2 Peter 1:1 Debate Whether Jesus is God or Not

[jgh7]

It has been discussed heavily John 1:1 in terms of whether Jesus is God or not. I'd like to hear the arguments for 2 Peter 1:1.

2 Peter 1:1 NKJV
Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

2 Peter 1:1 NWT
Simon Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have acquired a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ:


What I have read in regards to this debate is from this site:
http://forananswer.org/2Peter/2Peter1_1.htm

This snippet stood out to me as it compared the grammar of this verse with other verses of 2 Peter which use the same grammar:

-------

Most apologetic debate on this verse has centered on the so-called Granville Sharp Rule. But even if the Granville Sharp Rule is not a valid rule of Greek grammar, or if it is, but 2 Peter 1:1 is not an example of it, there is substantial contextual evidence that both "God" and "Savior" modify Jesus Christ. First, there are three examples of a similar phrase in 2 Peter in which it is clear that one person is in view: namely, "our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" (1:11; 2:20; 3:18). The Greek of this phrase is identical to the Greek of "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ," with the exception of Lord/God (kuriou/theou). In 3:2, we find "the Lord and Savior," again signifying one person. It would seem inconceivable that Peter would intend two persons in one case and one person in all the others, when employing the same (or nearly the same, in the case of 3:2) Greek construction every time.
Further, Peter uses the phrase "our God and Father" in 1 Peter 1:3 (Greek: ho theos kai patêr). Again, one person, not two are in view. The differences between this phrase and those in 2 Peter are a matter of case (ho theos is nominative, whereas tou theou is genitive) and the pronoun "our" (Greek: hêmôn), neither of which is significant in determining the intended referent.

--------

What are the arguments against 2 Peter 1:1 being trinitarian as this snippet argues it is.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 10 by Overcomer]

Overcomer wrote

"If JWs believe that the vocative has to be used in verse 28...."

First, it appears you haven't examined my research on this subject available in the links I have given you. Much of your argument is answered there. Harris' conclusion that in John 20:28 Thomas addressed Jesus with the statement in question is shown to be false in my studies. The uses of 'God' and 'Lord' in address in the NT are the opposite of his 'evidence.'

Second, I don't know if JWs have used the argument about the vocative use of 'Lord' in discussing this verse --- I don't think they have. The links you have apparently not examined carefully take you to my own personal research and studies.

Third, I have repeatedly asked you to reply to my statement to your accusation that "JWs altered the Bible to make it fit their bogus theology" ... one only has to look at the Greek to see how they have changed God's word to suit themselves."
I wrote, as you can see in my link found in your last post above: "Please answer my oft-repeated much earlier request to you: see the end of posts 8 and 9 in https://debatingchristianity.com/forum ... p?t=34270 "

Here it is again:

T2: Overcomer, I would really like to see in your own words just 3 of the most certain "well-known historical fact[s]" of the "alteration" of the NT Greek by the NWT to make an original 'Jesus is God' statement read otherwise.

You have, once again, ignored my request. Until you give me detailed answers of these three 'bogus' altered "Jesus is God" scriptural statements by the JW's, I will be reluctant to answer your requests.

[Revelations won]

As I observe the Godhead spoken of in the Bible, there clearly exist three (3) God's who are in complete agreement as one.

We should so note that in Hebrews 5:

5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee.
6. As he saith also in another place. Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
7. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and duplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8. Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9. And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
10. Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

The above quoted verses are very clear and support the position of distinct beings, that is God the Father (Eloheim), Jesus Christ (God the Son) or redeemer and God the Holy Ghost or (testator).

Christ himself also testified that His Father was greater that he. (John 14:28)

[postroad]

2 Peter is almost universally regarded as a pious fraud. Can any book that acknowledges Paul's letters as Scriptures well before they were regarded as such by the Church be considered legitimate?

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 13 by postroad]

What's wrong with Peter viewing Paul's epistles as Scripture?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 14 by jgh7]

They were expecting an imminent return of Jesus. The idea that contemporary writing was Scriptures comes after that hope is lost and the business of creating a religion starts.

Paul hated the Jerusalem church anyway and 2 Peter is a crude attempt to create a reconciliation that never happened.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 15 by postroad]

I believe that Peter viewed Paul's writings as scripture because he saw the Holy Spirit at work in Paul's writings. But if you wish to view it all as a big hoax I suppose I can't stop you.

I am curious, where is the scripture that causes you to believe that Paul hated the Jerusalem church? I know that Paul called out Peter for hypocrisy when he caught him no longer eating with Gentiles when Jews showed up (Galatians 2). But this in no way means he hated him or a particular church. It would go against his very teachings of brotherly love to hate an entire church.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 16 by jgh7]
Philippians 3:1-6 New International Version (NIV)

No Confidence in the Flesh
3 Further, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you. 2 Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— 4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence.

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.


2 Corinthians 11:4-6 New International Version (NIV)

4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

5 I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.�[a] 6 I may indeed be untrained as a speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way.


2 Corinthians 12:11-12 New International Version (NIV)

Paul’s Concern for the Corinthians
11 I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the “super-apostles,�[a] even though I am nothing. 12 I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles.


Galatians 2:4-6 New International Version (NIV)

4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message.


New International Version (NIV)

Paul Opposes Cephas
11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

[tam]

Peace to you jgh7,

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]


I am not sure it matters if this verse from 2 Peter is meant to refer to Christ as both God and Savior... or if this verse means to refer to both God (Most High) and Christ (Savior).


Because even being called god and savior, this would not mean that Christ is being called the Most Holy One of Israel (God Most High; JAH). Christ is the Son of God, as He consistently says.

Take the following for example:

"[Jesus] answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?" John 10:34-36


And the reference to this is at Psalm 82:6,

"I have said, "You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High."


Being the Son of the Most High (JAHVEH) does not make that person (even Christ) out to be JAH, Himself.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Revelations won]

As I observe the Godhead spoken of in the Bible, there clearly exist three (3) God's who are in complete agreement as one.

We should so note that in Hebrews 5:

5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee.
6. As he saith also in another place. Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
7. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and duplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8. Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9. And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
10. Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

The above quoted verses are very clear and support the position of distinct beings, that is God the Father (Eloheim), Jesus Christ (God the Son) or redeemer and God the Holy Ghost or (testator).

Christ himself also testified that His Father was greater that he. (John 14:28)


Postroad responded,

2 Peter is almost universally regarded as a pious fraud. Can any book that acknowledges Paul's letters as Scriptures well before they were regarded as such by the Church be considered legitimate?

Dear Postroad,

Can you list the churches that have taken the position that 2 Peter is in fact “a pious fraud� as you so state?

Your documented “universally regarded� list should prove very interesting to say the least.

Kindest regards,
RW

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

Very simply....Peter is referring to TWO individuals in 2 Peter 1:1. "Our God" AND "the Savior Jesus Christ."

Everyone knew that "God" is the FATHER, and He was always lauded and honored before anyone, including the Son.