Apologetics Forum: Ask questions about Christianity/Debate doctrinesBeware of this Different Gospel of ChristFirst, it is not how do I choose to interpret those texts, but what is said by the author. By saying that Acts 2, and 5, proves what is said in Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet. 1:1 wrong, you posit a contradiction in Scripture. If what I presented is wrong, then, why have you not exegetically refuted the particular points that I presented? You merely deny it showing the weakness of your position. For if the texts present Jesus as fully God, then, you are embracing a false Christ. I specifically showed where the grammar of those texts—in the Greek—clearly state that Jesus is the "great God and Savior." What I presented, you can easily do the homework and check it out (websites, book store, etc.). You have not provided anything in term of refutation to the grammar of the texts—you only dismiss it for your religious organization has taught you that Jesus is not God so you blindly accepted it. Roman Catholicism has a concept that all devote Catholics follow: Fides implicita, which means in Latin "implicit faith" or *unquestioning* trust in Rome. Thus, Catholics are to have faith in Rome no matter what they teach or do. Based upon the responses that you have provided, which have been non-exegetical and you basically ignore what I present, it seems you have unquestioning trust (fides implicita) in your religious organization. IN other words, it seems that the material that you give lacks exegetical interaction (I suppose that s why you believe what you believe). For what scholarly sources do you access what lexicons do you find word meanings, what Grammars have you read? If you would like to dialogue with me, fine, but at least come to the table with exegetical affirmations to support your position and exegetical refutations of mine, not what you have been doing this far--constant denials and cut and pasting a bunch of un treated passages. Therefore, dealing with Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 show me from the context, grammar, syntax, and lexical support, scholarly sources, as to why the grammatical construction (noun + kai + noun = Jesus, known also as the Granville Sharp rule #1) is wrong. But note, I said show me from an exegetical standpoint, which means you must provide grammatical reasons substituted by experts in the field of Greek grammar. If you cannot do so, your assertions become your own opinions—for you yourself are not (no offence) schooled in languages in which you can read and analyze texts in the original language of which it was written. Please do not come back with "I don't trust the opinions of men or I rely on the Spirit for my interpretations." That would tell me that you are not really interested in truth—only interested in postulating your view in spite of what is presented in which case I will not dialogue with you—been there done that. It would be a waste of my time. Hopefully, you will at least do the homework in regards to Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, which by the way (as I pointed out to you before), 2 Peter 1:11, 2:20 and 3:2 have the same exact construction as 2 Peter 1:1: "Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" and I doubt if you would thing those verse are speaking of two persons. Peter sees Jesus Christ as the Great God and Savior and "Lord and Savior." So, if you want meaningful dialogue you will do the homework and provide substance as mentioned above (what God you believe, will determine your eternal destiny).If not, I will see you as the many out there: not interested in meaningful interaction and thus truth—only interested in giving a position with and a loads of cut and pasted un-treated verses with no responses only comments. And if that, I will graciously decline form theologically dialoging with you. But I am always here for questions and needed prayer, which I will be praying for you. God Bless! |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame