that “God” can be both Father, Son, and Spirit? Yet John 4:24 says God is spirit.
Would that not mean that God is not physical? It seems you are viewing God as only being able to be confined to one space at a time?..and yet the biblical God is not one that can be weighed..measured, or held. This God of the Bible is one who fills the whole earth. Such language does seem to be “contradictory”. How can God be “in heaven” yet also on earth…yet also be described as living in us? Yet this is all true based on scripture. Would you not agree? Yet when it comes to God living in the flesh as Jesus Christ it seems as though that is a stumbling block for you.
I know that this is one of the biggest mysteries to try to explain..however with scripture I believe that it actually helps add to the appreciation and worthiness of our God..we serve a God who is truly not like any other and we serve a God who is truly beyond our understanding…if He were not beyond our understanding he would not be God. I do believe although I’m not able to fully comprehend God..I pray that I was able to at least provide some sort of truth. About God based on what I can apprehend about God based on Scripture
Am not really interested in Sharps rule, all you need to show weather Jesus is God or not is the Bible and an understanding of Koine Greek..............................If Jesus is God then WHO was he praying to ? ......If Jesus is God then why did he say "I am going back to MY GOD and MY FATHER ? So WHO is the God of Jesus, and what is his name, when you find the answer to that question then you will see the TRUTH behind WHO God is !
Jesus backed up that belief when in prayer to his heavenly father said,...”"This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ. John 17: 3. Notice how he calls his father the ONLY TRUE GOD!
The first century Christians taught the same when they preached for example 1 Cor 15: 24-28 where we see in Vs 24 that Jesus has a GOD AND FATHER and that in Vs 28 he SUBJECTS himself to his God & Father!
SOME do say however, that Jesus does address God as his God and his father because he was A MAN however one of the clearest scripture which shows that Jesus is NOT God is Rev 3:12 where we see Jesus as NOT a man but back in heaven:
"The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name. New International Version
Rev 1:1 a revelation from Jesus which God gave him. See how it was God who gave the revelation to Jesus.
So WHO is the God Of Jesus, and what is his name ?
Its not clear from this whether you really understand the trinitarian position. We're not saying there are two beings, but two (actually three) persons - person and being are different concepts. I'm not seeing this understanding reflected in what you're saying here. Thanks for your comment!
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our Elohiym is “one Elohiym (God)”:
Deu 4:35 Unto thee it was showed, that thou might know that the LORD he is God (Elohiym); there is “none else” beside Him.
Who else said this? (This is repeated many times throughout the Word)
Carefully listen to what Yashua (Jesus) says “FIRST”:
The Great Commandment
Mar 12:28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is,
(It’s the Shema)
Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord (Elohiym):
Mar 12:30 And thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
Mar 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Mar 12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast SAID THE TRUTH: for THERE IS "ONE GOD" (The Father); and there is NONE OTHER BUT HE:
Yashua is testifying that there’s only one Elohiym! But here is another:
Yashua speaking: Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God (Elohiym), and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Can we find more scripture to back this up? YES!
1Ti 2:5 For there is “one God (Elohiym)”, and “one mediator” (The Son) between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but “GOD IS ONE”.
Eph 4:6 “ONE GOD” and Father OF ALL, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but “ONE GOD”, THE FATHER, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.(see also Eph 3:9)
Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for “ONE IS YOUR FATHER”, which is in heaven.
Our Elohiym created Yashua (Jesus) to be His “Partner in creation”:
Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship (means “Partnership”) of the mystery, which from the “BEGINNING OF THE WORLD” hath been hid in God (The Father), who created all things “by Jesus Christ”:
So who created “ALL THINGS”? The Father, our Elohiym
And who did the Father “create all things by"? Yashua (Jesus), His Son
What was one of the four titles Yashua (Jesus) calls Himself?
Yashua (Jesus) speaking:
Revelation 3:14: Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things says the Amen (1), the Faithful (2) and True Witness (3),
The BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD (4);
In the “Beginning” Light was created (Gen 1:3) 1st in time, place, and order
In the “Beginning” The Word was created (John 1:1) 1st in time, place, and order
That Light/Word is Yashua, The first day (Rev 3:14)! 1st in time, place, and order
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:9 That was the true Light (Yashua), which lights every man that comes into the world.
Nothing existed prior to the “Light” that was created on the First Day!
Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was (The “partnership” in Eph 3:9).
Second day - The firmament, Third day - The earth, plants, and trees, Fourth day - The sun, moon, and stars, Fifth day - birds, and fish…, Sixth day - man
There is no verse in the Bible that says that the Son was created.
@@BasicBiblicalTruth
"Beginning" means first in time, place, and order.
Here Jesus calls Himself 4 titles, and the last one is "The Beginning" of the Creation of God! He tells us Himself.
Rev. 3:14¶ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
John 17:3 Jesus says that the Father is the
"ONLY TRUE GOD"
John 17:3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee (The Father) THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
John 1:2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him (The Father); and
without him was not any thing made that was made.
"Which from the Beginning..."
Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship (partnership) of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
I can say back to you that no scripture says that Jesus is infinite, He is however "Everlasting", but He had a "BEGINNING", if you believe the Word.
@@ronevartt7537 Ron, "beginning" (αρχη) in Rev 3:14 means "ruler" or "originator." In the context Jesus is on the throne, which means he is ... ruling.
John 17:3 makes it clear that there is only one real God, all others are counterfeit. So when Thomas confessed Jesus as _his_ God (John 20:28) and Peter stated that Jesus is "our great God" (2Pe 1:1), they were either including Jesus within the identity of the one God or they had become polytheists.
John 1:2 - the beginning (αρχη) here is the beginning of all things (Gen 1:1). The fact that he was (ην) in the beginning with God (the Father; cf. v.18) means that the Word (Jesus) is eternal. The word "was" (ην) is indefinite, which means that whenever the beginning took place, the Word already was.
John 1:3 is speaking about all things being created by the Son (cf. Col 1:15-16; Heb 1:3, 10-12).
Eph 3:9 says, καὶ φωτίσαι [πάντας] τίς ἡ οἰκονομία τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ ἀποκεκρυμμένου ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων ἐν τῷ θεῷ τῷ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι, 'and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God, who created all things.'
Eph 3:9 is talking about the plan of God from eternity past to include the Gentiles. The word αρχη 'beginning' isn't used, nor is Jesus found in this verse.
My friend, there is no verses that say that the Son had a beginning. The Son is the uncreated creator of all things.
@@BasicBiblicalTruth
You said “Beginning” meant ruler or originator, but it doesn’t. Jesus was created to “Rule”, and be the partner with the Father (Eph 3:9), but “from the beginning”. The Father has no beginning, and as John states, “He (the Father) is the only creator (Jn 1:2), because the existence of “The Man Jesus” didn’t exist until after the statement that God (The Father) created all things. And as the Word says in Eph. 3:9 The Father created all things “By His Son”. Who created all things, the Father! By whom did He create all things? His Son.
“Beginning” in Rev. 3:14 is G746 From G756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concrete) chief (in various applications of order, time, place or rank): - beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.
“Beginning” is from G756 Middle voice of G757 (through the implication of precedence); to commence (in order of time): - rehearse from the) begin (-ning).
John 20:28 only shows he is “Supreme in Authority”, and a diety (The only begotten Son that was “given” all power and authority). He is the Way to the Father, but the Father is One. Jesus was born of His Father, sanctified by the Father, received all power and authority “from the Father”, The Father’s Spirit descended upon His Son, and I could go on and on… Read the Old Testament and how many times our Elohiym is said to be ONE. Jesus is definitely deity, but is not the infinite Father of all creation. Yes, I do know Jesus was one with His Father, but as it also says, “we’re to be one with the Father and His Son. Does it also not say, “We are gods”? Didn’t the Father send us His Spirit to have power and authority to do as His only begotten Son did?
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Jesus states that the Father is the “Only True God” in Jn. 17:3
“ONLY TRUE GOD”
ONLY - G3441 Probably from G3306; remaining, that is, sole or single; by implication mere: - alone, only, by themselves. TRUE - G228 From G227; truthful: - true. GOD - G2316 Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebraism very: - X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].
You are also trying to say the Father can’t create something “eternal” (The Son and His Word), but we too can be eternal and not have always been (Infinite). The Word is eternal, but not infinite, and was created for man’s loving instructions, and not for His instructions, in that He was already perfect in all ways.
Mark 12:28-32 shows that Jesus spoke the truth when He quoted The Shema, Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: as being the greatest commandment.
@@BasicBiblicalTruth
Salvation = Yashua (Jesus)
The Light and Life/Word of mankind was created by one, our Father, and this Light and Life were for His children. Light comes from one source, and we are to be a reflection of that Light, but could never be perfect as His Only Begotten Son was, Jesus was the only pure reflection of the Light to save all who will follow. I'm not here to argue, but always looking to the Word for Truth. Thanks for your response, and we know who is really the only true and wise Elohiym.
Could you make a video on why Hebrews 1:8 says "Thy throne, o God..." Instead of "God is thy throne..."?
Your throne is God or God is your throne are both completely correct because both throne and God have the article.
There in no obvious verb in this verse because it's understood to be a predicate nominative. Typically, the nominative noun is modified by the predicate noun. The subject will be the more definite noun of the 2 nominative nouns in this order: pronouns, articular nouns, articular proper names, and proper names with no articular.
Your throne oh God is an incorrect translation.
@@letthebiblespeak8250 The fact that there is no verb should 100% convince you that "Thy throne, o God..." is the correct translation. Regardless, this passage is quoted from the old testament, therefore the sentence structure should line up with the old Testament which by definition means the way I previously stated is correct
@@fireflames3639 it's quoted from the Septuagint. Research predicate nominative and you'll see the truth. Goodnight.
Both translations are grammatically possible, though "God is your throne" makes little sense.
As the NETBible states in their note on this verse, "This translation is quite doubtful, however, since (1) in the context the Son is being contrasted to the angels and is presented as far better than they. The imagery of God being the Son’s throne would seem to be of God being his authority. If so, in what sense could this _not_ be said of the angels? In what sense is the Son thus contrasted with the angels? (2) The μέν…δέ (men…de) construction that connects v. 7 with v. 8 clearly lays out this contrast: 'On the one hand, he says of the angels…on the other hand, he says of the Son.' Thus, although it is grammatically _possible_ that θεός (qeos) in v. 8 should be taken as a predicate nominative, the context and the correlative conjunctions are decidedly against it. Hebrews 1:8 is thus a strong affirmation of the deity of Christ."
@@kevinfromcanada4379 God is your throne means God is the seat of authority.
Human beings are spirit, soul and body. We too are a trinity, just like our Creator in whose image we were created.
Comparing the rule with its exceptions and limitations...
It in fact results in nothing more than this…
General guidelines are to be followed using the article…
Except when this fact is sufficiently determined by some other circumstance…
The principle of exception just stated… is perfectly reasonable, when from any other circumstance, it could be clearly understood that different persons or things are spoken than the insertion or omission of the article is a matter of indifference.
Normal use of the definite article is to add a the additional article when two distinct things are being spoken of.
However, sometimes it is just a clear background assumption that the A and the B are one and the same or the A and B are distinct from each other. In the case where the two are clearly distinct, there is no need to add the definite article. Greek has some similarities to English in this sense. There is a relationship being established but it doesn't necessarily deal with identity. For instance if you said: "I serve the King and ruler of this empire. It is understand that there are not two people. The second noun is descriptive of the first. But if I said: I am attending a special ceremony in which the King and Queen will be present. There is no ambiguity that two different people will be there. Now there certainly is a relationship being drawn. Both are present representing the Monarchy. So the Granville-sharpe rule is a clear attempt by a very outspoken Trinitarian, one who did not hide his theological bias, trying to read into the text assumptions that the greek grammar does not in itself provide for. This is not exegesis but eisegesis at its finest. And the rule was "invented" not discovered because scholars are straining existing greek grammatical constructions in attempt to prove a theory and then naming the rule which is flawed given the amount of exceptions that need to be cited.
And the Holy Spirit is God:
2 Samuel 23:2,3 The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue,
vs. 3 The God of Israel said, the rock of Israel spake to me….
Acts 5:3 Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit.
Vs. 4 He didn’t lie to men but to God.
The argument of Sharp is defended by Bishop Middleton in his Doctrine of the Greek Article. His rule is this: When two or more attributives, joined by a copulative or copulatives, are assumed of [relate to] the same person or thing, before the first attributive the article is inserted, before the remaining ones it is omitted.” The limitations and exceptions to the rule stated by him are as follows: I. There is no similar rule respecting “names of substances considered as substances.” Thus, we may say “the stone and gold,” without repeating the article before “gold,” though we speak of two different substances. The reason of this limitation of the rule is stated to be that “distinct real essences cannot be conceived to belong to the same thing;” or, in other words, that the same thing cannot be supposed to be two different substances. In this case, then, it appears that the article is not repeated, because its repetition is not necessary to prevent ambiguity.
So the question naturally arises whether theological belief shapes your approach to the rule. To the early Christian who converted from Judaism there was no ambiguity between God and his anointed, the Messiah. They were two different things. Also, Granville Sharp was an English philanthropist, who began to study the grammar of the New Testament in order to demonstrate that his Trinitarian beliefs were correct and that Christ was God. So Daryl, respectfully, it appears that you are endeavouring to do the same.
If anyone wants to understand Christianity from a "Mono-theistic" biblical point of view then I invite you to read: One God & One Lord: Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith, by John W Schoenheit and Mark Graeser.
Test Paul as a true apostle. Mat 5 17 20.
Thank you for taking time with that response. I do a good bit of old testament study and used to fo a good bit of 2nd temple Judaism study. With that said, I'm not a trinitarian, but I dnt think that's required to see that the new testament not only acknowledges Yeshua as God, but specifically as YHVH.
I would point out, that to claim there was no ambiguity between God and the messiah is on one hand slightly misleading, and on the other hand highly misleading. I don't think there's anyway to understand that statement as accurate with how you intended it. At minimum it was a debated topic based on a handful of old testament passages, and on the broader end of the scale the messiah is equated with the Angel of the LORD or possibly greater. There is zero doubt to me this is how John viewed him, zero on how Jesus presented himself in the Synoptics especially in the later chapters, and zero on how Paul understood him. I can't say Paul theologized it identical to John, but it's no less, that's for certain. Nor in Revelation.
Edit: I'd also point out Deuteronomy 6:4 doesn't clame we have one YHVH. It claims that YHVH IS one. This is not a statement of an individual, static number
@@garlandjones7709 Focus on what is Jesus view on the doctrine of God. He was a Jew.
@@brenosantana1458 with all due respect, I've been studying this off and for 8 years from both camps, and started learning Hebrew going on 5 years ago just so my theology was in line with how the nt writers understood the ot, and not developing my theology off of the new and reading it in backwards as most Christians have up until the last century or two.
You make the same mistake the last guy made in possibly a different manner by assuming that Jewish doctrine on this issue of God, or more specifically God and the messiah was concrete at that time. It wasn't. And it isn't today other than saying there's only one. But that's no different than a trinitarian would say.
Not sidestepping, nor intending to create a second topic here, but can you clarify your stance on Paul? Just for my own clarity of understanding your position. Not for arguing
@@brenosantana1458 Jesus I think was pretty clear on who he thought he was in Matthew 24 and matthew 26 and several other places prior hinted at in the gospels. And if anyone misses it, it's because they're slacking I. Their old testament reading
Thanks for the clarification. This is helpful
You're welcome!
Easy to find this rule, and, knowing some Greek, I will conclude that all the exceptions of not applying to plurals are just way too narrow this down to it can take just one passage that this rule fits, or maybe to where it’s a greeting and you’re making a greeting substantively create a second god within a Godhead. That’s not Greek that’s wishful thinking, pretending to be Creek grammar. Four if it was true, then it would have to fly to the plural, but you’re saying it isn’t true winner or plural. But why would that be? If one and one equals two and 2+2 = 4. That’s the only difference so why would a Greek Connect 170 to another substance is the same person, but not follow the same point when there’s two persons in each substantive. So don’t you see this was made up just to fit a verse or two where there’s a greeting or a reference to just Jesus and the god harmlessly, with no intent to Beiley, God’s most sacred principal there’s only one God? And so you are teaching people to violate the most sacred command of God there’s only one God, and violate Jesus is most in Fattic statement and John, 17 1 to 3 on the basis of a species rule? Do you know, God will judge every teacher, whether we talk country to God’s word. And nothing could be more country to God’s word into Jesus, his own statements, and what you’re teaching. I suggest you simply say this is obviously a rule concocted to fit one verse, or maybe two to make only those two versus subject in this role, but any other verse that we disprove that is already discounted by making up a special rule the plurals don’t count.
Brother If you believe jesus was Messiah then his teachings should never contradict Old testament . Isaih 47 and exodus 20 Makes it very clear that God is one.
At the end God will not guide everyone guidance depends on our own deeds. But remember anyone who believes in Trinity Or worship god other than creator of heavens and earth He will have no share in paradise and his enjoyment is only in the life of this world.
God is one. This is not in debate in this video. Your comment about those who believe in the trinity is entirely unfounded though. Thanks for watching!
Your source is 2 Peter and Paul writing? 2 Peter is not from Peter. Paul dosent fulfill requirements to be a authority of Jesus words.
Whatever.
Immanuel =God with us (Isaiah)
Agape =Everything in One Word It is not to be more like God,following the Christ,to be the branches of the vine is not just following his Commands or example is to deny ourselves and carry the Holy Spirit ,not become like Him but to be a vessel of Him.
The term is Agape because it's all the Faith in one Word.
In Corinthians 1:13 is Agape not just love or Charity ,includes love and Charity and the Law and the Prophets (The Greatest Commandenend and the second),the Body that describes Paul in Corinthians and the different roles of each member of the Body in Unity,it's Union with God not like God or with God.
The Early Church,it's Agape feasts not love feasts or Charity feasts all in One Word,it's not God is love,God is Agape,not just the kind of love to know the difference,Agape is the Faith and the Bible the Gospel both faith and actions everything in One Word.
The Eastern Orthodox Apostolic Church has these teachings though Tradition Directly from the Early Church (and the ancient Greek language is the language the New Testament was written) the Christ in Revelation says I AM Alpha and Omega, Omega means:Oh Mega (Mega as Great as in the Great I AM),the first and the last letter of the Greek Alphabet.
Agape is the Word IS God ,the Trinity of the Godhead of the Body of God on Earth,Connected by the Holy Spirit all members in one accord,all connected to the Vine in action that is the True Church and the Church of Philadelphia in Revelation (Philadelphia means loving the brother literally) and this why when one member hurts all the Body hurts,thus the Church,thus our Husband,thus the Bridegroom thus God,thus when we do good or bad to anyone we do it to Christ we do it to it to God thus don't sin and greave the Holy Spirit (God) thus servants and God's children thus hated and percecuted thus wherebtwo or three in His Name is Church and this is why Faith without Works is dead (we don't do the Works it is not us it's the Holy Spirit).
This is why is so important.
A Corinthians is so important.
Please read the link Agape is Everything in One Word,God ...doesn't speak a language?The Word of God ?
Immanuel (God with us).
Even the Apostles in Pentecost were speaking other languages when they got the Holy Spirit it's not up to any discussion.
The translation of the name as Jesus comes from the Ancient Greek Iésous 2.000 years now directly from the Apostles and the Early Church Tradition and this tradition gave the Bible the New Testament was written in Ancient Greek coming from this Apostolic Tradition and was translated in English.
And Ancient Greek was that time what English is to today world ,universal.
The term Agape is Universal and universal to Christianity and was translated as just Love or Charity when it's all the Faith.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape
Alpha and Omega (Revelation) are the first and the last letter of the Greek Alphabet (of course Alpha originates to Aleph but the Hebrew last letter is Tav and means Truth mentioned in Genesis ) but to Omega of the Ancient Greek.
(Mentioned in Revelation)
John 14:20
At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than He that is in the world. 1John 4:4 KJV
We walk in the Spirit and by the Will of God,not the mind and the Discernment of the Spirit of God,He tells us right from wrong it's not the Three of Knowledge but the Tree of Life.
Matthew 7:8
For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
But does Granville use the Orange Catholic Bible?
Sharp’s rule isn’t a rule and is rejected by many Greek scholars.
Including the greatest Greek grammar expert of all time.
Jesus is God
The appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior/the Father/ is Jesus christ
Here Jesus is not being refered as God and savior rather the apearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour/The father/ ,who is one person/.
Jesus is the glory of God the father .When he appear our great God and Saviour / the father will appear.
If there is a theological and grammatical possibility of interpretating this text without breaking your rule why don't you consider it and atlist try to refute it?
I think you are doing something dishonesty .It is unusual in paulian theology to call Jesus our great God and Saviour which makes your interpretation problematic if there is a single possibility of interepreting this verse otherwise
Again, you are not defining your position. This is just word salad. What does it mean to say Jesus is the "appearing of the glory of God"? Just word salad. Besides, the text does not say Jesus is the "appearing" of God. It says that we look forward to the appearing of the great God and our savior. What is appearing is "the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ." There is nothing problematic in what Dr. Daryl B. is saying. What is problematic is your own comment.
Vicariously I discovered the truth, in me what I perceive and what I do it is apparent, to me that I choose destiny of the construct of this duality, I find myself in the shadow of the hand of the most high I'm an arrow with his quiver 2 are 1 full of the light that's right!""" we all humans are but of two mind spirit, which houses the soul ,the mind that which belongs to know, and you understanding ,the pain" and the joy "!that we live in life "move on and grow, understanding in this we defeat our foes, like a river Face like a river strong May continuously flow, understanding of this truth so to know, is the spark! of divine when in us who that universal truth" #1 in him I am I am "received "when I understand ,the relativity" corresponds to his majesty Yeshua master of time conqueror of death, I realize I am not fear , knowing I am fine comforted, on the spirit of his truth that is in me. may it be found in you ,because the construct of understanding ,the synergy I'm just undoubted unwavering fact, I'll rise to ascend cuz that one is already laid down for me and risen himself up again that I only have to rise. cuz the one that's in me E⚡ equals MC squar🔯2😑📶↔👀🔯🌀🌐 like the universe Within I spiral all through Serpentine Parma .I begin and find . Life comes then wisdom Tree of Life! over the tree of knowledge wormwood. To his ashes and dismay it will not again conveyed after its day never to rise again only smoke which cannot be transmuted nightly disrupted by his own construction of its end of its consistency of disobedience in fruit of the spirit I grow ,happily in his wisdom that which comforts me of his spirit of the Kingdom that's in me and in the end he. knows me as kinship of the spirit and may the Covenant of his truth. that understanding realizing Sublime fact""" not one of his words his precious words shall not lack any. only and his wisdom that brings true knowledge. of the truth people understanding to not coincide with their ignorance causing the only to inferior perdition, constructive infection single-minded design. Bases of the universe and always standing and Falls properties just as Fusion from a star and accelerated light travels finite Mass the , finite Mass it's dark matter the platform that gives glory to the light for it is the platform with light stands on and all this brilliance, light photon particles are made up of that of antimatter just like them human minds tries to accelerate in understanding if not accepting truth it cannot come understanding of the spiritual, counterpart of the truth that the basis of the universe ,constructed if it cannot accept the truth you'll find yourself cast It Down cast it out like the enemy it would be casted away and judged of the one"" who spoke it they will never find themselves in their heart standing in the truth how can they ever come in contact with the. induction to its counterpart accelerate mass and finite to Event Horizon to relativity, in the spaces Within transform on the fire with it Purge from the ignorance from the mud I have transcended mud to the ashes Ashes to the chaff and my soul rises again ever more so found as choice silver transform into gold, and the furnace of his righteousness that light that heat ,for the love grace and mercy is that light that fire and Heat I am that I am, and knowing death has its place and I do not underline myself with it know my soul grows in the truth and may every day it because of my spirit I'm duly noted this for sure spiral not out of contro,l finding that Dharma not plagued by the cave or perdition of karma, in its perjury I find not myself fow , but only one persistent to grow and understanding A know,A Cure spiraling transmuting spiraling words talking into like energy on the platform of finite Mass to the ears if they Allure .taking the tour that I am not mistaken by the subtleness conthittled not by no means.!!!!! 58 to the induction of its counterpart 58 exclaimed the radius of Pi 29 to induction 29 coordinates the Stargate acceleration a synergy and confusion like radiation drove to the star to its plasma so does finite Mass charge to this conclusion constructive is relativity antimatter speed of light constructivist induction to his counterpart related acceleration of all energy in the universe and that one part moves finite Mass instead of moving through I'm moving around me placement of tachyon moving event Horizons around me to the pantheon that I Break On Through 115 intensity positive acceleration too that's one understanding is this nothing passes 116 to that Photon core because that one understanding is this one and one and six equals 8 cognit continuous consistency event Horizons on a particles accelerator of this place spoken by the divine the universe we move around we go Nova but not to pass away or stray but we bring the understanding of this Pantheon it's to this core ever spiraling of infinity surrounded by the finite Mass of that lightning plasma intensity I am baptized in the Lake of Fire and I'm raised up again purified because of the one who is divinity eternity Perfection of all symmetry611 1st will be the last Yeshua 8🌀8 yoshua Stone 7 eyes 🔯116 eternity begins with him that one and is end I am that I am says this. In you let this understanding begin.you.Well done in your vicarious and curiously astute, nothing promiscuous only straightforwardness of your primordial example, and validation and your deluge I say!! it was much in this dubious as people are you, inquisitively most validated assertion of the facts, hearken to ears must hear ,to cut chords off indeed circumcision umbilical unconventional biblical of the pigeon that is religion that defecates in the rooftop of all thinking , for Spirit fills souls to the brim, are the souls filled with the hollows of whim & sin , for the light of them if be within they only have to rise ascend , not sync to the abyss because of the truth they missed but if they not be found in them he's found where they are to be as hey hey above So Below the truth Within . Where do they begin and end ? The master Yeshua reaches out from the inside pip pip good day to you and a good night be right so the soul filled with the spirit truth take flight.👈 You said:" to antimatter particles at the speed of light crashing into each other surpassing the light energy all SpaceTime planets was created accelerated by this finite acceleration from the first reaction element 115 UPENTIUM radius of Pi 29 induction of 29 29 is 58 induction 58 and 58 116 first to be the last last me the first six and two ones and six is eight eight representative Infinity sign the core of our universe Infinity would look like a rainbow which is a core of our universe we're all finite Mass is balanced every Star that ever went over Event Horizon accelerated this Mass connected to this core for all energy is accelerated heated and placed back throughout the Universe through relativity the lines between those spaces which is the pantheon Event Horizon surpass the energy greater than that the light travels on light being the fastest on this platform you have the energy greater you can manipulate correlate accelerate that finite Mass around you instead of traveling to it you move it around you when you think UFOs do aerial phenomenon vehicles some of these beings are good serffronm's cherubims well within a will cuz Israel had sinned against Yahweh that's why he said to Ezekiel on your knees son of man I will speak to you from sending you to a rebellious house to Israel Yahweh ahead and pull back his presence from the temple so you didn't lay judgment to the Earth cuz the one people on Earth that had a covenant with and angered until he had to ride and the covering wing of a saffron will and will and the rims were high and terrible and their wings touched on all sides and eyes all around about them and their hands were tucked out of their wings that's how they control the crap plates and thought acceleration of light being transferred this information to have wires let me sort of fiber optic cables came in I think the government was able to hurdle down the hollow ones it's for a living creatures standing in the presence of Yahweh they were even able to hurdle down these Hollow ones Tesla's weapon of laser that he created in 1935 he demonstrated the World's Fair he died 1938 and the CIA obtained that his prescriptions they tried to prescribe during World War II he made a bigger version of it and his craft are made in a plasma field from a different round different place world the reason why anything is of the Earth take off that shoes Moses for the place you stand on his holy cuz the enemy has been cast here and better than the Earth on the asteroid Satan and his demons is Legions were Bound in the crust of the Earth the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil yeah Samuel 1:16 now awesome
Why am I not surprised that a trinitarian uses the wrong catholic-pronunciation for Greek?
I enjoyed this. Good job.
Thanks for watching!
If the basis of Christianity which is "Jesus being God or not" is confusing to even Christians, then it is not a religion
EWTN Bible
1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.
2 Peter 1:1-2 RSV-CE
EWTN Bible
11 For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men,
12 training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world,
13 awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.
15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.
Titus 2:11-15 RSV-CE
This is just yet another example of willful Trinitarian eisegesis, the faulty practice of imagining something into the text which is not there by an act of their own will, something which the text, nor the context, ever suggests. It does not take much thought by anyone to realize this claim is as empty as a drunkard's bottle-formulated philosophy add to by men But for some odd reason, there seems to be many Trinitarians who just don't seem to be able to see their obvious error concerning this particular claim.Titus 2:13. The facts show that "our great God and Savior" in this verse is the Father. Not Yahushua-the-human-agent-of-Yahuwah. Shaliah
שָלִיחַ · (shaliach) and ; שׇׁלוּחַ · (shaluach), both of which mean "one who is sent". The person whom the agent is representing is known as the meshaleach ( ; מְשַׁלֵּחַ · ) Not God the Father who sent him!
There was no "imagining" going on here. Saying so does not make it so.
"The facts show that "our great God and Savior" in this verse is the Father. Not Yahushua-the-human-agent-of-Yahuwah"
The facts show nothing of the kind. The complete sentence is "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." It seems pretty clear. Jesus is the eternal Creator of all things. That makes Him God.
@@dooglitas The facts show that "our great God AND Savior" in this verse is the Father. and the son TWO separate PERSONS as you TRINIES like to use And your lack of Torah and Law of agency as his Yahushua-the-human-agent-of-Yahuwah" is clearly taught not a Trinity!
@@Zipfreer What facts? You're just saying stuff. Calling us "Trinies" is an irrelevant trick, using insults instead of actual biblical exegesis. The word "Father" does not appear in Titus 2:13 or anywhere in the entire chapter. You are just blathering. You use the phrase "Law of agency." No idea what you are talking about. I believe this is a phrase that Unitarians have come up with. It is not in the Bible. Do you actually have any real facts? All you are doing is making assertions and insults. Assertions are not facts. Did you even watch this video? I doubt you did. You're just another hunter-troll.
@@dooglitas @dooglitas Proskyneo: The word proskyneo simply means "to bow down before," or to prostrate one's self before another in the sense that one is acknowledge his low estate as compared to the high estate of the person he is bowing down before. It is a gesture of submission to a higher authority. This Greek word does not come packed with the constellation of religious ideas that we have with the English word "worship."
Latreuo. This Greek word is still not exactly the same as the English word "worship" but it is much closer and usually denotes religious worship. It carries the idea of serving a higher authority in a religious or spiritual sense. While this word also does not itself connotate service to a divine being, the concept of serving a divine being is indeed usually implied.
When we have all the facts before us the truth is plain to see. People all over the Bible are bowing down before higher authorities who are not God. The Israelites were not allowed to bow down before other gods since doing so would be a gesture that they were submitting to the authority of these gods and not to Yahweh their God, a jealous God. And when we come to the New Testament, we find people appropriately bowing down before the higher authority Jesus because he is the King of Israel and because he is the Son of God Most High. He was royalty and humans bow down before royalty, their King, and rightly so. God has appointed all authorities in heaven and on earth. And when the man Jesus is resurrected and ascends to the very throne of God, all creation is subject to him. We are told this resurrected man is above all other authority and rule with all the angels subject to him. Indeed, we are told that God made him "Lord" in his resurrection (Acts 2:30-36) and have given him all this authority (Matthew 28:18) having sat down at the right hand of God until he puts all his enemies under his feet. The Trinitarian claim is a farce.
John uses the greek word 'edento' when describing the 'word' when coming to earth. He did NOT use 'Hieroprepes' which means 'becoming', that is 'fitting' ' pleasant' e.t.c. Paul uses the same 'edento' at 1 Cor 15:45. "The first man (Adam BECAME a living soul ( greek psyki) the last Adam a life giving spirit". Thus just as Adam was a total human person a 'soul'. No part of him was anywhere else! So that when John said "The Word BECAME flesh" we must accept what it means! That is that the heavanly Spirit Son of God actually BECAME, totally, fully a perfect human being, nothing more or less. His 'Soul' was not still in heavan as a '2nd part of a so called 'trinity'! Hence Paul states "Though he was rich, he BECAME ( edento) poor for our sakes" ( 2 Cor 8:9) The fact Jesus asked the Father to "Glorify me with the GLORY I HAD" ( John17;1,2) proves the point.
I don’t think the granvile sharp rule was what the inspired writer used Jesus is not God if you want any help watch jws film he gos on to explain just like John 1 v 1 c is divine or a god
*[Almighty God Appoints other gods]*
Just because someone bears the title *"GOD,"* this does not make them *worthy of being worshipped!*
Worship belongs to Almighty God The Father alone, Jehovah (Yahweh).
🚩 *Angels are gods*
🛑 So, if Almighty God appoints angels as *gods* in Hebrew & Greek Texts (Old & New Testament), are they *"false" gods?* 🤔
*[Authorized King James Version]*
• *Job 1:6; 2:1* - Angels are called *sons of God*
*[Heb: benehʹha·ʼElo·himʹ ]*
• *Psalm 8:5[a]* - For thou *[Almighty God]* hast made him *[Jesus]* a little lower than the angels *ʼ(elo·himʹ* /🚩 *gods;*
LXX Greek Septuagint)
• *Hebrews 2:9[a]* - But we see *Jesus,* who was *made a little lower than the angels*
*[Reference]*
*Lexicon for Latin Vulgate translation of the Holy Bible*
(1958), page 51, page 134:
*Angels are called:*
• *(individual) divine beings*
• *gods* 🚩
• *"the (single) gods*
🚩 *Humans are called gods*
• *Exodus 7:1 (KJV)* - GOD [Yahweh / Jehovah] appoints Moses as *[a] god* over Pharaoh (KJV)
▪︎ *Was Moses a false god? 🤔 No!*
▪︎ *Was Moses "Almighty God?" 🤔 No!*
• *Psalm 82:1* - *God* stands in the divine convention, pronounces judgment *in the midst of "gods."*
*Were these False Gods?* 🤔
*(This verse refers to "GOD" ruling over the Israelite Leaders)*
• *Psalm 82:6* - I have said, *‘You are gods,* All of you are sons of the Most High. *(same here)*
• *John 10:34* - Jesus answered them:
*“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’?*
*(Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 to the Jewish Leaders)
~~~~~~~~~
*[What Does "GOD" Mean?]*
The Hebrew word *'El* [In English- God] is a TITLE (not a name)...
It denotes "might & strength" *[Mighty One or Strong One]*
~~~~~~~
🚩 *JESUS / Mighty God* 🚩
*The Real Truth About "Mighty God"*
*[Isaiah 9:6]*
It is true that at Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is prophetically referred to as *"Mighty God" (Hebrew, ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ).* So is the Father in some texts....
Yet, no where in scripture is Jesus ever referred to as *God Almighty (Hebrew ʼEl Shad·daiʹ)* as in Gen. 17:1) This title *ONLY* applies to the Father *(YHWH: Yahweh or *Jehovah in English
).*
In linguistics and grammar words have functions.
Linguistics will show every part that make a word.
By itself, a word is meaningless.
There must be an agreed and common lexicon.
There must be a context which may be a word to phrases, chapters long!
The functions of words and their meanings are DERIVED.
"In the beginning God created the ..."
This states the time of reference. We cannot go beyond that time.
It also locates God in the beginning!
And that He created what we call Earth and Life!
"God breathed in man's nostril and then he became a living soul"
Functions: noun, verb, preposition, anexo, article, adjectives.
Who acted? God breathed.
Where? In man's nostril.
So God had created Man with a nostril design for respiration.
What resulted? Man became a living soul.
That implies that he wasn't alive though he had a body!
So by God's action we are here alive!
"Let us make man in our image and likeness"
Who spoke? God.
To whom? The text does not state. Yet we invent!
"in our image"
Didn't God formed man from the ground? Wasn't he an image then?
By the way, does a spirit has an image a visible form?
God is Spirit!
Didn't Jesus have a body?
Was his body that of human?
"Our likeness"?
What does not mean? Behaviors? Intelligence? Five senses?
"Abraham in you shall all the earth be blest"
That was a promise to Abraham.
The Jews believe that they are blest because they are in the bosom of Abraham.
God blessing Abraham meant a blessing of his offspring o descendants even yet unborn.
They see Abraham as 'father Abraham'!
The Son of God got his name by which he was called and referred to only after his birth!
So Jesus was born both the Son of God(spirit) and of Mary(human).
We do not precede our bodies. Do o we?
Where in the Bible does it states that God had a Son aparte from the Begotten Son born to Mary?
Jesus is a part of Mary as he came from her loins, her flesh.
A husband and wife.
Doesn't the Bible say that they'll become 'one flesh'?
But are they literally 'one flesh'?
Didn't Christ pray for our unity that it may the unity of he and His Father?
The Father is in him; and he in the Father?
When we accept Jesus, we die to Sin and we made alive in him because he lives in us or quickens us.
None of these mean that we are literally one organism!
We still possess our uniqueness and individuality. We are a reflection and 'image' of God!
"Christ in the Father, Christ in us"
Jesus is in more than one person plus in himself?
"Father, why have you forsaken me!"
What did Jesus mean?
That he ceased to be God? Or was he found outside of God?
If so, where was he?
Or was he crying in lament of a literal disppear, physical agony?
What sorry he bore for our sins!
If there are there persons in one being what is it aspect? How does it look?
How many heads? Which is ruler?
God is not devided! There's still One God!
Who is Jesus Father?
The Holy Spirit of God or God Himself?
For the virgin was with a child conceived of the Spirit!
So, is the Spirit the Father?
God is Spirit.
Or maybe Jesus is his own father with his mother?
Is that what the Trinity desires?
It already exalts Mary as the 'mother of God '!
Jesus taught reverence and obedience to the Father.
And he identified this Father as his and 'Our Father'!
It's prudent to follow Jesus!
He's now Mediator between two persons -God and man.
The Father sent His Spirit to lead us and guide us to Him!
Delegating to the Son doesn't mean ceasing to be Father!
Didn't God glorify His Son!
Believe in One God who sent us His Son Jesus: and His Holy Spirit to be our Comforter does not make less any of them!
It only helps us to the Greatness of God, His Salvation and Care for us!
Making 3 into 1 is like not respecting the One!
24:00 You're using the opinion of another to validate your opinion.
I have listened to linguistics but they never tried to 'steer' my biblical beliefs.
Rather, they help me speak the languages that I speak. I've never studied Greek.
Also, your method is not the way teach a foreign language!
In English grammar words have functions.
Their context give their meanings.
Also, our reality helps us to understand.
God sent His Son implies that God is Father. The same Father to whom Jesus prayed and taught us to say *Our Father..."!
The Son of God was promised! That's the Word of God!
It was the Spirit that came on Mary when she became pregnant with a child.
So, shouldn't be the Spirit the Father of Jesus?
Ah! Remember, God is a Spirit.
Trying to pin down or confine God to persons is a dishonor and lack of the Greatness of God.
God has not beginning nor end.
Note. Alpha & omega are the Greek characters which represent the first and last character.
"I'm Alpha and Omega " is descriptive.
In linguistics, words have functions.
Nouns are what name people, things, animals, objects, and ideas!
To qualify these nouns we use adjectives; and certain adverbs functioning like adjectives.
Articles are indicatave adjectives.
God sent obj- means from God came the object.
God sent His Son.
Son - establishes a relation to the parent - Father.
Father - the one who engender the son
His - is a possessive adjective indicating to whom the Song belongs to.
Thank you, my Brother.
You are very welcome
Amazing is that Jesus holds the glory of God. The glory of God appears when Jesus returns, but Jesus remains Jesus and Gods son, and God, the God and father of Jesus remains only true God as claimed by Jesus in John 17,3. this „amazing“ Granville Sharp rule is only twisting truth and confusing in this case Titus 2:13 Jesus with God…..
"The righteousness of God" Is Jesus .The writer is saying the righteousness of God and Savior not God and saviour.Jesus is both the righteousness of God and saviour simply .Jesus is not God and Saviour but the righteousness of God and Saviour
Great job! Mormons believe Jesus is a God, not THE God. JW says Jesus is not God. Tertullian in the 2nd century coined the term Trinity for God in 3 persons.
I am a trinitarian but I do have to admit it is hard to accept savior Jesus Christ is not a name but Lord Jesus Christ is a name. It sounds like making special exceptions so this rule will work.
God cannot dwell with men on earth he cannot be made lower than the angels
I understand. But we just don’t see (even today). People generally referring to Jesus as “Savior Jesus” like we do “Jesus Christ” or “the Lord Jesus.” We refer to “the savior” and then append “Jesus” but the “Jesus” is simply to define what we mean by “savior.” Thanks for your comment!
So Christ is technically a title not a name. It means anointed, from Chrio meaning to rub. This rubbing was done when oil was poured on the head of someone being anointed for a mission or purpose. Messiah carries a similar meaning. mâshı̂yach is anointed one. These are titles in the truest sense.
@@scottgrey2877 so you’re saying, God cannot come to earth if he chooses. I choose not to limit God.
@@deanlangenfeld495 you obviously don’t understand the rule. Literally every place in the Bible that has the words in the order that the Granville Sharpe refers to follows that rule without question. It’s only in this one way that it’s uncomfortable for Unitarians. Most of the places where the gravel sharp rule is applied has nothing to do with deity at all.
Yeshua , I pray you remove all confusion and deception for the minds of our brothers and sisters that all may call onto you and accept you as their savior ! Hear my prayer Yeshua , heed my prayer Yeshua in your most blessed name in your father's blessed name Yahusha and the Holy Spirit ! Amen ! 😇
People would understand better if they knew what WORDS meant. Father is Source & Jesus was man with God's Word inside. So when Jesus prayed to The Father it was His Word talking to His source. Fire & Light! You can not separate Him
Paul often commences his letters with the blessing "May God the Father and the Lord jesus Christ...et.c". It is totally twisting the scriptures to assume he is speaking of ONE person! How do we Know? Because several times he concludes with "To the glory of God the Father" ( ie Phil 2:11) or distinguishes between Father & Son by saying "Blessed be the God AND FATHER OF our Lord Jesus Christ" ( Eph 1:3. 2 Cor 1:3 ). Its quite clear from all Paul's writings he seperated The Father from the Son, always indicating the Father's superiority! ( 1 Cor 11:3. 1 Cor 15:28 )
So do you not believe that the Bible doesn't teach that the Sons of God are god's and that those same Sons of God that are angels are never referred to as gods. It all over the Bible. The Bible shows that there are lesser gods (Sons of God)(angels) that can act as God(father) or the Father speaks through them. Using them to speak to people.
Thanks for your comment! In the Old Testament the term "sons of God" refers without fail to angels. But that doesn't mean that the term in the New Testament used in the singular with reference to Jesus means that Jesus is an angel. The church has always rejected the idea that Jesus was an angel.
@@bma John 10 :34 he is being accused of although being a man make yourself God or a god. He answered with Psalms 82, Jehovah says that you are god's referring to the Sons of God, and he says are you saying it's blasphemy because I am God's Son. So Jesus is defending the fact that he was a god, being the Son of God. The Jews just either didn't understand and ignored his claim because they didn't believe he was the Messiah.
So Jesus called himself a god like the other Sons of God are by using that text to defend the charge of being God or a god. I imagine majority Bible say God.
Are you saying that his defense is no good because they called him a singular god and he answered with a plural gods. There other times in the Bible that Angels in the singular are called a god. Please elaborate one the idea that Jesus doesn't use the singular to describe him being a god.
@@bma 1st Thessalonians 4 :16 . because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.
The Lord as an Archangel because he has an Archangel voice. He is a chief Angel so that makes him different from the other Sons of God that are angels ,but and Angel none the less.
Colossians 2:9 seems pretty irrefutable
@@deanlangenfeld495 would you mind correcting your sentence structure and clarifying what you are trying to say for my edification?
@@deanlangenfeld495 in Christ is not in my translation either. We're you responding to someone else?
I will call myself a trinitarian once we agree that God is not all knowing (Matthew 24:36)
Great breakdown!
Three prsons is polytheism no matter how you slice it. The Johannine Comma says "and these three are ONE", not "and these three are THREE"!
No. It is perfectly consistent to say that God is one being yet three distinct persons who are all equally God, that can function in a monotheistic context perfectly there’s no contradiction. Yes I don’t find the evidence for John 5:7 to be sufficient, that doesn’t mean the trinity is false though there’s plenty of other places within scripture to support the doctrine of the trinity.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Three persons is polytheism. Period.
@@vishyswa no polytheism is the view that there’s more than one God, trinitarian do not believe there is more than one God they believe there is one God in three persons. You do not understand the doctrine of the trinity at all if you think it’s polytheism.
Also you you failed to see the distinction between being in person being is what you are a person is who you are.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Do you even understand the definition of person?
@@vishyswa Yes person describes your individualism and who you are, being an substance describe what you are. Now do you understand the definition of a polytheist? Polytheism is the view that there is more than one God, you’re getting Tritheism and trinitarianism mixed up Trinitarian‘s believe that there is one God, the mode of personhood describe the individualism of the persons within the Godhead not the being or substance they are equal in substance and nature.
Christ being separate from and subordinate to God, as well as being finite (the beginning and the end) does not destroy the intrinsic nature of love in God. It in fact solidifies it because He GAVE HIs only begotten Son out of love for the world. That Word was declared in the beginning (was with God and WAS God), the Word that embodies God's love (the message that rides on the ruach or pneuma, the breath of God which will not return to Him void). In fact, it goes on even further than that. If one truly believes in the love of God they would understand what "as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" means (ie; that everything on the earth and under the earth will bow to Christ). This is the power of the love of God, that all of creation longs for love, love that only extends from Him, THOUGH His Son, BY His holy Spirit. Classical, Nicean Trinitarianism is wrong. It fears the all-encompassing power of the love of God which extends even to the lowest hell.
"The love of God is greater far
Than tongue or pen can ever tell
It goes beyond the highest star
And reaches to the lowest hell
The guilty pair, bowed down with care
God gave His Son to win
His erring child He reconciled
And pardoned from his sin
Could we with ink the ocean fill
And were the skies of parchment made
Were every stalk on earth a quill
And every man a scribe by trade
To write the love of God above
Would drain the ocean dry
Nor could the scroll contain the whole
Though stretched from sky to sky
Hallelujah
O love of God, how rich and pure!
How measureless and strong!
It shall forevermore endure
The saints' and angels' song"
Niceanism presents a corrupted Christ and Gospel. Arianism and Universal Reconciliation represent the true Christ and the true Gospel.
Yes, as you said, union. Union through covenant. A Word. A Word that was declared in the beginning as a covenant with all of creation (because God can swear by no one but Himself). Christ is God because God exalted His Son to the name of above all names to the glory of the Father. Christ is worthy to be called God because He is the heir of God (just as the Bible says we are also heirs of God in Christ). He is no more God than we are because we are said to be heirs of Christ. That doesn't make me Christ. We will sit on Christ's throne with Him, but that doesn't make any of us Christ. In other words, God is more a station or position in relation to Christ, but as a person (or more accurately spirit) in the Father. We are said to be the body of Christ ("the hands and feet of Jesus") and this is the ministry of reconciliation, that each will come to God in their own order, and Christ will turn to the Father, who will be all in all.
"Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death... And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all."
The Father has ordered everyone to worship His Son as God because His Son demonstrated His love for the world perfectly. This is the ministry of reconciliation, that no one should come to the Father but THROUGH His Son and BY His holy Spirit. No one has seen God at any time, but the Son has made Him known.
Thanks for your comment. I haven't read all of it (there are a crazy number of comments on this video already), but here is my initial thoughts: First, you're not really dealing with the GS rule here so this is an attempt to defend Arianism. If Jesus is finite, then he had a beginning, If he had a beginning, then you have God alone in eternity without relationship, and thus without a basis for relational concepts such as love, faithfulness, subordination, etc. to exist. This means those concepts are dependent on creation to exist OR it means that God changes and is not immutable. This implies that either God's character or His being is dependant on creation, which should be obvious cannot stand. You have to have relational character prior to creation for God's character to be behind passages like John 3:16 and behind salvation.
