Our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

[MisterE]

Our God and Savior, Jesus Christ
See Titus 2.13, cf. 2 Peter 1.1



Two of the shortest books of the New Testament contain similar - and very strong - affirmations of Jesus Christ as God. In his epistle to Titus, the apostle Paul states that Christians "wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13).



The equally short epistle of 2 Peter opens by describing its readers as "those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (1:1). Both of these texts describe Jesus using the two titles God and Savior. Not everyone agrees that these verses call Jesus "God" One cult, for example, translates Titus 2:13 "of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus" and 2 Peter 1:1 "of our God and [the] Savior Jesus Christ" (NWT). The bracketed insertions of the word ‘the’ make a significant difference. Read these verses without the bracketed insertions - especially 2 Peter 1:1 - and they sound like they are referring to Jesus as both God and the pronoun appears.)



When this construction occurs in ancient Greek using singular personal nouns that are not proper names (that is, nouns like father, Lord, king, not Jesus, Peter, or Paul), the two nouns refer to the same person. The first writer to analyze this construction in a formal way did so in the late eighteenth century. He was an English Christian abolitionist named Granville Sharp; for that reason, the analysis of this construction is commonly known as Granville Sharp's rule. The New Testament contains plenty of examples supporting Sharp's rule. The epistles of Paul, for example, refer to "our God and Father" (Gal. 1:4; Phil. 4:20; 1 Thess. 1:3; 3:11, 13) and "the God and Father" (Rom. 15:6; 1 Cor. 15:24), which certainly refer to one person by both titles God and Father. There are numerous additional examples, many of little or no theological import.



The evidence that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 call Jesus God goes beyond Sharp's rule. In Titus, the expression "our Savior" (soteros hemon) occurs six times. In five of those six occurrences, the article "the" (tou) immediately precedes "our Savior" (1:3, 4; 2:10; 3:4, 6); the one exception is Titus 2:13. The obvious and only good explanation for this variation is that "our Savior" is governed by the same article that governs "great God." Another piece of evidence in the context of Titus 2:13 is Paul's use of the word epiphaneia ("appearing”).



Another piece of evidence in the context of Titus 2:13 is Paul's use of the word epiphaneia ("appearing,”) from which we derive the word epiphany. In the Bible this word occurs only in Paul's writings, mostly in the Pastoral Epistles (2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13), and always referring to the appearing of Jesus Christ, unless Titus 2:13 is the sole exception. The close parallel between Titus 2:13 and 2 Timothy 1:10 ("the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus") effectively rules out the possibility that Titus 2:13 is an exception. So when Paul says that Christians are awaiting "the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13), we can be sure that the one who will be "appearing" will indeed be Jesus Christ.



Several factors cumulatively offer strong support for understanding "Jesus Christ" to be identifying "our great God and Savior," not "the glory," in Titus 2:13.

1. "Our great God and Savior" is immediately adjacent to "Jesus Christ."

2. It would be odd to speak of the appearing of God's glory and not mean that the one who is appearing is God.

3. Paul never refers to Jesus as God's "glory" (2 Cor. 4:4, 6).

4. All other things being equal, a personal designation like "our great God and Savior" is more likely to be identified as a person ("Jesus Christ") than is an abstraction ("the glory").

5. Elsewhere in the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus), whenever Paul uses the word epiphaneia ("appearing"), it refers to the manifestation of Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8), not of an abstract quality (“the glory”) related to God or Christ.

6. In as many as twelve out of eighteen times in his epistles that Paul uses the term "the glory" in the genitive case (tes doxes), it likely functions as a descriptive modifier of the preceding noun (Rom. 8:21; 9:23; Col. 1:11, 27; 1 Tim. 1:11; Titus 2:13). English translations often express this usage by the rendering "glorious." Thus, Titus 2:13 maybe better translated "the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ."

7. Paul immediately follows his reference to Jesus Christ by speaking of his accomplishments for our salvation (Titus 2:14), confirming that in this context Jesus Christ is "our Savior."

8. The pattern of Paul's references to "our Savior" in Titus - three references to "God our Savior" each followed closely by a reference to Jesus Christ as "our Savior" (1:3, 4; 2:10, 13; 3:4, 6) - is disrupted if 2:13 does not refer to Jesus Christ as Savior.



The epistle of 2 Peter, then, opens by affirming that Jesus Christ is "our God and Savior." It closes, appropriately, with a doxology of praise to Jesus Christ: "But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen" (2 Peter 3:18). The verbal parallels in those opening and closing verses between "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" and "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," as well as the concluding doxology directing eternal glory to Jesus Christ, are stunningly clear affirmations that Jesus Christ is indeed our Lord and our God.

 

[miamited]

So, if I'm at a gathering and I present my wife and my son standing next to her, to someone as my wife and son, they are both the same? I'm just not completely sure that the word 'and' means 'the same thing'. What if both of these claims are saying that we will see our God, the God who lives, and Son, the one who died for our sins.

You're confident that this statement:

wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13).

cannot be telling us that we will see the manifestation of two beings of the God head. Our great God, and Savior, Jesus Christ. (btw keep in mind that the comma you see and read in that statement isn't in the original copies that we have. Such punctuation has been placed there by the translator's will and design.)

The reason I ask is that there are quite a lot of places where we do see some distinction between the two. the clearest, I think, is in the opening words of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. John writes to us:

The revelation from Jesus Christ,

which God gave him

That doesn't tell us that God is separate from Jesus and that God gave this revelation to Jesus to show unto his servants?

Then we read Paul's salutation to the saints in 1 Corinthians:

Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Paul seems to open all of his writings to the various churches in like manner.
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.
And finally, one of the biggest sticking points for me is that the Scriptures teach us that Jesus died for our sins. But the Scriptures also teach us that God cannot die. So, there has to be some kind of difference between 'who' Jesus is and 'who' God is according to my reprobate thinking. I've long been satisfied with understanding Jesus as God has clearly defined him to us, "This is my Son...". And to understand God as Jesus seems to have often clearly defined Him, "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."
Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”
Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have found your deeds unfinished in the sight of my God.
“If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.
And:
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
And God's testimony is that no one can see him and live, and yet, an entire nation saw Jesus and they all lived until their worldly deaths.
So, I'm not confident that the Scriptures do teach that God and Jesus are one and the same. I believe that God is the Father, the Creator of all that is. I believe that Jesus is His Son who was sent to give his life as a ransom for all who would believe in him and then be blessed of the Father to receive the Father's promise of eternal life. That does not discount 'who' Jesus is. He is our Savior. Our redeemer. The one who died that we might know and be forgiven by God. Isaiah described Jesus as God's servant. Even Jesus, through the writings of David in the Psalms says, "you made me believe in you from my birth."
It is not my intention to discount or discredit who Jesus is to us, but I'm also not sure that the Scriptures are clear about this Jesus is God teaching, either. I'm good with God is the Father and Jesus is His Son. That seems to be clearly taught throughout the Scriptures. Do not go beyond what is written.

 

[Free]

So, if I'm at a gathering and I present my wife and my son standing next to her, to someone as my wife and son, they are both the same? I'm just not completely sure that the word 'and' means 'the same thing'.

"And" can refer to someone or something additional or it can refer to, as in the instance in question, two titles that apply to the same person. It's context dependent. We know that your wife and son are not the same person. What you're really saying is, "this is my wife and this is my son." If you said, "this is my wife and love of my life," then that's ambiguous--it could refer only to your wife, or it could refer to your wife and your son.

What if both of these claims are saying that we will see our God, the God who lives, and Son, the one who died for our sins.

It's possible, but it's also possible that it's all a reference to the Son.

You're confident that this statement:

cannot be telling us that we will see the manifestation of two beings of the God head.

It wouldn't be telling us that anyway from a Trinitarian perspective, since there is only one being that is God. There is reason for confidence, as I'll show below.

Our great God, and Savior, Jesus Christ. (btw keep in mind that the comma you see and read in that statement isn't in the original copies that we have. Such punctuation has been placed there by the translator's will and design.)

Tit 2:13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

great [the] God and Savior Jesus Christ
tou megalou theou kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou

And this is what we see from Peter:

2Pe 1:11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

[the] Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
tou kuriou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou

2Pe 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.

[the] Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
tou kuriou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou

2Pe 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

[the] Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
tou kuriou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou

Note the grammar is the exact same in each and that in each instance it is speaking of one person.

1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

the God and Father
ho theos kai patēr

2Pe 3:2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles,

[the] Lord and Savior
tou kuriou kai sōtēros

Clearly these are also speaking of one person.

Now this:

2Pe 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

[the] God and Savior Jesus Christ
tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou

While the precise meaning is debated, note that the grammar is exactly the same as the previous verses. This strongly suggests it is speaking of one person, not two. It would be different if it said, "of our God and of our Saviour." It is not reasonable to understand the previous verses as speaking of one person, but this verse as speaking of two. There are no grammatical grounds for doing so.

(All ESV.)

The reason I ask is that there are quite a lot of places where we do see some distinction between the two. the clearest, I think, is in the opening words of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. John writes to us:

The revelation from Jesus Christ,

which God gave him

That doesn't tell us that God is separate from Jesus and that God gave this revelation to Jesus to show unto his servants?

It depends. The term "God" is most often used of only the Father in the NT, but not exclusively. The distinction between the Father and the Son (and Holy Spirit) must always be maintained, because although they share the same divine nature, they are distinct persons.

 

[Free]

Then we read Paul's salutation to the saints in 1 Corinthians:

Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Paul seems to open all of his writings to the various churches in like manner.
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

Paul also wrote the following:

1Co 8:4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.”
1Co 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

While this is possibly Paul's expansion of the Shema (Deut. 6:4), notice verse 6. There are two logical arguments that can be made. First, if "one God, the Father" precludes Jesus from being God, then it necessarily follows that "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from being Lord. Yet that would contradict what Paul writes in many passages, such as 1 Tim. 6:15. It would also contradict numerous other passages in the NT, such as Luke 10:21.

