The Problem with 2 Peter 1:1

[PinSeeker]

Marriage is a two part deal.

Well actually... :) Covenant marriage is actually a three part "deal." God, the man, and the woman. But I'm with ya on Ephesians 5. :) Yes, it's God's... idea. :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[EloyCraft]

Well, wouldn't two persons be two gods?

Two persons can be one God. Only God can say I always was.
Three person's can say that according to scripture.

The Athenasius Creed uses several word that are not in the scriptures. Much of the Creed is based on the word "essence" which word, though found in Pagan literature, is not found in the scriptures themselves.

A concept is rejected because of the symbol attached to it? Pagans don't own the word or the concept. Concepts do not change but words migrate. The Christian trinity has no precedent. No one could make this stuff up. Divine Revelation introduces concepts never before known. Existent symbols must be borrowed and combined to express it.
Moses used the Oroboros to express what was divinely revealed to him. The Oroboros was pointed to it's true object. Moses used a pagan symbol tweeked it a bit to express the fall of man and a coming savior.
That pagan symbol was used to prove the concepts the pagans attached to it as false.
You would reject Moses' expression of the Word too?
I suggest you study the characteristics of Divine Revelation. It's what you are claiming to be more accurately understanding.

 

[Rich R]

That matters not. As I said, it is firmly based in and affirmed by Scripture.

Irrelevant. I mean... sorry, no offense intended. But to explain by use of a parallel, the exact words, "One should not take his own life or that of another" are not, woodenly speaking, found in Scripture, but that statement is firmly based on and affirmed by Commandment Number Six ("You shall not murder"), which is, as you know, found in Scripture. :)

No offense taken my friend.

Still it seems odd that God did not have the vocabulary to make clear what one must do to be saved. I'm pretty sure He has the word "essence" in His vocabulary. If He had wanted to say three persons are one essence. He could have. But He didn't. The word "essence" is basically the fulcrum upon which the trinity depends. They can't say the three persons are one person, so they say the three persons are one "essence" as though that clears up the whole matter.

Compare that to the simplicity of saying Jesus is the son of God. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what the scriptures say, about 50 times. There is no need to introduce extraneous words or ideas in order to say Jesus was the son of God. Why isn't that good enough? Why do we have to go beyond that simple, easy to understand idea, and introduce something that really can't be grasped by anyone. Even the most ardent Trinitarian scholars readily admit it can't be understood.

Sure you do, and that's... okay with me :)... but not true.

Unless you can find the word "essence" in the scriptures, it would be of absolute necessity to bring it in from a source outside of scripture. We're talking about a very simple concept here. If it's not in the scriptures, it must be from somewhere else.

[/QUOTE]Grace and peace to you.[/QUOTE]
Same to you brother!

 

[Rich R]

Well actually... :) Covenant marriage is actually a three part "deal." God, the man, and the woman. But I'm with ya on Ephesians 5. :) Yes, it's God's... idea. :)

Grace and peace to you.

I stand corrected.

It's funny I forgot God in the equation since He is the only one that faithfully carries out His part in the relationship. Thanks for the correction!

 

[EloyCraft]

Unless you can find the word "essence" in the scriptures, it would be of absolute necessity to bring it in from a source outside of scripture. 'r

Essence. That which is essential to being God. Why would a word used to express that concept be more important than the concept?

 

[Rich R]

Essence. That which is essential to being God. Why would a word used to express that concept be more important than the concept?

It depends on the concept. When a word has to be used to explain a concept that is quite impossible (a son being his own father), then the concept itself is highly suspect. At least to me it is.

What exactly is this essence anyway? Do people have essences? Why can't you and I share the same essence, making the two of us one person?

 

[Marymog]

2 Peter 1:1 is often used to support the trinity.
“Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:”

Here is the problem.

Granville Sharp made a rule in 1798. Sharp's Rule says, in effect, that when two or more words (nouns) in the original Greek NT text are joined by the word "and," they all refer to the same person if the word "the" comes before the first noun and not before the other nouns.

Many respected NT experts and translators have rejected Sharp's Rule. For example: 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 (2 Thess. 1:12); and Roman Catholic scholar Karl Rahner (2 Peter 1:1).

Notice these translations of 2 Peter 1:1.
KJV - “through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"
ASV - "in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ"
RSV footnote - “of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ”
Weymouth - “through the righteousness of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ."
NWT “through the righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ”

The most frequently used “Sharp’s Rule” verse is Titus 2:13. These translations also reject the made up rule and do not support the trinity.
KJV - “of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Moffatt - "of the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus,"
NABRE - "of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ,"
NLV - "of our great God and the One Who saves, Christ Jesus."
RSV footnote - “of the great God and our Savior”
CJB - "of our great God and the appearing of our Deliverer, Yeshua the Messiah."
GNV - "of that mighty God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ."
Phillips - "of the Great God and of Jesus Christ our saviour.
Coverdale - “of ye greate God and of oure Sauioure Iesu Christ.”
Wycliffe - “of the greet God, and of oure sauyour Jhesu Crist;”
Tyndale - “ye myghty god and of oure savioure Iesu Christ.”
Mace- “of the supreme God, and of our saviour Jesus Christ,”
Noyes - “of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ;”
Riverside - “of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus,”
NWT - "of the great God and of our Savior, Jesus Christ,"

Huh....I always thought Matthew 28:19 was the go to in support of the Trinity....:)

 

[EloyCraft]

depends on the concept. When a word has to be used to explain a concept that is qui

a word only symbolizes it doesn't explain anything.

What exactly is this essence anyway? Do p

What is essential for a thing to be what it is. The essence of cat is different than dog. Only God can say I always was. Having no beginning is essential to being God.

 

[PinSeeker]

Still it seems odd that God did not have the vocabulary to make clear what one must do to be saved.

That's just not the case. But there are plenty of men who, in their fallenness, get what He has said wrong, and/or make it into something it's not, either inadvertently or to suit themselves.

I'm pretty sure He has the word "essence" in His vocabulary.

LOL! Yes, probably so... :)

If He had wanted to say three persons are one essence, He could have. But He didn't.

LOL! Sure He could have, I guess. :) My goodness. I assume you're opposed to abortion as I am, and the term "abortion" is not used in Scripture either, but the idea of murdering a person of any stage or development or age is clearly contrary to what God has said in His Word.

Then again, though... :)... He did, but not in so many words. Jesus did in fact say, "I and the Father are one... know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father" (John 10:30,38). And in John 14, Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit, the Helper, whom the Father will send in His name, that He will teach us all things and bring to our remembrance all that He has said to us, so He's clearly equating the Spirit with Himself, so, by extension, we can say with absolute correctness that the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all in each other. I have to say, that's kind of mind-blowing, but true none the less. Just amazing!

The word "essence" is basically the fulcrum upon which the trinity depends.

Nah, man, it just is what it is, and the word 'essence' is ~ or should be, anyway ~ helpful to people trying to understand the simultaneous oneness and threeness of God.

They can't say the three persons are one person...

Nobody is saying that.

Compare that to the simplicity of saying Jesus is the son of God.

Well, to say that is simple and ~ not complex ~ but compound at the same time.

Even the most ardent Trinitarian scholars readily admit it can't be understood.

Not in our fallen, finite minds, no. But we can easily accept it as true, because (see above) God talks about it and makes it known. And the Spirit helps us in our weakness.

We're talking about a very simple concept here.

Again, I would say simple and complex at the same time. God's knowledge is too high for us, and we cannot attain to it (Psalm 139). That doesn't mean we can't understand certain things that He says at all, but it does mean that we may not be able to completely grasp it... right now, in this life (:)).

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Huh....I always thought Matthew 28:19 was the go to in support of the Trinity....:)

Merely one of many. :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

What exactly is this essence anyway?

The intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something.

Do people have essences?

Individually speaking, yes, we all have an intrinsic nature, yes, and qualities that are indispensable to our being and quality.

Why can't you and I share the same essence, making the two of us one person?

That's an excellent question, Rich. Maybe better than you realize... :) I'll answer that, at least to some extent, with a question. This could spawn a discussion quite large, but how do you think it is that a man and woman joined in covenant marriage can be one flesh, as Paul says in Ephesians 5? And beyond that, even, God sees all of us as one (all of His elect). How can that possibly be?

