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.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 7 by tigger2]

To tigger2:

Where did you study Greek? At what level did you study? Who were your professors? What textbooks did you use?

Thanking you in advance for your reply. O.

So what? Tigger and anyone can study these things and research to come up with a correct idea even though they aren't Greek experts. It is possible to arrive at the right conclusion by intense examination of Scriptures using all the tools available to us.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 10 by Overcomer]

I don't think it is "clear that Thomas was addressing Jesus" at John 20:28. Obviously John wasn't impressed because he went on to say, at the end of the chapter, that Jesus is "the SON of God." I'm sure that if he thought Thomas was calling Jesus God---and, if [it is assumed by many that] the disciples really did think Jesus is God---he would carry that thought right to the end of the chapter. But what he says in verse 31 shows exactly who John and the others thought Jesus was.

I believe that Thomas was uttering an exclamation of sudden awe and finality of realization that Jesus really did rise from the dead, and he said what we all say when something happens that is incredibly amazing to us---"My God!"

People say it all the time when something out of the ordinary comes to our attention.

Thomas knew Jesus wasn't God. He had been in the garden with Jesus when He prayed to God before He was to be crucified. He knew Jesus wasn't praying to Himself. And he must have heard Jesus say to the Father, "YOU are the only true God." (John 17:3)

Jesus' disciples all carried the belief that it was THE FATHER who was God, and He alone.

Paul said, "There is actually to us one God, THE FATHER..." (I Corinthians 8:6) They all knew that.

[Revelations won]

I earlier posted the following:

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) Ye have heard how I said unto you. I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

The above clearly contradicts the trinity doctrine.

Also it appears that the trinity doctrine was not presented for nearly 300 years after the birth of Christ. Is this doctrine now considered canonized scripture??? Does this constitute adding to scripture???

[polonius]

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:
Wikipedia Second Epistle of Peter

“Most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, considering the epistle pseudepigraphical.[4][5] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[6]
“The questions of authorship and date are closely related. For Petrine authorship to be authentic, it must have been written prior to Peter's death in c. AD 65–67. The letter refers to the Pauline epistles and so must post-date at least some of them, regardless of authorship, thus a date before 60 is improbable. Further, it goes as far to name the Pauline epistles as "scripture"—the only time a New Testament work refers to another New Testament work in this way—implying that it postdates them by some time.[7] Scholars consider the epistle to be written between c. AD 100–150[8] and so contend that it is pseudepigraphical.�


On the other hand,

The belief that Jesus was a divinity and not just a man began in the early 80’s. It resulted in the Christians being excluded from the Jewish synagogues (see John) and being labeled as “minim� (or apostates)

[brianbbs67]

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:
Wikipedia Second Epistle of Peter

“Most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, considering the epistle pseudepigraphical.[4][5] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[6]
“The questions of authorship and date are closely related. For Petrine authorship to be authentic, it must have been written prior to Peter's death in c. AD 65–67. The letter refers to the Pauline epistles and so must post-date at least some of them, regardless of authorship, thus a date before 60 is improbable. Further, it goes as far to name the Pauline epistles as "scripture"—the only time a New Testament work refers to another New Testament work in this way—implying that it postdates them by some time.[7] Scholars consider the epistle to be written between c. AD 100–150[8] and so contend that it is pseudepigraphical.�


On the other hand,

The belief that Jesus was a divinity and not just a man began in the early 80’s. It resulted in the Christians being excluded from the Jewish synagogues (see John) and being labeled as “minim� (or apostates)

Some scholars believe it may have been Simeon(jesus' brother and 2nd head of the Jerusalem church). The word scripture is an English invention. The Greek simply says writings. So, it actually says the writings of Paul, which would have been available. Remember Jude was Christ's brother also and the head the Jerusalem church in the time Rome was sacking the Temple, etc.

[Revelations won]

Greetings,

As I see it, the scriptures clearly demonstrate that Christ is a member of the "Godhead" and as such is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh who is indeed the only one who could redeem mankind from the fall. He alone is our advocate with the Father and the one foreordained from before the foundations of this world were laid to atone for the sins of mankind. No sinful man could perform this infinite and eternal sacrifice and atonement.

Therefore is it not clearly self evident that there is none other whereby man can be saved?