I’m a Jehovah’s Witness

TCC · April 10, 2026, 11:36pm

@paulhinkle I wanted to get back to you as I have time. I’m not the best source for a comprehensive on this. Where I hope to be helpful is point out specific things to hopefully challenge in our own thinking. For example toward the end of this discussion with Johann you mention that Christ while on earth before ascending seemed to have resurrected human/flesh like qualities. Yes. But you see that different than Him ascending. With likely the thought that he could not get into the presence of God with flesh like that. Maybe like Christ was trying to show us it was Him (for recognition sense), but then had to become purist of only sprit to ascend. That I would like to hopefully address. Before I do though here are 2 link for an overall sense I would have about this issue and what is resssurected…

Please click on the first link of this web result.

Is the resurrection spiritual or physical? | GotQuestions.org

GotQuestions can be helpful too sometimes to some degree.

…..

Ok, so what would interest me about what we might be doing with concepts none of us can know the deep science thereof, since we are speaking in relation of the supernatural. I tend to go with whatever is closest to what is being expressed by apparently what is meant by the authorial intent. More so than whether something should fit the way I am thinking about something.

Authorial Intent – It would seem that there is no biblical clarification of Christ being different from His resurrected on earth display from His state of person that ascends. If the bible does not come right out and show that difference,

What I am Thinking About Something – I would think it very too far a conjecture to just write a sense of how Jesus must be different in ascension than His resurrected presence on earth is shown to be. Just because i may not know how to reconcile some things, and i may not understand how Christ can have flesh like skin and bones and go to heaven where no flesh can go, does not mean He did not. Example: In Rev 4-5 we seen the lamb that was slain in heaven. It would seem these wounds are there. So that should dissolve a sense that there is no human flesh like carryover.

HOW CAN CHRIST HAVE FLESH AND BONES AND GO TO HEAVEN WHERE IT CANNOT HAVE FLESH AND BONES?

The answer to this is think is far more simple than we might think, at least i believe. Flesh and bones cannot see God because our Adamic presence is fallen. There is no way fallen flesh can stand before God in heaven. But if God makes out of that a new creation that is redeemed flesh, the focus of no flesh shall see God would of necessity be that which is fallen.

So what happened to Enoch and Elijah? How did they go up like that? Did they change into spirit? The bible does not say. So there is some mystery there. I just use that as an example to suggest that I believe it is too far a leap to think Jesus ascended differently than what He resurrected as. That is a much higher burden in my estimation than to just say He must have changed yet again.

Instead what we see is what is being resurrected. Jesus showed us that. I believe what God showed us is how He took fallen flesh and gave it ability to transform into a more spiritual quality to live forever in His presence. Later on we have a new heaven and a new earth and a new Jerusalem on earth. So none of us know how that looks or what it is exactly made of. We do no it is a new version of earth to live on too. After the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

…..

My main point here would be that what is resurrected is arguably “transformed” according to scripture from that which was into that which it becomes. This is different than something resurrecting from nothing. The resurrection is not a reanimation of our consciousness. For if we die today we will be in His presence and conscious (2 Cor 5:8). But without a resurrected body. What is resurrected is what remained in the ground from death.

When Christ went to preach to those spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:19), He was conscious. Yet dead, right? So was it Christ’s consciousness that was “resurrected?” No. That never really died. Just like we don’t die spiritually who know Him and go right to His presence consciously when we die according to scripture. So it is not that person spiritually living that is resurrected. For he/she is already alive. Then we must ask, so what is being resurrected?

Revelation 20:11-15 shows us the “second resurrection” which is for those who don’t know the Lord. This would mean that there are bodies they transform into “apparently” yet separated from the Lord. From memory I believe JW’s believe in annihilation. Perhaps that is the moratorium opposed to having physical bodies resurrect. I am not sure. My point is simply this i guess: Its not a resurrection if it does not involved that which went down into the earth. The bible has the believe in the presence of God when they die. So what is resurrection out of the earth or ground is not that person living in the presence of the Lord in heaven. That person is already alive. It is the additional quality of whatever comes with an eternal body saints get at “the resurrection.” The body that was theirs in the ground reunited with the conscious person living currently before the Lord in heaven. If that makes sense or can be helpful? Hopefully. Blessings.

Johann · April 10, 2026, 11:53pm

Paul is not teaching disembodiment. He is teaching transformation. Our bodies will be raised incorruptible, glorious, powerful, Spirit-empowered - patterned after Christ Himself. Scripture after Scripture confirms this: the resurrection is not the loss of the body, but its renewal in glory. Death itself will be swallowed up, and we shall serve Him forever with bodies perfectly suited for eternal life.

J.

Gospel · April 11, 2026, 5:34am

The position I call “Christological Physicalism” maintains that Jesus was resurrected in the same body that he sacrificed, and currently has it now in heaven, outside of earth’s human-life sustaining atmosphere, where his Nazarene body is continuously and miraculously preserved.

Captivatingly, the introductory question was rhetorically asked and answered by the Apostle Paul. He wrote:

Nevertheless, someone will say: “How are the dead to be raised up? Yes, with what sort of body are they coming?” You unreasonable person!

Here he used the word ἄφρων (aphrōn), meaning “without reason, foolish, and without reflection or intelligence, acting rashly.” He then continued:

What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies. … Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, there is another flesh of cattle, another flesh of birds, and another of fish. And there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort. (1 Corinthians 15:35, 36, 39, 40)

While the next verse uses the illustration of how different astronomical bodies differ in their observable glory, his point about the dichotomy between heavenly bodies, including spiritual bodies as seen in 1 Corinthians 15:44, and earthly bodies is unmistakably clear. In 1 Corinthians 15:42-44 he contrasted the corruptible, dishonorable, weak and physical with the incorruptible, glorified, powerful, and spiritual. Thus, while the Christian bound for heavenly life was once earthly—corruptible, dishonorable, weak and physical—upon being resurrected to heavenly life he would now be incorruptible, glorified, powerful, and spiritual. The same principle would be true of Jesus their Lord, would it not? While Jesus’ Nazarene body birthed from Mary was not corrupted with Adamic sin, Paul agrees in 1 Corinthians 15:45 that Jesus was resurrected, not as a Nazarene from Mary, but as “a life-giving spirit,” one who was incorruptible, glorified, powerful, and spiritual.

Gospel · April 11, 2026, 5:36am

Paul at 1 Corinthians 15:47-49 states that “the first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven.”

As Adam was created in the earthly realm, so it would naturally, logically follow that Jesus was created in the heavenly realm. The Christological preexistence-denying camp (ie. Socinian or “Biblical Unitarian” camp) glaringly misapplies this contrast as seen in Sir Anthony Buzzard’s commentary, where he states that Jesus being from heaven is eschatological: “the now immortal Jesus will arrive from heaven at his return.” (The One God, the Father, One Man Messiah Translation, footnote 1080) This comment betrays a bias against Christological preexistence, a preconceived anti-preexistence bias.

As humans are made from “dust,” being carbon-based, like Adam was, Christians in heaven will not be made of “dust”—they will no longer have carbon-based bodies—but will now have spiritual or heavenly bodies “like the heavenly one,” Jesus. (Philippians 3:20-21) This contrast proves conclusively that Christological Physicalism is in error, and is guilty of deflating Paul’s powerful ontological contrast. Paul then can be seen condemning ones “clinging” to Jesus’ Nazarene body that he willfully sacrificed as being ἄφρων (aphrōn), “without reason, foolish, and without reflection or intelligence, acting rashly.”

He issued this denunciation against ones who could not follow that a physical man was to be resurrected as a spirit creature. Thus, the same negative situation exists for ones who are not following that the physical Jesus was to be resurrected as a spirit creature. Later, when writing to the Galatians, he used a similar condemnatory word ἀνόητος (anoētos) “not understanding, unwise, foolish” twice against them for underestimating the significance of Jesus’ sacrificial death.—Galatians 3:1, 3.

Johann · April 11, 2026, 6:51am

Jehovah’s Witnesses, through the Watchtower Society, have historically been reluctant to disclose the underlying Greek text or methodology behind their New World Translation. Unlike mainstream translations that openly cite their textual basis (Nestle‑Aland, UBS, Majority Text, etc.), the NWT committee kept its members anonymous and did not publish a critical apparatus or detailed linguistic justification.

This secrecy has drawn criticism from scholars because it prevents verification of their renderings. For example, passages like John 1:1 (“the Word was a god”) or Colossians 2:9 (“divine quality” instead of “deity”) are translated in ways that diverge from standard lexical and grammatical usage. Without disclosure of the Greek sources or rationale, it’s impossible to test their claims against recognized scholarship.

The Father raised Him

“Paul, an apostle-not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.” (Galatians 1:1)

Gal 1:1 Paul, Παῦλος an apostle — ἀπόστολος, not οὐκ from ἀπ’ men, ἀνθρώπων nor οὐδὲ through δι’ man, ἀνθρώπου but ἀλλὰ through διὰ Jesus Ἰησοῦ Christ, Χριστοῦ and καὶ God Θεοῦ [the] Father, Πατρὸς the [One] τοῦ having raised ἐγείραντος Him αὐτὸν out from ἐκ [the] dead - νεκρῶν,

Jesus raised Himself

“Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’” (John 2:19)

Joh 2:19 Jesus Ἰησοῦς answered Ἀπεκρίθη and καὶ said εἶπεν to them, αὐτοῖς “Destroy “Λύσατε this τοῦτον, - τὸν temple, ναὸν and καὶ in ἐν three τρισὶν days ἡμέραις I will raise it up ἐγερῶ . . . .” αὐτόν.

The Spirit raised Him

“If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.” (Romans 8:11)

Rom 8:11 And δὲ if εἰ the τὸ Spirit Πνεῦμα of the [One] τοῦ having raised up ἐγείραντος - τὸν Jesus Ἰησοῦν out from ἐκ [the] dead νεκρῶν dwells οἰκεῖ in ἐν you, ὑμῖν, the [One] ὁ having raised up ἐγείρας Christ Χριστὸν Jesus Ἰησοῦν out from «ἐκ [the] dead νεκρῶν» ⇔ also καὶ will give life ζωοποιήσει to your ὑμῶν mortal θνητὰ - τὰ bodies, σώματα on account of διὰ His αὐτοῦ Spirit Πνεύματος - τοῦ dwelling ἐνοικοῦντος in ἐν you. ὑμῖν.

Heb 1:6 And δὲ again, πάλιν when Ὅταν He brings εἰσαγάγῃ the τὸν Firstborn πρωτότοκον into εἰς the τὴν world, οἰκουμένην, He says: λέγει “And “Καὶ {let} all πάντες God’s Θεοῦ.” angels ἄγγελοι worship προσκυνησάτωσαν Him.” αὐτῷ

Heb 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Heb 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
Heb 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν· ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου.

ὁ θρόνος σου - ho thronos sou = “your throne” (nominative masculine singular with possessive pronoun).

ὁ θεός - ho theos = “O God.”

Morphology: nominative masculine singular noun with the definite article.

Here, the vocative (address) is expressed by nominative with article, a common Semitic and Hellenistic usage. It is not “a god” or “divine quality,” but the direct title God.

εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος - “forever and ever.”

ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος - “scepter of righteousness.”

ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου - “the scepter of your kingdom.”

Thus, the grammar is explicit: the Father is speaking to the Son (πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν) and addresses Him directly as ὁ θεός - “O God.” The nominative with article functions vocatively, a recognized idiom in Koine Greek.

This is why virtually all major translations (ESV, NASB, KJV, LXX citation from Psalm 45:6) render it “Your throne, O God.” The morphology leaves no room for “divine quality” or “godlike” - it is a direct title.

Hebrews 1:8 is quoting Psalm 45:6 (LXX: ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ θεός, εἰς αἰῶνα αἰῶνος). In the Hebrew, it is כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים עוֹלָם וָעֶד (“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever”). The LXX translators rendered it with nominative + article, which in Greek idiom functions vocatively.

F. F. Bruce on Hebrews 1:8
From The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT, Eerdmans, 1990), Bruce writes…

J.

Gospel · April 11, 2026, 7:15am

Far from being a dangerous cult, Jehovah’s Witnesses practice a religion that benefits themselves and others in the community. For example, our ministry has helped many people to overcome harmful addictions, such as the abuse of drugs and alcohol. In addition, we conduct literacy classes around the world, helping thousands learn to read and write. And we are actively involved in disaster relief. We work hard to have a positive impact on others, just as Jesus commanded his followers to do.—Matthew 5:13-16.

The claim that Jesus “rose” from the dead by his own power is false.

The passage upon which some base this claim is this

"17 This is why the Father loves me – because I lay down my life, so that I may take it back again. 18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.” (John 10:17-18)

Does this mean Jesus raised himself from the dead?

Let’s see.

First, John’s Gospel is the only gospel that has Jesus “rise” from the dead (apparently …) under his own power and not be “raised from the dead” by God the Father as in Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul’s Epistles, and Acts of the Apostles. So, it makes sense to say that John is the odd one out that needs explaining and harmonizing with all the others (if possible) rather than the other way around.

Second, there is another verse in John’s Gospel that is entirely equivalent to the above…

…"Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.” (John 2:19)

…and, by explaining that, we’ll also explain John 10:17-18.

So, let’s do precisely that.

