REAPER wrote:First, 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.
On the other hand how you choose to interpret Titus and 2 Peter is what causes an apparent 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.
I see a lot of assumptions in the above. First I do not belong to a "religious organization" that has taught me anything. Second, by appealing to only two verses while ignoring the 50 or so that I have posted you are demonstrating that you are doing the same thing you accuse me of doing and that is putting your faith in a "religious organization". As to the Granville Sharp Rules you keep referring to his rules are not generally accepted by all Trinitarians including Henry Alford who rejects your interpretation of Titus 2:13 (36. The Greek New Testament (Chicago, Moody Press, 1968 edition, Vol. 3), pp. 419-421.). The same is true of 2 Peter 1:1, especially when you put that one verse in context.
Back to your Granville Sharp Rules:
Remarkably, three of these seven involve the construction article-noun-kaiv-noun (TSKS [“‘the’-substantive-kaiv-substantive”]) in the very assertion itself (2 Thess 1:12; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet 1:1). Occasionally, Acts 20:28; Gal 2:20; Eph 5:5; Col 2:2; 1 John 5:20; and Jude 4 are also listed as explicit texts—and these, too, involve the same syntactical form.5 This is where Granville Sharp enters the picture. Sharp developed a grammatical principle in which he discussed the semantics of this very construction. He then applied his “rule” to several christologically significant texts and argued that the construction could only be interpreted as affirming the deity of Christ.
But Sharp’s rule has been almost totally neglected, discounted, or misapplied in recent discussions on these passages. In light of this, our purpose in this essay is threefold: (1) to give a brief historical sketch of the articulation and discussion of Sharp’s canon, from Sharp to the present day; (2) to test the validity of Sharp’s rule against the data, both within the NT and elsewhere; and (3) to reassess the application of the rule to two christologically significant texts.
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1496
Now, who has not done their homework? I am not going to respond to the balance of your post as your assumptions have overridden your credibility.