Is the Trinitarian view point correct based on this passage-Titus 2:13?

by I_love_Jeff 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • I_love_Jeff

    Titus 2:13- " while we wait for the blessed hope-the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, "

    The part in question lies at the end of the passage "...of our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,"

    *Granville Sharp's rule-when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person.

    This, as far as I know, has been an ongoing argument among Trinitarians and non trinitarians for a very long time. I would love to hear your take on it. Any strong arguments for or against? Thank you.

    Many non Trinitarians have stated that Sharp's rule is absolute rubbish BUT with no proof to actually disprove the rule. I find this passage quite interesting for obvious reasons-Is God three persons or one?

    Greg Stafford points out the prepositions BUT did not explain in detail how this grammatical arraingment ("of") came about. Where did the preps. come from? Were they purposely added or is that arraingment found in ancient texts?. Any thoughts, please.

  • PSacramento

    The Trinity, whatever you may think of it, is a doctrien about the NATURE of Christ ( and The father and the HS of course) and it simply states that The Father, Son and HS all ahre the same NATURE.

    It is not explict in any passage of the NT, but is certainly implicti in many.

    IN a nutshell, whatis begotten is of the same nature as what it was begotten from, hince Christ has the same nature as His Father and , If His father is God, then CHrist is God.

  • Emery

    I agree with PSacramento.

    I've learned an easy way towards explaining the trinity to a JW using the illustration of the Watchtower trinity.

    Faithful and discreet slave + Jesus = Jehovah, minus the FDS and add the Holy Spirit.

    Also, it is amazing the amount of Old Testament scriptures which only apply to YWHW being used and applied to Jesus in the New Testament.

  • PSacramento

    The most obvious comments for Jesus divinity are in the GOJ, Colossians, Philippians and Hebrews.

    They are equate Jesus with God in regards to His nature.

    As muchas JW's can try to argue those passages, simply put they comment that Jesus and His Father share the same divine nature and ONLY they do that.

    Colossians 1:15-20

    New American Standard Bible (NASB)

    15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

    Philippians 2:5-11

    New American Standard Bible (NASB)

    5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

    Hebrews 1

    New American Standard Bible (NASB)

    God’s Final Word in His Son

    1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.

  • Christ Alone
    Christ Alone

    I agree with PSac. We don't even need the Sharp's rule to declare that Jesus has the same nature (God) as the Father. The scriptures that refer to this directly are sufficient.

    But here is a JW apologist website that attempts to dismantle the Sharp's rule.

    Interestingly his article begins by saying that the WTS's research is usually much superior to all else. Hahahaha

    It looks like his main argument is that the "rule" does not hold true in other passages, and shows that these other passages are refering to 2 separate people instead of one, which would "violate" this rule. The article is frustrating in that it uses loaded terms and questions, and it argues much like a mind controlled JW would argue. However, he does have some valid points. But, like I said, this is of no consequence since the nature of Jesus is so clearly stated in many other scriptures. 1Peter is just a supporting verse that seems to refer to Jesus as "God". Whether it specifically does or not, I'm not sure. I haven't researched this "rule" enough to make a decision.

    Looking at several other sites that are attempting to disprove this rule, it seems that they are all anti trinitarian and are trying to make a point about the trinity or lack therof, rather than investigate the "rule" to see if it is a grammatical absolute.

    Here is an interesting answer to those that deny that the "rule" is absolute. It shows that the rule has many exceptions, but on 1Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13, the rule is valid.

  • Ding
    Where did the preps. come from? Were they purposely added or is that arraingment found in ancient texts?

    The prepositions come from the use of the genitive case in Greek.

    ... tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon Iesou Christou

    tou is the definite article... the ou ending indicates the genitive case, which is where we get the preposition "of" in English

    The Greek uses the genitive case throughout the verse.

    The question is whether when translating to English, it should be rendered with one "of" (one person) or two (two persons)

    Granville Sharp's rule says that since there is only one definite article, it's one person being referred to and should be rendered" "of our great God and savior Jesus Christ..." (one person), NOT "of our great God and of our savior Jesus Christ" (two persons).

    A similar situation occurs in 1 Thessalonians 1:3, where one definite article is used: "in the presence of our God and Father..." If two definite articles had been used, the translation would have been, "in the presence of God and of our Father," indicating two persons.

    Note the different usages within two verses -- 2 Peter 1:1-2: "1... by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: [Verse 1 uses just one definite article so NASB translates this verse as referring to one person] 2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord." [Verse 2 uses two definite articles so NASB translates this verse as referring to two persons... "of God and of Jesus..."] Reference to the Father would therefore be implied in the use of "God" as a separate person from Jesus our Lord.

  • PSacramento

    I am sure that Leolaia can clear this up for you guys, linguistics is her specialty.

    There is no single passage that can validate or invalidate the Trinity doctrine.

    The only people that have issues with the Trinity doctrine arte those that tend to think it means that The Father and The Son are the same person.

    They tend to think that God is the "name" of The father and Jesu being God make shim His Father.

    The trinity says nothing of that.

    It states that Jesus is of the same NATURE as The Father, hence God and that the HS is God's spirit (hence God).

  • Pterist

    JW have been thought that the isogesis theology of the Bibical "Trinity" is "Modalism" !

    It's all to do with the NATURE of God, the same "STUFF" exists in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Our universe And ALL creation (different stuff) is FROM the FATHER, THROUGH the Son, by the Power of the Holy Spirit, in whom both Father and Son can be present. Whereas Modalism is ONE person, manifesting in different forms.

    A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing !

  • The Searcher
    The Searcher

    I always thought that the Athanasian Creed stated that "the three are co-equal and co-eternal".

    Have I got that wrong - that they are simply of the same "nature", as the angels would be also?

  • problemaddict

    I am not sure Sharp's rule is much of a rule at all. Most trinitarian exegesis begins witht he premise that the Trinity is true and works from there. JW's guilty of the same thing. I went through a phase when i thought there might be something to it. The basic trinitarian non-heretical doctrine has evolved around this consideration of "nature". Something along the lines of we all here on this board share a nature that is human. So while we are separate people, we are all human.

    I get it, but it isn't in my humble opinion analgous. As long as God knows something that his son does not, there is no Christian Trinity.

    Wether it is neccesary to believe that in order to be accepted by God, only people on both sides of the issue have beef with it. I personally think that considering scripture, exactly what was expected for us to have understood is exactly what was said. The explanation was condecended down to terms we could understand. Father and son. I understand exactly what that is.

    If you want more info on Sharps, I think that Stafford third book has more on it.

    Anyone know what happened to that guy? Where he is now? His site is basically dead.

Share this