Jesus was speaking to the Jews after he had just turned over their tables and driven their animals out of the Temple. The Jews were angry and unbelieving, and Jesus was speaking in veiled terms, so much so that the Gospel of John has to add, “but he was speaking of the temple of his body,” (John 2:21) so the reader would not be confused. Since Jesus was standing in the actual Temple when he said, “Destroy this temple,” the natural assumption would be the one his audience made, that he was speaking of the Temple where he was standing at the time.
The fact that Jesus was speaking in veiled terms to an unbelieving audience should make us hesitant to build a doctrine on this verse, especially when many other clear verses say that the Father raised Jesus. For example, in 1 Corinthians we read: “Now GOD [the Father] INDEED RAISED the Lord and he will [also] raise us by his power.” (1 Cor 6:14) Jesus was not in a teaching situation when he was speaking. Tempers were flaring, and the Jews were against Jesus anyway. It was common for Jesus to speak in ways that unbelievers did not understand. Even a cursory reading of the Gospels will show a number of times when Jesus spoke, and the unbelievers who heard him (and sometimes even the disciples) were confused by what he said.
We know that Jesus was speaking in veiled terms, but what did he mean? He was referring to the fact that he was indeed ultimately responsible for his resurrection, in the sense that he was responsible to keep himself “without spot or blemish” and to fully obey the will of the Father. A sacrifice that was blemished was unacceptable to the Lord (Lev 22:17-20; Mal 1:6-8). If he had sinned, his sin would have been a “blemish” that would have disqualified him as the perfect sacrifice. Then he would not have kept himself worthy of being resurrected. Jesus went into the Temple and turned over the money tables because, as John 2:17 indicates, he was fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy and the will of God, which he always did. Had he not fulfilled the prophecy spoken in Psalm 69:9 (“Certainly zeal for your house consumes me; I endure the insults of those who insult you”), he would not have fulfilled all the law and would have been disqualified from being the perfect sacrificial victim for the sins of mankind. Thus, his destiny was in his own hands, and he could say, “I will raise it up.”
It is common speech that if a person has a vital role in something, he is referred to as having done it. We know that Roman soldiers crucified Jesus, as the Gospels says. Yet Peter said to the rulers of the Jews, “you” crucified the Lord (Acts 5:30). The Jews played a vital part in Jesus’ death, so there really is a sense in which they crucified him, even though they themselves did not do the dirty work. A similar example from the Old Testament is in both 2 Samuel 5 and 1 Chronicles 11. David and his men were attacking the Jebusite city, Jerusalem. The record is very clear that David had sent his men ahead into the city to fight, and even offered a general’s position to the first one into the city. Yet the record says, “David captured the stronghold of Zion.” We know why, of course. David played a vital role in the capture of Jerusalem, and so Scripture says he captured it. This same type of wording that is so common in the Bible and indeed, in all languages, is the wording Jesus used. He would raise his body, i.e., he would play a vital part in it being raised.

Gospel · April 11, 2026, 7:16am

So, what Jesus was saying both in John 2:19 and in John 10:17-18, is that his resurrection depended on him, in the sense that sinlessness of his thoughts and actions, and his obedience unto death to the Father was the necessary (NOT sufficient) condition of his own resurrection, that is for the Father to approve of him by raising him from the dead (Rom 10:9).

Remember,

The Greek word “exousia”[*] translated “power” in John 10:18 (KJV) is rendered “authority” in 29 other references. (e.g. Matt. 7:29; 21:23; Luke 7:8; John 5:27). Weymouth renders this passage as follows: “No one is taking it away from me, but I myself am laying it down . . . I am authorized to receive it back again.”[**] (Jn 10:18)

This translation is in harmony with the following statements of Jesus:

“. . . The Son can do nothing of himself. . .” (John 5:19).

“I can of mine own self do nothing . . .” (John 5:30).

Jesus had authority to take his life again as he said: “This commandment have I received of my Father.” (vs. 18). It is not, therefore, Jesus who does something for himself.

In many places, the NT writers refer to the resurrection of Christ. Not one writer, however, states that Jesus raised himself from the dead. In every reference, it is God who raises Christ, not “God the Son” who raises “the Son of Man.”

Note the following passages:

“Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death . . .” (Acts 2:24).

“This Jesus hath God raised up . . .” (Acts 2:32).

See also Acts 3:15; 5:30; 10:39, 40; and 1 Cor. 15:15.

The personal pronoun “him” when referring to the death and resurrection of Christ always means the body which lay in the grave. It never refers in Scripture to “God the Son”, who it is hypothesized, survived the death of the body. For example, Acts of the Apostles records the following: “. . . whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly.” (Acts 10:39, 40). The “him” that was hanged is the same “him” that was raised. This evidence is fatal to the trinitarian view that the real “him” was “God the Son” who continued to exist after the death of the body. Jesus stated plainly, “I am he that liveth and was dead.” (Rev. 1:18). This statement was made after his resurrection.

Jesus was unable to do anything for himself once dead because “the dead know not anything.” (Ecc. 9:5).

[*]“Exousia” means privilege or authority: Robert Young, Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible, 8th ed., (London: Lutterworth Press, 1965). Bullinger gives the meaning of “exousia” as follows: “delegated authority, liberty or authority to do anything.” Ethelbert W. Bullinger. A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, 8th ed., (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons Ltd., 1957). p. 593.

[**]Richard F. Weymouth, The New Testament in Modern Speech, (London: James Clarke & Co., Ltd.).

Also Paul, in Romans 8:11, said it was God’s spirit that resurrected Jesus, and in Ephesians 1:19-20 he said it was God’s power that resurrected Jesus. Thus he appears to have called God’s holy spirit God’s power, which is similar to what the Gospels present. In the account at Matthew 12:28, Jesus used the phrase “God’s spirit,” but in the parallel account at Luke 11:20, Jesus said “God’s finger.” Thus the Gospels present God’s holy spirit as God’s power. Thus God, the Father, resurrected Jesus with his power. Jesus agreed to this arrangement as seen in John 10:18, where he said that he had the authority or the right (NET Bible footnote) to be resurrected by his Father. This harmonizes with Acts 2:24, 32, 3:15, 10:40, 2 Corinthians 4:14, Galatians 1:1 and Hebrews 13:20, which declare that it was God, the Father, who resurrected Jesus.

Thus, in light of John 10:18, we can see what Jesus meant in John 2:19-22 where he said he would raise up his body. It was by his perfect obedience that Jesus provided the moral basis for the Father to raise him from the dead. Because of Jesus’ faithful course of life, it could properly be said that Jesus himself was responsible for his resurrection. Jesus himself used the same reasoning in Luke 8:46-48, where he attributed the faith of the one he healed as being responsible for the cure.

Thus, Jesus was in full reliance on his God and Father to raise him from the dead.

Johann · April 11, 2026, 7:33am

Sorry, you need to read again.

The Father raised Him

“Paul, an apostle-not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.” (Galatians 1:1)

Gal 1:1 Paul, Παῦλος an apostle — ἀπόστολος, not οὐκ from ἀπ’ men, ἀνθρώπων nor οὐδὲ through δι’ man, ἀνθρώπου but ἀλλὰ through διὰ Jesus Ἰησοῦ Christ, Χριστοῦ and καὶ God Θεοῦ [the] Father, Πατρὸς the [One] τοῦ having raised ἐγείραντος Him αὐτὸν out from ἐκ [the] dead - νεκρῶν,

Jesus raised Himself

“Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’” (John 2:19)

Joh 2:19 Jesus Ἰησοῦς answered Ἀπεκρίθη and καὶ said εἶπεν to them, αὐτοῖς “Destroy “Λύσατε this τοῦτον, - τὸν temple, ναὸν and καὶ in ἐν three τρισὶν days ἡμέραις I will raise it up ἐγερῶ . . . .” αὐτόν.

For, in less than three days after this, they went to Pilate, saying, “Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, after three days I will rise again” (Mat_27:63). Now what utterance of Christ, known to his enemies, could this refer to, if not to this very saying about destroying and rearing up the temple? And if so, it puts it beyond a doubt that by this time, at least, they were perfectly aware that our Lord’s words referred to His death by their hands and His resurrection by His own. But this is confirmed by the next verse.

The Spirit raised Him

“If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.” (Romans 8:11)

Rom 8:11 And δὲ if εἰ the τὸ Spirit Πνεῦμα of the [One] τοῦ having raised up ἐγείραντος - τὸν Jesus Ἰησοῦν out from ἐκ [the] dead νεκρῶν dwells οἰκεῖ in ἐν you, ὑμῖν, the [One] ὁ having raised up ἐγείρας Christ Χριστὸν Jesus Ἰησοῦν out from «ἐκ [the] dead νεκρῶν» ⇔ also καὶ will give life ζωοποιήσει to your ὑμῶν mortal θνητὰ - τὰ bodies, σώματα on account of διὰ His αὐτοῦ Spirit Πνεύματος - τοῦ dwelling ἐνοικοῦντος in ἐν you.
ὑμῖν.

According To The Scriptures, Jesus Was Raised PHYSICALLY From The Dead:
He will return as He left Act 1:9-11
Antichrist denies Jesus is coming in the flesh 2Jo 1:7
If Christ has not been raised our faith is in vain 1Cr 15:14, 17
Believe in your heart that Christ was raised from the dead Rom 10:9
God raised Jesus from the dead Act 2:24
Jesus raised His own body, SOMA - Greek word for tangible physical body Jhn 2:19-21; 10:18
The Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead Rom 8:11

In John 2:19–21, Jesus says: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The evangelist clarifies: “But He was speaking of the temple of His body (σῶμα, sōma).”

σῶμα (sōma) - tangible, physical body. Morphology: nominative neuter singular noun.

The verb ἐγερῶ (“I will raise”) is future active indicative, first person singular - Jesus Himself is the subject, promising to raise His own body.

In John 10:18, Jesus says: “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again.”

The verb λαβεῖν (“to take [it] up again”) is aorist active infinitive, showing His authority to reclaim His life.

The repeated emphasis is on His personal agency: ἐξουσίαν ἔχω (“I have authority”).

So, morphologically and contextually, the NT affirms that Jesus raised His own σῶμα (physical body). This is one of the three strands of testimony:

The Father raised Him (Galatians 1:1).

The Spirit raised Him (Romans 8:11).

Jesus raised Himself (John 2:19–21; 10:18).

“No man taketh it from me,” (oudies heren auten ap’ emou) “No one took it from me.” To the end He had power to choose another time of exit from life as He asserted, Mat_26:53.
1. “But I lay it down of myself.” (all’ ego tithemi auten ap’ emautou) “But I lay it down from myself,” from my own choice, for the redemption of the whole world and the purchase of the church with His own blood, Heb_2:9; Act_20:28; Eph_5:25.
“I have power to lay it down,” (eksousian echo theinai auten) “I hold the authority to lay it down,” or to retain it, a thing men do not have, Joh_3:35; Joh_12:32.
“And I have power to take it again.” (kai eksousian echo palin labein auten) “And I have, hold, or own authority to take it again,” to reserve it, Joh_2:19; Joh_14:1-3.
“This commandment have I received of my Father.” (tauten ten entolen elabon para tou patros mou “This commandment I received directly from my Father,” to dispose of His life and begin or resume it again, Joh_6:38; Rom_8:11. In doing this He was fulfilling the will and purpose of His Father.

J.

Gospel · April 11, 2026, 9:17am

Rather than ignoring this scripture, since at first glance it seems to contradict all the many others about Jesus being raised up by the Father alone, we should make every attempt to understand it in agreement with the other scriptures on the subject.

Obviously Jesus was speaking figuratively here, whereas the other scriptures concerning his being raised are to be understood literally. Figurative Bible language often leads to difficulties in interpretation.

However, Jesus was speaking figuratively of his actual body which his enemies really did destroy (“destroy this temple and …”). Therefore, one understanding might be that Jesus was merely stating that after the Father had already returned Jesus’ life to a body (“raised” him to life) Jesus was then physically able to raise up that life-filled body: He literally was able to raise himself to his feet again; he raised his own body up from a prone position!

Another possibility could be that because of his perfect faithfulness and obedience to God, Jesus himself provided the moral basis for the Father to raise him from the dead. It might be said that, in a sense, because of his faithful course in life, Jesus himself was responsible for God’s resurrection of him.

A similar style of expression may be seen at Luke 8:48 when Jesus had healed a woman he said to her: “Your faith has made you well.” Did she actually heal herself, then? No; it was power from God the Father through Christ that healed her because of her faith!

Even famed trinitarian NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson tells us “Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: ‘And in three days I will raise it up.’ He did not mean that he will raise himself independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11).” - Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. v, p. 183.

Johann · April 11, 2026, 10:10am

“I lay down My life so that I may take it again” This implies the resurrection. Usually in the NT it is the Father who raises the Son (cf. John 18 b) to show His acceptance of His sacrifice. But here the power of Jesus Himself in the resurrection is asserted.
This phrase is an excellent opportunity to show that the NT often attributes the works of redemption to all three persons of the Godhead.

God the Father raised Jesus (cf. Act_2:24; Act_3:15; Act_4:10; Act_5:30; Act_10:40; Act_13:30; Act_13:33-34; Act_13:37; Act_17:31; Rom_6:4; Rom_6:9; Rom_10:9; 1Co_6:14; 2Co_4:14; Gal_1:1;Eph_1:20; Col_2:12; 1Th_1:10)
God the Son raised Himself (cf. Joh_2:19-22; Joh_10:17-18)
God the Spirit raised Jesus (cf. Rom_8:11)

Joh_10:18 “I have authority” This is the same term used in Joh_1:12. It can be translated “authority,” “legal right,” or “power.” This verse shows the power and authority of Jesus.

In the triune Godhead no one is acting “independently” from each other, they are Echad.

And…

Joel 2:32 (LXX) - Romans 10:13

LXX: πᾶς ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου σωθήσεται
(“Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord [YHWH] shall be saved.”)

NT: Paul cites this in Romans 10:13, applying it to Jesus.
Thus, the title κύριος (YHWH) is directly applied to Christ.

Rom 10:13 For V’HAYAH KOL ASHER YIKRA B’SHEM ADONOI (“Everyone whoever calls upon the Name of the L-rd” YOEL 3:5 [2:32]) shall be delivered.

Isaiah 40:3 (LXX) - Matthew 3:3 / John 1:23

LXX: φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ· ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν Κυρίου
(“A voice crying in the wilderness: prepare the way of the Lord [YHWH].”)

NT: The Gospels apply this to John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus.
Jesus is identified as the κύριος of Isaiah 40:3.

Psalm 102:25–27 (LXX) -Hebrews 1:10–12

LXX: Σὺ κατʼ ἀρχάς, Κύριε, τὴν γῆν ἐθεμελίωσας…
(“You, Lord [YHWH], laid the foundation of the earth…”)

NT: Hebrews 1:10 applies this directly to the Son.
The Psalm’s address to YHWH is applied to Christ.

Isaiah 8:13–14 (LXX) - 1 Peter 2:7–8

LXX: Κύριον αὐτὸν ἁγιάσατε… καὶ ἔσται ὑμῖν εἰς φόβον· καὶ εἰς λίθον προσκόμματος…
(“Sanctify the Lord [YHWH]… He will be a stone of stumbling…”)

NT: Peter applies this to Christ as the “stone of stumbling.”

Jeremiah 17:10 (LXX) - Revelation 2:23

LXX: ἐγὼ Κύριος ἐτάζων καρδίας καὶ δοκιμάζων νεφρούς
(“I, the Lord [YHWH], search the heart and test the mind.”)

NT: Jesus says in Rev 2:23, “I am He who searches minds and hearts.”
The prerogative of YHWH is claimed by Christ.

Synthesis.
The LXX consistently renders YHWH as κύριος.

The NT authors quote those texts and apply them to Jesus.

This is not mere “title borrowing”-it is a deliberate identification of Jesus with YHWH.

But you deny the Deity of Messiah, reducing Him to a creature, a “created being”

J.

Gospel · April 11, 2026, 10:49am

But whatever the answer to any possible confusion generated from this single figurative usage at John 2:19, we must not ignore the many clear, indisputable, literal statements which clearly state that the Father alone actually raised Jesus to life .

That Jesus had the “power to take his life again” might seem to be implying that he would actually resurrect himself.

However, we should be aware that, although this translation is understandably the most popular one for trinitarians, it is not the only interpretation. In fact, it is not even the most likely, and, in light of many other scriptures, it is certainly not the most appropriate.

Even some trinitarian Bibles translate lambano in John 10:17, 18 as “receive” instead of “take” (as in the RSV above) and exousia as “right” or “authority” instead of “power” as in the RSV above: “I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right [exousia] to receive [lambano] it back again; this charge I have received from my Father.” - New English Bible (NEB) .

Such a rendering, of course, is in line with the Father alone actually raising up the dead Jesus as so many scriptures plainly state.

The very trinitarian New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible tells us that exousia can mean several different things including “authority,” “right,” and “power.” It further shows us that the equally trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB) translates exousia as “authority” 65 times, as “right” 11 times, and as “power” 11 times.

As the trinitarian New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us, Jesus “has the exousia to give his life and to take it again (Jn 10:18) … Those who receive him and believe in his name are given exousia to become children of God (Jn 1:12).” - p. 610, Vol. 2, 1986.
John 1:12 is translated, “are given the right *[*exousia ] or authority to become children of God” in the following trinitarian Bibles: NASB, ASV, NIV, NKJV, MKJV, LITV, AT, GNB, TEV, CEV, NEB, REB, CBW, BBE, LB, GodsWord, Holman NT, ISV NT, and the translations by trinitarians Young, Moffatt, Rotherham, and William Barclay.

Also, lambano most frequently means “receive.” The trinitarian New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible tells us that lambano can mean several different things including “receive,” “accept,” and “take.” It further shows us that the equally trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB) translates lambano as “receive” 132 times and all others (including 109 “take”s) only 122 times. Even when translated as “take” in the NASB (and other translations) lambano can often still be in the sense of receiving something that has been offered to those who are worthy - see Rev. 5:9; 10:8, 9; 22:17.

As the trinitarian New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us, “lambano means to receive (in the more passive sense): e.g. a bite, money, alms. It is important with theological objects: eternal life (Mk.10:30)”. And, “ lambano is theologically significant in its meaning of receive. It corresponds with God’s giving (didomai): God gives - man receives. (i) Jesus himself LIVES by RECEIVING: he has received his commission, the Spirit, power (Jn 10:18; Acts 2:33; Rev. 2:28 [2:27 in most Bibles]). He is the gift of God and lives by receiving.” - p. 748, vol . 3, 1986.

Your argument runs as follows.

Passage E is a true prophecy predicting that the God of Israel, Jehovah, will do action A.
Passage F truly asserts that the prophecy in E was fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ.
Therefore, Jesus Christ just is the God of Israel, Jehovah.

However, this argument is invalid; it is possible for the premises to be true even though the conclusion is false. Even though the prediction “George W. Bush will conquer Iraq” may be said to be fulfilled by the actions of General Smith, it doesn’t follow that Smith and Bush are one and the same. Rather, Smith acted as the agent of Bush.

Similarly, Jehovah acts through his servant Jesus. Again, it is a commonplace of biblical scholarship on the New Testament use of Old Testament texts that the New Testament authors believe there to be multiple meanings of prophetic texts, so that a text about someone or something else, even God, can have a fulfillment in Jesus, e.g. Matthew 2:15, Philippians 2:10–11; such uses then are not a way of implying the identity of Jesus with Jehovah.

Therefore, Jesus is God’s judge and representative just as Moses was, (Ex 4:15, 16 [pa|in]; Ps 82:1-8 [pa|in]) but in a greater sense, having become heir to the kingdom of God in order that he might subject all things to the only true God, his Father, and the Father of the heavenly adopted holy ones, Jehovah. (Joh 20:17 [pa|in]; Heb 1:2 [pa|in])

Johann · April 11, 2026, 1:18pm

“A proper noun is defined as a noun which cannot be “pluralized”— thus it does not include titles. A person’s name, therefore, is proper and consequently does not fit the rule. But θεός is not proper because it can be pluralized (cf. John 10: 34)— thus, when θεός is in a TSKS construction in which both nouns are singular and personal, it fits Sharp’s rule.” (Wallace, Daniel B.; Wallace, Daniel B.. The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An Intermediate Greek Grammar (p. 128). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.)

Conclusion
The Granville Sharp rule, when applied to Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, reveals that Jesus is being called both God and Savior. Of course, these are not the only two verses where his deity is proclaimed.

Granville Sharp’s rule
Granville Sharp’s Rule is a grammatical principle applied to the translation of New Testament Greek whereby the deity of Christ is explicitly affirmed. This is specifically associated with the translation of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.

Titus 2:13:

KJV – “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Similarly in the 1901 ASV, RSV, and also in the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
NASB – “Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.” The same sense is also seen in NIV and ESV.
In the above translations, the first implies a reference to two persons, while the second (applying the Granville Sharp rule) sees the reference to one person who is both God and savior. The same contrast may be seen in 2 Peter 1:1:

KJV – “to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
NASB – “To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
Statement of the rule
“The following rule by Granville Sharp of a century back still proves to be true: `When the copulative KAI connects two nouns of the same case, if the article HO or any of its cases precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle; i.e., it denotes a further description of the first-named person.'” (A Manual Of The Greek New Testament, Dana & Mantey, p. 147)

“Basically, Granville Sharp’s rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word ‘and,’ and the first noun has the article (‘the’) while the second does not, both nouns are referring to the same person.” - James White

The basic formula (in the Greek word order) may be seen in this manner:

Article (ho) + noun1 + and (kai) + noun2
Granville Sharp’s rule says that since the definite article (ho, or its variant) precedes only the first noun and not both, then the reference is to one person – this being the case in the verses quoted above.

Cautions in application
Detractors maintain that there are numerous examples in the Greek where Granville Sharp’s rule fails to hold up, i.e. where two distinct referents are obviously intended. However, as pointed out by Daniel Wallace, this is due to a misapplication of the rule.^ [1]^ What is often overlooked is that Granville Sharp distinctly noted that the rule applies when the two nouns are singular and apply to persons, not things. When these restrictions are considered, there are no exceptions to be noted in native Koine Greek constructions.

Wallace has restated Granville Sharp’s rule in order to explicitly state all the restrictions and to enhance the readability of the rule.

In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by kai (thus, article-substantive- kai-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent. ^[1]^

Notes
? Daniel B. Wallace, Sharp Redivivus? A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule
? Daniel B. Wallace, The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by kai in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary), 134-35.
See also
Greek
External links
Granville Sharp’s Rule: Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, by James White
Sharp Redivivus? A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule (PDF), by Daniel Wallace (PDF) - from, “The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by Kaiv in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance” (Ph.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1995)

http://www.agcc.ca/resources/granvillesharprule.pdf

https://bible.org/article/sharp-redivivus-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule?utm_source=com#:~:text=Sharp%20Redivivus%3F%20-%20A%20Reexamination%20of%20the%20Granville%20Sharp%20Rule

J.

2 ↩︎

Gospel · April 11, 2026, 1:22pm

For convenience, let us place these verses before us:

“Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The. Jews then said, ‘It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?’ But he spoke of the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.” (Revised Standard Version)

Jesus’ words: “I will raise it up” are set side by side with verses like these:

“…Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well.” (Acts 4:10) (Revised Standard Version)

“This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are all witnesses.” (Acts 2:32) (Revised Standard Version)

Now, if Jesus raised himself and also God raised Jesus, then it appears Jesus must be the God that raised him. At first glance, this seems to be the case. Nevertheless, it turns out that the scriptures frequently append the direct cause of an action to a source prior to the direct cause. Let us explore this more.

At Matthew 10:8, Jesus instructed his twelve disciples:

“Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without pay, give without pay.” (Revised Standard Version)

Probably every Bible believer would agree that the disciples, themselves, could not possibly do these things. It required God working through them to accomplish these noble but difficult tasks. If the disciples made themselves available and went forth as Jesus Christ commanded, then it was certain that the dead would be raised, lepers cleansed and the sick healed. The first action (obedience to Christ) guaranteed the second action (God’s healing) and the desired result. In that sense the disciples healed and raised the dead.

Turning to James 5:19, 20, we discover another example:

“My bretheren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” (Revised Standard Version)

Now is it literally possible that the rescuing Christian can ‘save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins’ or is that something only God can do? Isn’t it true that if Christian “A” rescues the wandering Christian “B” and steers him in the right direction, he is thus in position now for God to save his soul from death and cover a multitude of sins? The first action (Christian “A” redirecting Christian “B”) guaranteed the second action (God’s deliverance and forgiveness). In that sense, Christian “A” saves the soul of Christian “B” and covers a multitude of sins.

There is example after example of the principle enunciated above. The reader may wish to consider these, just to cite a few more: 1 Corinthians 9:22; 1 Timothy 4:16; Jude 22, 23. These are all illustrations of the following written formula: If action “A” guarantees that action “B” will occur, resulting in “C”, then “A” is indirectly the cause of “C” and may in common conversation be said to be the cause of “C”.

If Jesus was faithful to God unto death, his resurrection was guaranteed and thus, in this sense, he could say he resurrected himself. Because of this fact, it cannot be argued that Jesus is God.

Gospel · April 11, 2026, 1:23pm

2 PETER 1:1 (and Titus 2:13) - These two scriptures are frequently translated (not surprisingly) in a trinitarian manner in trinitarian Bibles. Grammatically they could be translated in two (at least) different ways: trinitarian or non-trinitarian. If a translator has a trinitarian bias, he will, understandably, render them to show a trinitarian understanding. So it is highly significant that the following trinitarian scholars have not chosen to so interpret them:

The Greek Testament , Henry Alford, p. 421, Vol. 3. (Titus 2:13)
Theological Investigations , Karl Rahner, pp. 136, 137, Vol. 1, 1965. (2 Peter 1:1)
The Bible, a New Translation , Dr. James Moffatt. (Titus 2:13)

In an attempt to prove the Trinity Doctrine, trinitarian Granville Sharp made up a rule in 1798. It is often called “Sharp’s Rule” by trinitarians. It says, in effect, that when in the original Greek two or more words (nouns) are joined by the word “and” they all refer to the same person if the word “the” (the article) comes before the first noun and not before the other noun(s).

For example, if we saw “the king and master of the slave” in the Greek text of the Bible, it would always mean, according to Sharp, that only one person was being called both “king” and “master.”

Sharp invented this rule after he noticed this particular construction (sometimes called a “Sharp’s construction”) was used with “God” and “Christ” in 5 places in the NT. If he could convince others that his “rule” was true, then they would think there was finally (after 1400 years of a “trinity” tradition) some actual scriptural, grammatical proof that God and Jesus are the same “person”!

The 5 “proofs” of Jesus’ Godhood according to Sharp himself are (in the literal wording of the original New Testament manuscripts):

(a) Titus 2:13: “of the great God and savior of us Christ Jesus” (Bowman’s choice)

(b) 2 Pet. 1:1: “righteousness of the God of us and savior Christ Jesus” (Bowman’s choice)

(c) 2 Thess. 1:12: “the grace of the God of us and Lord Jesus Christ”

(d) 1 Tim. 5:21: “in sight of the God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels”

(e) Eph. 5:5: “…in the kingdom of the Christ and God”

Since the first noun (“God” in the first four scriptures) has the article (“the”) with it and the following noun (“savior” in the first two scriptures) does not have the article (“the”), then (according to Sharp) God and Christ (the savior, etc.) are the same person !

There are a number of reasons why Sharp’s Rule, as applied to these 5 “proofs,” is invalid, but we will examine a few briefly (See the SHARP study for more details).

One important strike against it is the fact that so many respected trinitarian NT grammar experts and translators have rejected it as a valid rule - e.g., see G. B. Winer; J. H. Moulton; C. F. D. Moule; Dr. James Moffatt (see Titus 2:13; and 1 Tim. 5:21); Dr. William Barclay (see 2 Thess. 1:12).

For example, examine the following trinitarian Bible’s renderings of these “Sharp’s Constructions”:

2 Thess. 1:12 - KJV; KJIIV; NASB; NA B (1970); MLB; LB; GNB; RSV; NRSV; NIV .

Eph 5:5 - KJV; NKJV; KJIIV; RSV; NRSV; LB; MLB; NIV; NEB; REB; GNB; TEV; NAB .

2 Tim. 4:1 - most trinitarian Bibles.

1 Tim 6:13 - all trinitarian Bibles.

These many respected Bibles, translated by expert trinitarian New Testament scholars, clearly disregard Sharp’s “Rule” at these (and other) places and show two persons being spoken of!

Notice Eph. 5:5, for example. Most trinitarian Bibles translate this example of Sharp’s Construction:

“in the kingdom of Christ and of God” - NEB; REB; NRSV; RSV; NAB; KJV; MLB; LB; NIV; GNB; TEV; The Amplified Bible ; and Phillips. This is not the way it would be translated to show that the two descriptions were of the same person! (At the very least it would be rendered more literally as “the kingdom of the Christ and God.”) Instead it clearly shows two persons!