Second, if "of whom are all things" speaks of the Father's absolute existence and his nature as God, then it necessarily follows that "by whom are all things" speaks of the Son's absolute existence and nature as God. We cannot say that in relation to the Father "all things" means absolutely everything that has come into existence but that it means something different in relation to the Son.

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.
And finally, one of the biggest sticking points for me is that the Scriptures teach us that Jesus died for our sins.

It also says that God purchased the Church with "his own blood":

Act 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. (ESV)

Was it Jesus who shed his blood or was it God? Or, was it both? Jesus was both truly God and truly man, hence he could die.

But the Scriptures also teach us that God cannot die. So, there has to be some kind of difference between 'who' Jesus is and 'who' God is according to my reprobate thinking. I've long been satisfied with understanding Jesus as God has clearly defined him to us, "This is my Son...". And to understand God as Jesus seems to have often clearly defined Him, "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."
Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”
Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have found your deeds unfinished in the sight of my God.
“If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.
And:
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
And God's testimony is that no one can see him and live, and yet, an entire nation saw Jesus and they all lived until their worldly deaths.

No one can see God as he is and live. He is pure light and holiness, we are not. However, Jesus is God incarnate, both God and man. That is far different than seeing God as he truly is. Phil. 2:5-8 are key here:

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

There is much that can be said on these four verses, but the main point is that of the example of the humility of Jesus which believers are to follow. There is no possible greater example that could be conceived than that of the Son, being God in nature, humbling himself by taking on the form of one of his creatures, to die the death they deserved.

So, I'm not confident that the Scriptures do teach that God and Jesus are one and the same. I believe that God is the Father, the Creator of all that is.

It depends on what you mean by "God," which is a title, not a name. If you mean "the Father," then no, they are absolutely not one and the same. But, if you mean that Jesus is also truly God in nature, truly divine, just as the Father is God, then that would be true.

I believe that Jesus is His Son who was sent to give his life as a ransom for all who would believe in him and then be blessed of the Father to receive the Father's promise of eternal life. That does not discount 'who' Jesus is. He is our Savior. Our redeemer. The one who died that we might know and be forgiven by God. Isaiah described Jesus as God's servant. Even Jesus, through the writings of David in the Psalms says, "you made me believe in you from my birth."
It is not my intention to discount or discredit who Jesus is to us, but I'm also not sure that the Scriptures are clear about this Jesus is God teaching, either. I'm good with God is the Father and Jesus is His Son. That seems to be clearly taught throughout the Scriptures.

Those things are taught, but none of those preclude Jesus from also being God in nature. In fact, the Jews clearly understood that Jesus's claim to be the Son of God was a claim of equality with the Father (John 5:18; 10:31-36). We also know that sons are always of the same nature as their fathers; it cannot be otherwise.

Do not go beyond what is written.

And avoid the equal but opposite error of not giving the full revelation of what is written.

The writer of Hebrews has the Father saying that the Son is Yahweh, in 1:10-12. Paul equates confessing Jesus is Lord for salvation with calling on the name of Yahweh for salvation (Rom. 10-9-13; cf. Joel 2:32). We have John saying that the Son is the preincarnate Word, without whom not one thing came into being (John 1:1-3, 10; Luke 22:70-71). This is reiterated by Paul (1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2). It means that the Son must necessarily have always existed.

Jesus repeatedly states that he came from heaven, having existed prior to his being born (John 3:13; 6:32-58; 8:23, 58; 12:46; 16:27-28; 17:5, 25). It's why it was repeated by others (John 1:1-3, 10, 30; 3:31; 13:3; 16:30; 2 Cor. 8:9). The same titles of God (Deut. 10:17; Psa. 136:3; Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12; 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 1:8; 21:6) are applied to Jesus (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 17:14; 19:16; 22:13).

There is much more that can be said, but that is more than sufficient to show that the Son has always existed, yet he isn't Father, and this despite there only being one God. That's what we need to make sense of (along with the Holy Spirit).

 

[miamited]

"And" can refer to someone or something additional or it can refer to, as in the instance in question, two titles that apply to the same person.

Hi Free

So, let me get this straight. You agree that the connective word 'and' can mean two that are different and two that are the same. But you proclaim that in this case it means to infer two that are the same. On what grammatical basis are you able to make that claim? is there some contextual sign that you are reading that causes you to believe that of the two possibilities, the one that you are proclaiming is the right one?

It's possible, but it's also possible that it's all a reference to the Son.

Again, you agree that my claim is possible, but you deny that it's possible in this case. And I ask again, on what basis of grammatical construct are you able to make that claim? I mean, so far you've agreed with all I've written, but based on apparently nothing other than your say so, my position cannot be correct. I'm just asking that you show that, of the two options that you agree are there, why your understanding is the correct one?

For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Yes, as Jesus told Pilate, he is Lord of a kingdom. We know from the Scriptures that he is Lord and Savior of an eternal kingdom. I don't see what that says about Jesus being God. And, in the end, also according to the Scriptures, Jesus is going to hand over his kingdom to the Father, the one true and living God and Creator of all that exists.

Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

Yes, Jesus is our Lord and Savior. I think that's made clear in a number of places in the Scriptures. But again, that says nothing concerning the separation of 'who' God is and 'who' Jesus is. Even Paul writes repeatedly in his salutations of our God and our Lord and Savior Jesus.

Anyway, I've read your responses and they're all pretty much following the same reasoning of your understanding that, without any evidence to support your understanding that your understanding is correct. As one who practices my formal worship of God with a baptist association of the 'church', I deal with this fairly regularly. It is a very strong teaching among baptists that this Jesus is God is a clear teaching of the Scriptures. For me, I don't find it to be clear. So, I'm going with what God and Jesus both say about each other. God is the Father and Jesus is the Son.

And to be quite honest with you, I find that the reference I made of the words of Jesus in speaking to us of how he speaks of 'my God' and seems to clearly teach that God gave him the testimony that he gave unto John, that God and Jesus are not the same entity. But they are a clear part of the trinitarian concept of God. That there are three who have worked to provide mankind a way of salvation from the condemnation for our sin. One is God the Father. The other is Jesus the Son. And finally the Holy Spirit that binds all believers together that we all be one.

 

[Free]

Hi Free

So, let me get this straight. You agree that the connective word 'and' can mean two that are different and two that are the same. But you proclaim that in this case it means to infer two that are the same. On what grammatical basis are you able to make that claim? is there some contextual sign that you are reading that causes you to believe that of the two possibilities, the one that you are proclaiming is the right one?

Again, you agree that my claim is possible, but you deny that it's possible in this case. And I ask again, on what basis of grammatical construct are you able to make that claim? I mean, so far you've agreed with all I've written, but based on apparently nothing other than your say so, my position cannot be correct. I'm just asking that you show that, of the two options that you agree are there, why your understanding is the correct one?

If you would have read my first post more closely, you would have clearly seen the grammatical and contextual bases. Here is the relevant part again, with highlights to (hopefully) make the grammatical point more clear:

Tit 2:13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

great [the] God and Savior Jesus Christ
tou megalou theou kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou

And this is what we see from Peter:

2Pe 1:11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

[the] Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
tou kuriou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou

2Pe 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.

[the] Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
tou kuriou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou

2Pe 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

[the] Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
tou kuriou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou

Note the grammar is the exact same in each and that in each instance it is speaking of one person.

1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

the God and Father
ho theos kai patēr

2Pe 3:2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles,

the Lord and Savior
tou kuriou kai sōtēros

Clearly these are also speaking of one person.

Now this:

2Pe 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

[the] God and Savior Jesus Christ
tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou

While the precise meaning is debated, note that the grammar is exactly the same as the previous verses. There is one article ("the") for "God and Savior," not two articles ("the God and the Savior"). This strongly suggests it is speaking of one person, not two. It would be different if it said, "of our God and of our Saviour." It is not reasonable to understand the previous verses as speaking of one person, but this verse as speaking of two. There are no grammatical grounds for doing so.

(All ESV.)

Yes, as Jesus told Pilate, he is Lord of a kingdom. We know from the Scriptures that he is Lord and Savior of an eternal kingdom. I don't see what that says about Jesus being God. And, in the end, also according to the Scriptures, Jesus is going to hand over his kingdom to the Father, the one true and living God and Creator of all that exists.

You missed the point, which was to show the grammar that you are asking for.

Yes, Jesus is our Lord and Savior. I think that's made clear in a number of places in the Scriptures. But again, that says nothing concerning the separation of 'who' God is and 'who' Jesus is.

You missed the point, which was to show the grammar that you are asking for.

Even Paul writes repeatedly in his salutations of our God and our Lord and Savior Jesus.

Which, again, does not preclude Jesus from also being God in nature. As I stated, the NT uses "God" mostly in reference to the Father. Hence, Paul continually keeps the Father and Son distinct, while never denying that Jesus is also God in nature. In fact, he explicitly makes the case that he is, as I have shown (Rom. 10:9-13; 1 Cor. 8:6; Phil. 2:6-8; Col. 1:16-17).

Anyway, I've read your responses and they're all pretty much following the same reasoning of your understanding that, without any evidence to support your understanding that your understanding is correct.

Then you didn't really read my responses closely, as I gave much evidence and sound reasoning based on that evidence. Is there a reason you don't want to address any of it?

As one who practices my formal worship of God with a baptist association of the 'church', I deal with this fairly regularly. It is a very strong teaching among baptists that this Jesus is God is a clear teaching of the Scriptures.

Because it is clear and biblical, which isn't to say that it is fully comprehensible and very easy to understand.

For me, I don't find it to be clear. So, I'm going with what God and Jesus both say about each other. God is the Father and Jesus is the Son.

Do you know of a son that isn't of the exact same nature as his father? I would like to hear of it, as I have yet to have anyone give an example. What about the passage I gave in which the Father says the Son is Yahweh (Heb. 1:10-12)? If you really want to go "with what God and Jesus both say about each other," then that is one that you need to take into account.

And to be quite honest with you, I find that the reference I made of the words of Jesus in speaking to us of how he speaks of 'my God' and seems to clearly teach that God gave him the testimony that he gave unto John, that God and Jesus are not the same entity.

The Father and the Son are not the same person, but they are both God. Of course, we could look at John's claims that "God is love" (1 John 4:8, 16), by which it becomes necessary for more than one person to exist as God (while maintaining monotheism). That is, it is impossible for God to actually be love, that love is intrinsic to his nature, if there isn't an object of that love. If only the Father existed for all "eternity past," then love is only potential for him, meaning it cannot actually be intrinsic to his nature and he needed to create the Son in order for love to become actualized.

But they are a clear part of the trinitarian concept of God. That there are three who have worked to provide mankind a way of salvation from the condemnation for our sin. One is God the Father. The other is Jesus the Son. And finally the Holy Spirit that binds all believers together that we all be one.

It isn't just that the three persons are involved in the plan of salvation and redemption of creation, it's that all three were involved in the creation of everything that has ever been created. It necessarily follows that the Son and the Spirit must be God in nature, since only God is necessary being and everything else is contingent. If Jesus isn't also God in nature, then John 1:1-3, 10, 8:58, 1 Cor. 8:6, Phil. 2:8-6; Col. 1:16-17, Heb. 1:2, 10-12, and numerous other verses are utterly false. It would make Jesus a liar and the Bible completely untrustworthy.

 

[miamited]

Hi Free

Sadly, I don't read Greek.

 

[JLB]

Our God and Savior, Jesus Christ
See Titus 2.13, cf. 2 Peter 1.1



Two of the shortest books of the New Testament contain similar - and very strong - affirmations of Jesus Christ as God. In his epistle to Titus, the apostle Paul states that Christians "wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13).



The equally short epistle of 2 Peter opens by describing its readers as "those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (1:1). Both of these texts describe Jesus using the two titles God and Savior. Not everyone agrees that these verses call Jesus "God" One cult, for example, translates Titus 2:13 "of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus" and 2 Peter 1:1 "of our God and [the] Savior Jesus Christ" (NWT). The bracketed insertions of the word ‘the’ make a significant difference. Read these verses without the bracketed insertions - especially 2 Peter 1:1 - and they sound like they are referring to Jesus as both God and the pronoun appears.)



When this construction occurs in ancient Greek using singular personal nouns that are not proper names (that is, nouns like father, Lord, king, not Jesus, Peter, or Paul), the two nouns refer to the same person. The first writer to analyze this construction in a formal way did so in the late eighteenth century. He was an English Christian abolitionist named Granville Sharp; for that reason, the analysis of this construction is commonly known as Granville Sharp's rule. The New Testament contains plenty of examples supporting Sharp's rule. The epistles of Paul, for example, refer to "our God and Father" (Gal. 1:4; Phil. 4:20; 1 Thess. 1:3; 3:11, 13) and "the God and Father" (Rom. 15:6; 1 Cor. 15:24), which certainly refer to one person by both titles God and Father. There are numerous additional examples, many of little or no theological import.



The evidence that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 call Jesus God goes beyond Sharp's rule. In Titus, the expression "our Savior" (soteros hemon) occurs six times. In five of those six occurrences, the article "the" (tou) immediately precedes "our Savior" (1:3, 4; 2:10; 3:4, 6); the one exception is Titus 2:13. The obvious and only good explanation for this variation is that "our Savior" is governed by the same article that governs "great God." Another piece of evidence in the context of Titus 2:13 is Paul's use of the word epiphaneia ("appearing”).



Another piece of evidence in the context of Titus 2:13 is Paul's use of the word epiphaneia ("appearing,”) from which we derive the word epiphany. In the Bible this word occurs only in Paul's writings, mostly in the Pastoral Epistles (2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13), and always referring to the appearing of Jesus Christ, unless Titus 2:13 is the sole exception. The close parallel between Titus 2:13 and 2 Timothy 1:10 ("the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus") effectively rules out the possibility that Titus 2:13 is an exception. So when Paul says that Christians are awaiting "the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13), we can be sure that the one who will be "appearing" will indeed be Jesus Christ.



Several factors cumulatively offer strong support for understanding "Jesus Christ" to be identifying "our great God and Savior," not "the glory," in Titus 2:13.

1. "Our great God and Savior" is immediately adjacent to "Jesus Christ."

2. It would be odd to speak of the appearing of God's glory and not mean that the one who is appearing is God.

3. Paul never refers to Jesus as God's "glory" (2 Cor. 4:4, 6).

4. All other things being equal, a personal designation like "our great God and Savior" is more likely to be identified as a person ("Jesus Christ") than is an abstraction ("the glory").

5. Elsewhere in the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus), whenever Paul uses the word epiphaneia ("appearing"), it refers to the manifestation of Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8), not of an abstract quality (“the glory”) related to God or Christ.

6. In as many as twelve out of eighteen times in his epistles that Paul uses the term "the glory" in the genitive case (tes doxes), it likely functions as a descriptive modifier of the preceding noun (Rom. 8:21; 9:23; Col. 1:11, 27; 1 Tim. 1:11; Titus 2:13). English translations often express this usage by the rendering "glorious." Thus, Titus 2:13 maybe better translated "the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ."

7. Paul immediately follows his reference to Jesus Christ by speaking of his accomplishments for our salvation (Titus 2:14), confirming that in this context Jesus Christ is "our Savior."

8. The pattern of Paul's references to "our Savior" in Titus - three references to "God our Savior" each followed closely by a reference to Jesus Christ as "our Savior" (1:3, 4; 2:10, 13; 3:4, 6) - is disrupted if 2:13 does not refer to Jesus Christ as Savior.



The epistle of 2 Peter, then, opens by affirming that Jesus Christ is "our God and Savior." It closes, appropriately, with a doxology of praise to Jesus Christ: "But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen" (2 Peter 3:18). The verbal parallels in those opening and closing verses between "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" and "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," as well as the concluding doxology directing eternal glory to Jesus Christ, are stunningly clear affirmations that Jesus Christ is indeed our Lord and our God.

All glory and honor to our great God and Savior Jesus Christ!

 

[Hidden In Him]

Hi Free

Sadly, I don't read Greek.

You don't have to read it to study it these days, Miamited. There are numerous study helps, many available online now for free, that you can use to study the original languages without needing to actually read it.

All glory and honor to our great God and Savior Jesus Christ!

Amen. All glory and power and honor and strength to our Lord!

 

[Free]

Hi Free

Sadly, I don't read Greek.

I don’t either, but I don’t let that stop me from proper study of the Bible. God won’t accept that as an excuse when there are numerous resources available. Besides, knowing Greek is completely unnecessary for I posted. Seems more like an excuse to just not engage and maybe have to change your beliefs, especially since the vast majority of what I have posted has nothing to do with the Greek.

 

[miamited]

Hi Free

tou megalou theou kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou

My apologies. I thought that was Greek and you wrote it out for me because it was supposed to show me something about the passage that it is apparently translated to in the English text above it.

tou kuriou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou

Again, my apologies. I again considered that you wrote out the Greek from which the translation is made to show me somehow that in the Greek it is more clear.

Of course, I can copy and paste all of your examples, but surely you get the point. I'm thinking that there's some reason that you are writing out the Greek text because I'm supposed to see how it then means what you're claiming that it means... if I could only read the Greek.

No problem. Obviously I was wrong and you apparently just copied the Greek text because, well, because I guess it makes you look smarter. I honestly don't know why you wrote out the Greek under the English text. Perhaps you could explain it to me so I'd understand why you wrote out the Greek but then tell me that I don't need to read Greek to understand these things as you do. Again, God bless. From your ignorant non-Greek reading friend.

 

[Free]

My apologies. I thought that was Greek and you wrote it out for me because it was supposed to show me something about the passage that it is apparently translated to in the English text above it.

Again, my apologies. I again considered that you wrote out the Greek from which the translation is made to show me somehow that in the Greek it is more clear.

Of course, I can copy and paste all of your examples, but surely you get the point. I'm thinking that there's some reason that you are writing out the Greek text because I'm supposed to see how it then means what you're claiming that it means... if I could only read the Greek.

No problem. Obviously I was wrong and you apparently just copied the Greek text because, well, because I guess it makes you look smarter.

Don't be condescending just because someone else is willing to put the effort into understanding the Bible better and you're not. It's because it's relevant and one can simply look at the Greek words, without understanding exactly what they mean, and see that the grammatical construction is the same. I see the Greek transliterations and can tell when the same word is used in different places, from which I can see the grammatical construction. It's quite simple and can be done without using all the freely available biblical helps that one should be using anyway as a part of proper study. I also provided explanation.

I honestly don't know why you wrote out the Greek under the English text.

One reason is that I anticipated your question: "On what grammatical basis are you able to make that claim?" You argued to the placement of the comma in English, but it is the Greek grammar that (arguably) matters more.

So, I provided the grammatical basis. You're rejecting a certain reading of the texts without warrant for doing so, because you didn't look at the Greek grammar. But here, the grammar really plays a part in understanding what is being said, as it often does.

Perhaps you could explain it to me so I'd understand why you wrote out the Greek but then tell me that I don't need to read Greek to understand these things as you do.

As I already stated, the Greek shows when the definite article is and isn't used, which I showed--'There is one article ("the") for "God and Savior," not two articles ("the God and the Savior")'--and explained--'It would be different if it said, "of our God and of our Saviour."'

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_peter/1.htm

Take John 1:1, for instance. This is the English:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Focusing on the last two clauses, we can see that some people might be confused. But, when we look at the Greek, we see that the second clause actually says: "and the Word was with the God." That tells us that two different "persons" are being mentioned. In the third clause, the Greek word order is "and God was the Word." We also see that "God" does not have the article, so something else is going on. If it said "and the God was the Word," then God and Word would be interchangeable, but they're not. It also cannot be "and a god was the Word," because that would violate monotheism. So, we understand that "the Word was God" is qualitative; it's telling us something about the Word, namely, that the Word is God in nature.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1.htm

Again, God bless. From your ignorant non-Greek reading friend.