@Master Biblical Languages If God is love then all the characteristics that extend from love come from Him. Love is not dependent on creation to exist. It is dependent on God and exists as a part of His character eternally just as wisdom exists as a part of His character eternally. We wouldn't say that wisdom is dependent on relationship since who is there to consider Him wise? Since God can swear by no one but Himself this is perfectly reasonable. God can be "alone" and create out of love (actually if God is eternal and emcompasses everything before creation then He is not technically alone. He just is.). Who is anyone to say otherwise? He is God. He is love. One might say that God created us BECAUSE He loves. He gave us free will BECAUSE He loves. He allowed us to option to sin BECAUSE He loves, because He doesn't want automatons. He wants us to choose Him out of love. No, He doesn't depend on our love, but He does require it for our own salvation, not out of tyranny but due to the fact that creation was made in love, depends on love and yearns intrinsically to be near to Him out of love (upward worship). His Son demonstrated this love by obedience to His command to come to Earth, preach the Gospel and die for our sins so that we can come near to God THROUGH Him. That's what John 3:16 is speaking about. We wouldn't come to a king through his right hand advisor and say that his advisor is equal to the king, not unless the king *told* us to treat his advisor as they would treat him.
An understanding of the nature of the Trinity is not a hard concept and it is no "mystery." The eternality of three persons in one God *is* a mystery. It was a compromise by the early ecumenical Catholic Church (which really started to exert its influence during Constantine's time) to make the gnostic and pagan-influenced Christians happy. That doctrine was created out of political motivations. Yet, there is a Trinity in the *position* or *station* of God. See Tertuallian:
He who delivered up the kingdom, and He to whom is delivered up-and in like manner, He who subjected all things, and He whom they were subjected-must necessarily be different Beings.
The Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, just as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He who sends is one, and He who is sent is another, and again, He who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.
That which has come forth out of God [the Father] is at once God [deity] and the Son of God, and the two [Father and Son] are one… *He [the Son] is made a second in manner of existence-in position, not in nature* . And He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth [from the Father].
Tertullian, C. AD 200, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol 3, pages 34, 600, 604
What I'm saying is not unique among the early church fathers. Here are a few examples of how they expounded upon some of the Bible verses I was pulling from in my previous comment: (I'll have to break this up since RUclips has limits on comments)
@@bma But as for me, who derive the Son from no other source but from the substance of the Father, and (represent Him) as doing nothing without the Father’s will, and as having received all power from the Father, how can I be possibly destroying the Monarchy from the faith, when I preserve it in the Son just as it was committed to Him by the Father?
The same remark (I wish also to be formally) made by me with respect to the third degree in the Godhead, because I believe the Spirit to proceed from no other source than from the Father through the Son. Look to it then, that it be not *you rather who are destroying the Monarchy, when you overthrow the arrangement and dispensation of it* , which has been constituted in just as many names as it has pleased God to employ.
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 4, c. AD 200
But since they will have the Two to be but One, so that the Father shall be deemed to be the same as the Son, it is only right that the whole question respecting the Son should be examined, as to whether He exists, and who He is and the mode of His existence. Thus shall the truth itself secure its own sanction from the Scriptures, and the interpretations which guard them. There are some who allege that even Genesis opens thus in Hebrew: In the beginning God made for Himself a Son. As there is no ground for this, I am led to other arguments derived from God's own dispensation, in which He existed before the creation of the world, up to *the GENERATION of the Son* . For before all things God was alone - being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself.
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 5, c. AD 200
If, again, he alleges His own word when He said, “I and the Father are one,” let him attend to the fact, and understand that He did not say, “I and the Father am one,” but are one. For the word are is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power. He has Himself made this clear, when He spoke to His Father concerning the disciples, The glory which You gave me I have given them; * *that they may be one, even as we are one* * : I in them, and You in me, that they may be made perfect in one; that the world may know that You have sent me. What have the Noetians to say to these things? Are all one body in respect of substance, or is it that we become one in the power and disposition of * *unity of mind* * ? In the same manner the Son, who was sent and was not known of those who are in the world, confessed that He was in the Father in power and disposition. For the Son is the one mind of the Father. We who have the Father's mind believe so (in Him); but they who have it not have denied the Son. And if, again, they choose to allege the fact that Philip inquired about the Father, saying, Show us the Father, and it suffices us, to whom the Lord made answer in these terms: “Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip? He that has seen me has seen the Father. Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?” and if they choose to maintain that their dogma is ratified by this passage, as if He owned Himself to be the Father, let them know that it is decidedly against them, and that they are confuted by this very word. For though Christ had spoken of Himself, and showed Himself among all as the Son, they had not yet recognized Him to be such, neither had they been able to apprehend or contemplate His real power. And Philip, not having been able to receive this, as far as it was possible to see it, requested to behold the Father. To whom then the Lord said, “Philip, have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me? He that has seen me has seen the Father.” By which He means, “If you have seen me, you may know the Father through me.” For through the image, which is like (the original), the Father is made readily known. But if you have not known the image, which is the Son, how do you seek to see the Father? And that this is the case is made clear by the rest of the chapter, which signifies that the Son who has been set forth was sent from the Father, and goes to the Father.
Hippolytus, Against Noetus, 205 AD
Writing to the Corinthians, [Paul] said, “I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. Therefore, neither is he that plants anything, not he that waters, but God who gives the increase. Now he that plants and he that waters are one (1 Corinthians 3:6-8)” And who does not perceive that Apollos is one person and Paul another, and that Apollos and Paul are not one and the same person…? Apollos indeed is one, and Paul another, so far as respects the distinction of persons, yet as far as respects their agreement both are “one.”
Novatian, AD 235, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, pages 637-638
@@bma You will say, then, to me: “You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise?” Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, * *being His own mind and thought* * .
But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” showing that at first *God was alone, and the Word in Him* . Then he says, “The Word * *was* * God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence.” The Word, then, being God, and being naturally * *produced from God* * , whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.
Theophilus to Autolycus. Book II. Chapter XXII.-Why God is Said to Have Walked.
"For he speaks to this effect: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'" and "...'Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' And by this He showed, that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. *For the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested.* The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this truth."
Hippolytus (c. 170-236 AD), Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Ch 14.
There are many more examples of the Son being separate from, subordinate to the Father, as well as explanations of "begotten" meaning born in the sense of generation from the Father. Also remember that any Latin translations from the original Greek could well have been corrupted. The Catholic Church, for example, commissioned Rufinus to rewrite Origen's works to support the Nicean definition of the Trinity. His original Greek writings were Arian in nature. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find enough examples to outweigh the Arian views of the earliest church fathers. The Bible agrees with them.
@@bma Sorry to reply with so much text. I hope it's not coming across as overly zealous. I mean it all in a civil manner. I also wanted to apologize for not addressing the GS rule. I feel it is a superfluous detail in the face of surmounting evidence. Grammar is important, but the big picture of what the Bible and the early church fathers paints a much clearer picture to me.