Gospel · April 11, 2026, 1:24pm

Also, 1 Tim. 6:13 is translated in trinitarian Bibles as: “before (in the sight or presence of) God … and before Christ Jesus…” Although Sharp’s Rule insists that this should be translated to show that it is speaking of the same person, it obviously is not! Most trinitarian grammar experts clearly do not believe Sharp’s Rule is a valid absolute rule!

Context alone is often enough to show that the trinitarian rendering is the least likely of the grammatically possible renderings. For example, the most popular of Sharp's constructions' among trinitarians is **2 Peter 1:1** . The Sharp’s construction’ here is immediately followed by another `Sharp’s construction’ in verse 2. It is almost never translated in a trinitarian fashion in any trinitarian Bible. Instead, it is usually rendered like this: “the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord” - AT (Goodspeed).

According to Sharp’s Rule, however, this should be rendered "according to the knowledge of the God and Jesus our Lord " and interpreted as God and Jesus being the same person. Obviously, context shows they are not the same person here, or more trinitarians would have so translated it! Therefore, with the context of 2 Pet. 1:2, it is unlikely that 2 Pet. 1:1 immediately before it should be given an entirely different interpretation.

Of the many reasons invalidating Sharp’s Rule grammatically (see SHARP study paper) there are at least two of extreme importance each of which is conclusive by itself.

(1) Prepositional Constructions (with phrases containing prepositions: “of God;” “in the Lord;” “God of…;” etc.) are known by all NT grammarians to cause uncertainty of article usage. That is, if a prepositional phrase (including genitives) is attached to a word, that word may sometimes have the article (“the”) and sometimes not have it – without changing the intended meaning! (See A. T. Robertson, pp. 780, 790, 791; C. F. D. Moule, p. 117; J. H. Moulton, pp. 175, 179-180; et al.)
This means that the NT writers sometimes wrote, for example, “The God of me” (with article) and “_God of me” (without article) with exactly the same intended meaning. The definite article (“the”) was ambiguous in such cases (see the DEF study paper).

Therefore any grammatical rules which depend on the presence or absence of the article in the NT Greek must not use as examples those scriptures which use a prepositional construction attached to a word (noun) in question if they are to be used honestly and properly.

But if you examine the 5 trinitarian “proofs” above, you will see that they all use such prepositional constructions: “Of us” in (a) Titus 2:13 and (b) 2 Peter 1:1 is a “prepositional” genitive, and even “savior” itself is a genitive in both scriptures and literally means “of savior ;” “Lord” in (c) 2 Thess. 1:12 is a genitive and literally means "of Lord " (as rendered in the Modern Language Bible; Living Bible; Good News Bible; Douay Version; New American Bible [1970 ed.]; and Barclay’s Daily Study Bible ); “Christ” in (d)1 Tim. 5:21 is a genitive and literally means "of Christ " (as in The Good News Bible [& TEV ]; New American Standard Bible ; Modern Language Bible ; Revised Standard Version; and New Revised Standard Version ); and “God” in (e) Eph 5:5 Is a genitive and literally means "of God " (as in the King James Version ; Revised Standard Version ; New Revised Standard Version ; Living Bible; New English Bible; Revised English Bible; Modern Language Bible; New American Bible (1970 & 1991); Douay Version; New International Version; Good News Bible; and Phillips translation).

Therefore all 5 Sharp’s “proofs” are invalid on the basis of prepositional constructions alone!

(2) New Testament scholars, including noted trinitarian NT grammar experts, point out that the use of proper names (“John,” “Moses,” “Jesus,” etc.) also causes uncertain article usage in NT Greek. (A. T. Robertson, Grammar , p. 791, and Word Pictures , p. 46, Vol. IV [includes “Lord”]; C. F. D. Moule, p. 115 [includes “Lord”]; J. H. Moulton [Turner], Vol. 3, pp. 165-167; et. al.)

So not only did the NT Bible writers sometimes use the article and sometimes not use the article with the very same intended meaning with the very same proper name (e.g. “the James” and “James”), but even when the proper name is used as an appositive it also causes irregular article usage with the other associated nouns. - Robertson, pp. 760, 791.

For example, when “Jesus” and “Christ” are in apposition to each other (“Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus”), they are nearly always (96% of the time - see the SHARP study paper) written without the definite article in the writings of Paul regardless of “Sharp’s rule” or any other grammatical/syntactical consideration!

Gospel · April 11, 2026, 1:24pm

If we examine the first 4 of the 5 “proofs” above, we see that the proper name "Jesus " is used as an appositive with the word in question in each case! In other words, “Christ Jesus” is the appositive for “savior” in Titus 2:13. This means sometimes “savior” will have “the” with it in such a situation and sometimes it won’t (with no change in meaning). “Jesus Christ” is the appositive for “savior” in 2 Peter 1:1 and article usage (or non-usage) with “savior” in such circumstances is virtually meaningless. “Jesus Christ” is in apposition to (an appositive for) “Lord” in 2 Thess. 1:12. And “Jesus” is in apposition to “Christ” in 1 Tim. 5:21. These examples, therefore, are completely invalid as evidence for Jesus being God even if there were actually some validity to Sharp’s “Rule” with proper examples!

And the 5th example, Eph. 5:5, is incredibly poor in context alone. Even extreme trinitarian A. T. Robertson has to admit that the “evidence” of Eph. 5:5 is doubtful - Word Pictures , Vol. 14, pp. 46 and 543. No objective person could accept it alone as real evidence of Jesus’ Godhood!

Some PREPOSITIONAL examples found in NT Greek:

“The God of Abraham and _God of Isaac and _God of Jacob” - Luke 20:37.

“The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” - Matt. 22:32.

“James, _slave of God and _Lord Jesus Christ” - James 1:1

“By command of _God savior of us and _Christ Jesus” - 1 Tim. 1:1.

“I am the root and the offspring of David” - Rev. 22:16.

Some PROPER NAME examples found in NT Greek:

“having seen _Peter and _John” (no articles) - Acts 3:3.

“holding fast … the Peter and the John” (both articles) - Acts 3:11.

“beholding the outspokenness of the Peter and _John” (Sharp’s) - Acts 4:13.

“But the Peter and _John” (Sharp’s construction) - Acts 4:19.

So we see the Bible writer who has been acknowledged as the most proficient in NT Greek (Luke) showing the great ambiguity of article usage with proper names . If we do not exclude proper names as valid examples, we would have to agree that either Luke believed Peter and John were the same person or that he was completely unaware of Sharp’s Rule (or any first century equivalent)!

Although we can find such constructions as “the lord and master of the slave” where the first noun (with the definite article, `the’) is the same person as the second noun (without the definite article), there is no grammatical reason that this must always be so. Such constructions as “the boy and girl” and “the President and Vice President” (found in Amendment XX [as ratified in 1933] of the Constitution of the United States of America), which refer to more than one individual, are just as grammatically correct in both English and NT Greek.

There is no reason, grammatical or contextual, that 2 Pet. 1:1 and Titus 2:13 should be rendered as many trinitarian Bibles prefer it. Even many trinitarian scholars admit this. So just how, as Bowman claims, has the NWT “systematically abused the divine names or titles … in its handling of texts in which Jesus is called God” by translating in a completely honest manner the most probable meaning for these two scriptures?