Again, I don't read really Greek either, apart from some obvious words like kai (and), tou (the), kuriou (Lord), Iēsou Christou (Jesus Christ), logos (Word), and theos (God). Maybe a few others, but I only know them because I try and do proper study, which we all should be doing, as it can make a significant difference in our understanding.

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

So, if I'm at a gathering and I present my wife and my son standing next to her, to someone as my wife and son, they are both the same? I'm just not completely sure that the word 'and' means 'the same thing'. What if both of these claims are saying that we will see our God, the God who lives, and Son, the one who died for our sins.

You're confident that this statement:

cannot be telling us that we will see the manifestation of two beings of the God head. Our great God, and Savior, Jesus Christ. (btw keep in mind that the comma you see and read in that statement isn't in the original copies that we have. Such punctuation has been placed there by the translator's will and design.)

The reason I ask is that there are quite a lot of places where we do see some distinction between the two. the clearest, I think, is in the opening words of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. John writes to us:

The revelation from Jesus Christ,

which God gave him

That doesn't tell us that God is separate from Jesus and that God gave this revelation to Jesus to show unto his servants?

Then we read Paul's salutation to the saints in 1 Corinthians:

Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Paul seems to open all of his writings to the various churches in like manner.
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.
And finally, one of the biggest sticking points for me is that the Scriptures teach us that Jesus died for our sins. But the Scriptures also teach us that God cannot die. So, there has to be some kind of difference between 'who' Jesus is and 'who' God is according to my reprobate thinking. I've long been satisfied with understanding Jesus as God has clearly defined him to us, "This is my Son...". And to understand God as Jesus seems to have often clearly defined Him, "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."
Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”
Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have found your deeds unfinished in the sight of my God.
“If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.
And:
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
And God's testimony is that no one can see him and live, and yet, an entire nation saw Jesus and they all lived until their worldly deaths.
So, I'm not confident that the Scriptures do teach that God and Jesus are one and the same. I believe that God is the Father, the Creator of all that is. I believe that Jesus is His Son who was sent to give his life as a ransom for all who would believe in him and then be blessed of the Father to receive the Father's promise of eternal life. That does not discount 'who' Jesus is. He is our Savior. Our redeemer. The one who died that we might know and be forgiven by God. Isaiah described Jesus as God's servant. Even Jesus, through the writings of David in the Psalms says, "you made me believe in you from my birth."
It is not my intention to discount or discredit who Jesus is to us, but I'm also not sure that the Scriptures are clear about this Jesus is God teaching, either. I'm good with God is the Father and Jesus is His Son. That seems to be clearly taught throughout the Scriptures. Do not go beyond what is written.

What do you think that the Bible means when it says that Jesus is the "Son of God"?

For me in my understanding of the Bible, it means that Jesus is of the same divine nature as the Father.

However, you might be convinced of Jesus' fully divine nature by relating his seven claims of divinity in the Gospel of John (the seven "I am" statements) them to Exodus 3, where the God of the burning bush says that his name is "I AM." In the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament, that claim is "ego eimi." Jesus uses the same phrase in making his sayings in John, when he could have used just "eimi" to make the same claim. Therefore, he is the same God as the one who appeared to Moses in the unburnable bush.

Furthermore, he identifies himself with the God who is David's Shepherd when he says that he is the good Shepherd.

Joh 6:32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
Joh 6:34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
Joh 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

Joh 8:12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
Joh 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

Joh 10:7 So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
Joh 10:9 I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.
Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,
Joh 10:15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.

Joh 11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,
Joh 11:26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

One last note is about Jesus' favorite phrase describing himself, Son of Man. He is quoting Daniel 7:13-14, where God, the Ancient of Days, takes his place in the throne room, and another divine figure comes before him, "one like a son of man." How do I know he is divine? This passage is similar to Revelation 5, in which the worthy Lamb comes to open the scroll of human history after his re-entry into heaven.

Here in Daniel 7, Jesus rules the universe with all humans serving or worshiping him. Colossians 1:15-17 claims the same thing that Jesus is indeed God with the Father as the Ruler of the cosmos.

We certainly can also add the Holy Spirit from John 14-16, where the language is clear that he is God. The rest of the Bible is also clear that God is one God, not three, a unsolvable mystery that makes us praise him more.

Dan 7:13 “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.
Dan 7:14 And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

[JLB]

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

Amen.

 

[miamited]

What do you think that the Bible means when it says that Jesus is the "Son of God"?

For me in my understanding of the Bible, it means that Jesus is of the same divine nature as the Father.

Yes, Jesus has a divine nature. He has existed with God since the beginning. Those facts are all agreed.

Joh 10:15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.

That's right. The Father knows the Son and the Son knows the father, and the Son laid down his life for the sheep.

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.

That's right. And that oneness is the same oneness that Jesus prayed that we have with him and the Father. Does that mean that you're going to be God?

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. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Who is 'thou' in this passage? Yes, by the Spirit we, who are born again believers are 'one' with the Father and the Son. So, in your understanding this idea of the oneness that Jesus is referring to here means that he is God and does that also mean that we're all going to be God?