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Rich R]

Again, I would say simple and complex at the same time. God's knowledge is too high for us, and we cannot attain to it (Psalm 139). That doesn't mean we can't understand certain things that He says at all, but it does mean that we may not be able to completely grasp it... right now, in this life :))).

Grace and peace to you.

I know you wrote a lot more, but I'll just address this for now, since it is a common idea that we can't understand God.

1Cor 2:16,

For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
​

Phil 2:5,

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
​

I might point out that this particular verse is right before Jesus being equal to God, verse 6. Whatever it means to be equal to God apparently should apply to us also. I think the whole point of that section is that we should serve one another. It's not a good verse to prove the trinity though, at least to my way of thinking. But I digress.

Eph 6:19,

And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,

​

Col 1:27,

To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:​

Ps 103:7,

He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel.
​

And Moses didn't even have Christ in him!

John 1:18,

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].​

Look up the usage of the words "that ye may know" in the scriptures (KJV).

True it says His ways are above ours, but apparently that doesn't mean we can't know Him. He's our Father, so we ought to know Him.

Thanks for the conversation.

 

[DavidB]

Huh....I always thought Matthew 28:19 was the go to in support of the Trinity....:)

Matt 28:19 says nothing to indicate the Father, Son and holy spirit are coequal, coeternal and coexistent.

 

[Rich R]

That's an excellent question, Rich. Maybe better than you realize... :) I'll answer that, at least to some extent, with a question. This could spawn a discussion quite large, but how do you think it is that a man and woman joined in covenant marriage can be one flesh, as Paul says in Ephesians 5? And beyond that, even, God sees all of us as one (all of His elect). How can that possibly be?

Grace and peace to you.

Well, I'm married to a wonderful woman, and I know for a fact she is NOT actually me, (good thing for her :)), so I know it can't be taken literally. In normal writing, when something can't be taken literally, it is probably a figure of speech. A figure of speech is a legitimate tool of grammar used to emphasize something. "The ground is dry" is literal. "The ground is thirsty" is a figure of speech. The latter grabs your attention, thus emphasizing just how dry the ground actually is.

I also know the scriptures say we (born again folks that is) are all one with God and Jesus. I think that gives further evidence that being one with God is a figure of speech. It shows the closeness we share with our heavenly Father. It shows, at least theoretically, that our goals and purpose should be aligned with his. We don't always do that, but that's the idea. The same goes with the husband/wife relationship. We are obviously two distinct persons with our own flesh bodies. There are two distinct lumps in our mattress every morning! :)

God bless.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Yes, I'm sure it is; Jehovah's Witnesses like to focus on Revelation 7. And that's not a bad thing, except that they misapply it to suit their preferred narrative. But yes, Revelation 7 is certainly a glorious passage.

Please tell us how we misapply Revelation 7.....to make assertions without explaining why, makes your claim rather empty.

Agreed. It has to do with God's Israel, which consists only of God's elect, but people of every tongue, tribe, and nation. And ultimately an uncountable multitude. But yes, agreed.

So do you believe that God’s “elect” and the “uncountable multitude” have the same destiny?
What is the purpose of the two groups?

Yes, absolutely agreed... except for the "replaced" thing, which may be a mere semantic misunderstanding between us, but natural Israel was never God's true Israel, but only pointed to it.

They had the potential to be, but because they could never obey the laws of their God, they lost their place. Going back to Eden, we discover that continuing life and blessings from God were always conditional. Obedience was all God ever asked of his intelligent creation...both humans and angels.

Jesus condemned his nation as disobedient, and exposed their hypocrisy....
Matthew 21:42-45....
“Jesus said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘A stone which the builders rejected, This has become the chief cornerstone; This came about from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes’? 43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruit. 44 And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and on whomever it falls, it will crush him.” When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them. (NASB)

This indicates that the kingdom was taken away from the fleshly Jews and given to those who accepted Jesus as their Lord and savior. These were initially taken from the Jewish nation to whom Jesus preached exclusively. After Jesus’ death however, Gentiles also began to be gathered as was promised to Abraham, that “all the nations” would be “blessed” by the one coming in his family lineage, because of his obedience to his God. (Genesis 22:17-18)

The rest of your post... ugh... :)

I agree...”ugh” is a totally appropriate response to what God sees among those who claim his son as their “Lord”. Their disobedience will lead to his total rejection of them as those he “never knew”. (Matthew 7:21-23)

Okay... My goodness. No idea how you ever went off on such an irrelevant rant such as this, how you even got here.

The word “patriotism” I believe. What I posted was in response to what that means in real terms when you marry religion with politics.....a very unholy union....but one that Christendom embraces.

You never explained what you meant by “saltiness”. You often speak in vague terms which leave your readers unsure of exactly what you mean. Please explain.....

 

[Rich R]

Matt 28:19 says nothing to indicate the Father, Son and holy spirit are coequal, coeternal and coexistent.

Virtually all scholars agree that Matthew 29:19 was not in the original text.

But even if it were, there is no record that any the Apostles followed that formula. There are several accounts of people getting baptized in the book of Acts and they all say the baptism was done in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Matt 28:19 says nothing to indicate the Father, Son and holy spirit are coequal, coeternal and coexistent.

Good point....simply mentioning three important aspects that contribute to the spiritual journey leading to an individual’s baptism, acknowledges the role that each played in that journey. It never says that these three are parts of “God”. No scripture does.

No one comes to the Son without an invitation from the Father (John 6:65) and no one can come to the Father except through the Son. (John 14:6) The role of the holy spirit is also vital as that is the power that allows the truth to grow in a person’s heart. By giving his disciples the ability to demonstrate that power through miracles, many became believers. But that was not to continue because the gifts bestowed by the holy spirit were to cease and be replaced by the more important aspects of the Christian’s life....”faith, hope and love”. (1 Corinthians 13:8, 13)

 

[Marymog]

Matt 28:19 says nothing to indicate the Father, Son and holy spirit are coequal, coeternal and coexistent.

Thanks David,

I never suggested that Matthew 29:19 indicated that they are coequal, coeternal and coexistent. I simply responded to your assertion that 2 Peter 1:1 is often used to support the trinity. I simply pointed out that Matthew 28:19 was the go to in support of the Trinity. But since you brought up a new subject to discuss I will address it.

coequal: resembling each other in every respect
coeternal: equally or jointly eternal
coexistent: existing or occurring at the same period of time

Since they resemble each other, they are jointly eternal and they exist at the same period of time (which is eternity) it seems they are coequal, coeternal and coexistent.

 

[PinSeeker]

I know you wrote a lot more, but I'll just address this for now, since it is a common idea that we can't understand God.

Whoa, stop right there. I'm not in any way saying or positing that we cannot understand God. But His ways are not our ways, His thoughts not our thoughts, as Isaiah says, and this is what David is saying in Psalm 139. And it's what Paul is saying in Romans 11 when he writes, "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" I'll leave it at that.

Thanks for the conversation.

Sure! And the same to you. Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Well, I'm married to a wonderful woman, and I know for a fact she is NOT actually me, (good thing for her :)), so I know it can't be taken literally. In normal writing, when something can't be taken literally, it is probably a figure of speech. A figure of speech is a legitimate tool of grammar used to emphasize something. "The ground is dry" is literal. "The ground is thirsty" is a figure of speech. The latter grabs your attention, thus emphasizing just how dry the ground actually is.

I also know the scriptures say we (born again folks that is) are all one with God and Jesus. I think that gives further evidence that being one with God is a figure of speech. It shows the closeness we share with our heavenly Father. It shows, at least theoretically, that our goals and purpose should be aligned with his. We don't always do that, but that's the idea. The same goes with the husband/wife relationship. We are obviously two distinct persons with our own flesh bodies. There are two distinct lumps in our mattress every morning! :)

I would encourage you to... think and pray on it. These things are spiritually discerned, as Paul says:

"...these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit Who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual." (1 Corinthians 2:10-13, emphasis added)​

We can go deeper on this if you want, but I would challenge your statement that we can't take these things literally (as well as your "figure of speech" assertions). What is not literal in the physical sense can most certainly be literal in the spiritual sense... :)

Grace and peace to you.