It’s one thing to prefer a certain translation of a passage. It’s entirely another thing to insist that others who prefer a grammatically and contextually accurate different rendering are being dishonest!

Gospel · April 11, 2026, 1:29pm

The problem with trinitarians is that they bring down the Father.

When the first Christians set out to preach their message throughout the Roman empire, they were taken for ignorant atheists, for they had no visible gods. In response, some learned Christians appealed to the authority of those whom antiquity considered eminently wise: the classical philosophers. The best pagan philosophers had taught that above the entire cosmos there was a supreme being, and some had even declared that the pagan gods were human creations.

Appealing to such respected authorities, Christians argued that they believed in the supreme being of the philosophers, and that this was what they meant when they spoke of God. Such an argument was very convincing, and there is no doubt that it contributed to the acceptance of Christianity among the intelligentsia.

But this was also a dangerous argument. It was possible that Christians, in their eagerness to show the kinship between their faith and classical philosophy, would come to the conviction that the best way to speak of God was not in the manner of the prophets and other biblical writers, but rather in the manner of Plato, Plotinus, and the rest. Since those philosophers conceived of perfection as immutable, impassible, and fixed, many Christians came to the conclusion that such was the God of scripture.

Hence we see that the increasing number of Gentiles with little or no previous knowledge about Judaism and the Hebrew Scriptures have played an important role.

Things that at the beginning didn’t need to be explained, such as the meaning of “soul” or “Gehenna”, began to have different connotations to Gentiles.

They even gave little importance to the Hebrew Scriptures and saw Jesus’ father less the God of the Hebrew Scriptures and more similar to Greek concepts of a supreme being. And when they read that Jesus is called “logos”, they may have thought of the philosophical concept of a “logos”. Even, the idea of deifying a human being wasn’t alien to Roman culture, which have been one of the elements that paved the way to consider that Jesus is God.

Also, Christians were ridiculed, because most of them were from humble background, and the ones that had a higher educational level have felt the urge to present Christian beliefs in a more acceptable way.

Two means were found to bring together what the Bible says about God and the classical notion of the supreme being as impassible and fixed: allegorical interpretation of scriptural passages, and the doctrine of the Logos. Allegorical interpretation was fairly simple to apply. Wherever scripture says something “unworthy” of God–that is, something that is not worthy of the perfection of the supreme being of the philosophers–such words are not to be taken literally.

Thus, for instance, if the Bible says that God walked in the garden, or that God spoke, one is to remember that an immutable being does not really walk or speak. Intellectually, this satisfied many minds. But emotionally, it left much to be desired, for the life of the church was based on the faith that it was possible to have a direct relationship with a personal God, and the supreme being of the philosophers was in no way personal.

There was another way to resolve the conflict between the philosophical idea of a supreme being and the witness of scripture. This was the doctrine of the Logos, as developed by Justin, Clement, Origen, and others. According to this view, although it is true that the supreme being–the “Father”–is immutable, impassible, and so on, there is also a Logos, Word, or Reason of God, and this is personal, capable of direct relationships with the world and with humans. Thus, according to Justin, when the Bible says that God spoke to Moses, what it means is that the Logos of God spoke to him.

This is why Jehovah was pushed to the background within Christendom. They needed their ‘perfect’ God of the philosophers, one who is totally impersonal and does not do anything except sit there and be perfect. Thus, Jesus became the de facto Jehovah, the God who speaks and interacts with mankind; the God who is personal and actually cares about us. He’s the one that could be prayed to and listens, etc.

Johann · April 11, 2026, 1:38pm

Your sources @Gospel? And we take it from there.

“The lack of the article does not make theos indefinite. Rather, it is qualitative, indicating that the Word had the nature of God.”

And another brief line from his discussion-Wallace, in the links provided.

“John’s gospel is affirming that the Word was fully deity, yet distinct from the Father.”

What this shows in Wallace’s own wording
He explicitly rejects “a god” as a valid meaning in this verse
He argues the construction emphasizes nature/essence (what the Word is)
He affirms the Word is fully divine, not partially or secondary.

J.

Gospel · April 11, 2026, 2:02pm

The ultimate purpose of the Trinity is that Satan is deliberately causing confusion.

But why did this ‘Trinity’ become one of the primary vehicles through which apostate Christianity confuses biblical truth? As one historian explains it:

"The roots of the Arian controversy [i.e. the beginning of the adoption of the Trinity doctrine] are to be found in theological developments that took place long before the time of Constantine [4th century CE]. Indeed, the controversy was a direct result of the manner in which Christians came to think of the nature of God, thanks to the work of Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others [2nd-3rd centuries CE]. When the first Christians set out to preach their message throughout the empire, they were taken for ignorant atheists, for they had no visible gods. In response, some learned Christians appealed to the authority of those whom antiquity considered eminently wise: the classical philosophers. The best pagan philosophers had taught that above the entire cosmos there was a supreme being, and some had even declared that the pagan gods were human creations. Appealing to such respected authorities, Christians argued that they believed in the supreme being of the philosophers, and that this was what they meant when they spoke of God. Such an argument was very convincing, and there is no doubt that it contributed to the acceptance of Christianity among the intelligentsia.

"But this was also a dangerous argument. It was possible that Christians, in their eagerness to show the kinship between their faith and classical philosophy, would come to the conviction that the best way to speak of God was not in the manner of the prophets and other biblical writers, but rather in the manner of Plato, Plotinus, and the rest. Since those philosophers conceived of perfection as immutable, impassible, and fixed, many Christians came to the conclusion that such was the God of Scripture.

"Two means were found to bring together what the Bible says about God and the classical notion of the supreme being as impassible and fixed: allegorical interpretation of scriptural passages, and the doctrine of the Logos. Allegorical interpretation was fairly simple to apply. Wherever scripture says something ‘unworthy’ of God—that is, something that is not worthy of the perfection of the supreme being of the philosophers—such words are not to be taken literally. Thus, for instance, if the Bible says that God walked in the garden, of that God spoke, one is to remember that an immutable being does not really walk or speak. Intellectually, this satisfied many minds. But emotionally it left much to be desired, for the life of the church was based on the faith that it was possible to have a direct relationship with a personal God, and the supreme being of the philosophers was in no way personal.

"There was another way to resolve the conflict between the philosophical idea of a supreme being and the witness of scripture. This was the doctrine of the Logos, as developed by Justin, Clement, Origen, and others. According to this view, although it is true that the supreme being—the ‘Father’—is immutable, impassible, and so on, there is also a Logos, Word, or Reason of God, and this is personal, capable of direct relationships with the world and with humans. Thus, according to Justin, when the Bible says that God spoke to Moses, what it means is that the Logos of God spoke to him.

"Due to the influence of Origen and his disciples, these views had become widespread in the Eastern wing of the church—that is, that portion of the church that spoke Greek rather than Latin. The generally accepted view was that, between the immutable One and the mutable world, there was the Word, or Logos, of God. It was within this context that the Arian controversy took place. (The Story of Christianity, by Justo L. Gonzalez, pp. 182-4)

Johann · April 11, 2026, 2:10pm

Oh, now you’re just going off on a tangent. I asked you for your sources so we can continue this discussion @Gospel.

J.