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Yes, he is the image of the invisible God. That's God that he is the invisible image of. But note also that this passage says that he is the firstborn of all creation. Firstborn of all creation. Is that what God is? The firstborn of all creation? Was God born first? No, but Jesus was apparently according to Paul.

I still stand with this idea that Jesus is God is not a clear teaching of the Scriptures. But the teaching that God is his Father and that he is God's Son is clearly taught multiple times and that's what I go with.

The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants ...

For me, it seems abundantly clear in this passage that the revelation that John wrote down for us came from Jesus. That Jesus got it from his Father, God. And that God gave it to Jesus for the express purpose of his (Jesus) revealing it to his servants that we might have knowledge and be warned of the things that will unfold on the earth as we move from Jesus' time upon the earth to the end of days of existence on this earth and then, at the end, shows us that those who have believed, those who have accepted the challenge to strive to live as the Son, Jesus showed us how to live, those who are born of the Spirit of God and listen to his (Spirit's) prodding in our conscience and in our hearts, will then live on a newly created earth where God is our God and we are His people, as co-heirs with Jesus, the Son.
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.

This is Jesus speaking to the believers in the church at Philadelphia. His claim is that for those who are victorious in following what I wrote above as the desire of their lives, he (Jesus) will make a pillar in the temple of my (Jesus) God. That he (Jesus) will also write on them the name of my (Jesus) God and the name of the new city of my (Jesus) God. And that new city is going to come down from heaven from my (Jesus) God. He (Jesus) will ALSO write on them his (Jesus) new name. All those who are saved to the eternal existence with God will bear the name of God and of Jesus on their very flesh.
So for me, I'm good with speaking of Jesus as the Son of God and speaking of God as the one true God. That seems to be pretty much how the Scriptures describe their relationship to me. But I'm perfectly willing to also add to that that we just don't know. There is no similar relationship where two people are the same people that we can have any evidence to understand such a relationship. Just as when someone asks, "what is heaven like?" We don't know. We can't honestly answer that question beyond the few things said about heaven, basically around the throne of God, that are written for us in the Scriptures. We have no reference of knowledge for what existence in heaven is actually like. We do know that there are angels who are in the presence of God. We do know that around the throne of God the ground seems to be glittering as great and valuable precious stones that we do have some inkling of. I mean, I know that when light shines on a diamond that it creates a prism effect of colored light and according to the Scriptures the ground in heaven around the throne of God also reflects His blinding light into colors thrown all around by reflection from these precious stones that seem to make up that ground. Beyond that, I don't believe that there is much that we can say about what existence in heaven is really like.

Now, we can have some inkling of what life on the new earth in the new heavens may be like, if we assume that the new earth and heavens is just like the last one that God created before sin entered into it. Adam and Eve walked on an earth that was covered in water and flora and fauna and lived what would seem to be fairly idyllic life and Jesus does tell us that our eternal life will be one of peace and satisfaction and joy. Personally, I've often thought that the pictures on the Watchtower handouts might be pretty close to what life on the new earth might be like. People living in peace and harmony and joy with one another. I don't know if there will be families with children. I rather believe that everyone will be adults as there won't be any growing older, so how would children grow up?

So, those are some of the understandings that I have gleaned from the teaching of the Scriptures on 'who' Jesus is and 'who' God is. Some small understanding of 'what' life might be like in the promised eternal life that God says we can gain with faith in 'who'? His Son, Jesus.

 

[miamited]

Yes, he is the image of the invisible God. That's God that he is the invisible image of.

Sorry, I wrote that wrong. Yes, he is the image of the invisible God. That's THE INVISIBLE God that Jesus is the image of. Jesus represents in flesh to us, what God is like. He has the same Spirit. He has the same desires and understanding of things that the INVISIBLE God has and Jesus is the image in flesh of that God.

 

[for_his_glory]

Just want to touch on this from the OP. The NWT (New World Translation) is a bible written for Jehovah Witnesses given by the Watch Tower and contains false doctrines.

Scriptures that reference Jesus being referred to as God:
John 1:1-14; John 10:30; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8, 9; 1 John 5:7, 8, 20; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 3:17; 13:14; Isaiah 9:6; 44:6; Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:23; 28:19; John 14:16, 17; Genesis 1:1, 2 (cross reference John 1:1-14); 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 1:15-17; John 14:9-11; Philippians 2:5-8; Rev 1:8

 

[Free]

Yes, Jesus has a divine nature. He has existed with God since the beginning. Those facts are all agreed.

Not quite. To be accurate, John's grammar in John 1:1 is such that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence. That is, the Word has existed for as long as the Father has existed--for all eternity.

 

[miamited]

Not quite. To be accurate, John's grammar in John 1:1 is such that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence. That is, the Word has existed for as long as the Father has existed--for all eternity.

Hi Free
You'll need to clarify what 'beginning' you're referring to.

 

[Free]

Hi Free
You'll need to clarify what 'beginning' you're referring to.

I do? Gen. 1:1. Are there other beginnings?