2 Peter 1 = Deity of Christ.

by towerwatchman 99 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • cofty
    cofty
    Now since I was in Joshua's army, and having experienced all the miracles from Egypt to then, and having seen how powerful God is, I would not hesitate to obey. - Towerwatchman

    Perhaps you can understand why I am repulsed by your admission.

    It is impossible that I would ever obey an order to kill women and infants in cold blood. For somebody like you who is committed to unquestioning obedience to an invisible deity, infanticide is not even controversial.

    This is why I believe that objective morality is impossible if you root it in the will of a deity. If god orders you to murder babies then murdering babies becomes a moral good.

    A better system of morality is rooted in the consequences of our actions for the well-being of conscious creatures. Actually this is what we mean when we talk about morals or ethics.

  • towerwatchman
    towerwatchman

    To Cofty

    Perhaps you can understand why I am repulsed by your admission. It is impossible that I would ever obey an order to kill women and infants in cold blood. For somebody like you who is committed to unquestioning obedience to an invisible deity, infanticide is not even controversial.

    Be honest, what was the background to the question. Being in Joshua’s army. Now if I was in Joshua’s army I would have seen miracle after miracle from God proving who He is, and not an invisible unknown deity. It is rather dishonest and insulting to state that I am committed to murder.

    This is why I believe that objective morality is impossible if you root it in the will of a deity. If god orders you to murder babies then murdering babies becomes a moral good.

    Again it is not murder, but God carrying out His justice. What happened between God and some of those civilizations is not known, but what is known is that God was patient with them and they continued to sin. Outside of God any morals would be either pragmatic, utilitarian, and subjective, never objective.

    A better system of morality is rooted in the consequences of our actions for the well-being of conscious creatures. Actually this is what we mean when we talk about morals or ethics.

    Morality is ultimately the result of an implicit agreement among civilized people.

    When Trog want something Og have, Trog hit Og on head and take it. When Og want thing back, Og get big club, hit Trog on head, and take thing back. Og take things too. After much thinking Trog and Og sit down and forge an agreement. Trog and Og agree to stop swinging their clubs at each other’s head, for the liberties, such as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Trog and Og will be motivated to keep the terms of their agreement only as long as they believe that doing so is ultimately what serves their interest. When it serves Og’s interest he will hit Trog overhead again. There is no ‘ought’ in the agreement. No moral obligation There is no objective reason why man should be moral unless morality pays off in his social life or makes him feel good.

    There is no advantage for me to take care of grandma when she gets old, she just becomes a burden on the food supply. Why keep a cripple child around, they are not going to contribute. It is not advantageous to scratch your back because one day you might scratch mine. It is advantageous to knock you over the head as I scratch your back and take everything.

    If there is no God, then there is no objective standard of right and wrong.

  • cofty
    cofty

    You said you would not hesitate to obey god's orders to commit mass killing of women and infants.

    You think that infanticide is a moral good as long as you can convince yourself that it is god's will.

    Never lecture an atheist about morality again.

  • Doctor Who
    Doctor Who

    All these Scriptures prove to me is that your 'god' suffers from schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder.


  • TTWSYF
    TTWSYF
    cofty2 days ago

    You said you would not hesitate to obey god's orders to commit mass killing of women and infants.

    You think that infanticide is a moral good as long as you can convince yourself that it is god's will.

    Never lecture an atheist about morality again.

    hahaha, I am amused. Such a typical Cofty reply.

    Angrily replying something else like you only read 1/3 of the post. hahaha

    Where did we get morality?

  • cofty
    cofty

    I think you are mistaking contempt for anger.

  • towerwatchman
    towerwatchman

    cofty

    You said you would not hesitate to obey god's orders to commit mass killing of women and infants. You think that infanticide is a moral good as long as you can convince yourself that it is god's will. Never lecture an atheist about morality again.

    Really, what was the stipulation in the question? ‘If I was in Joshua’s army’. Any other time the answer would be no. Nice try, BTW that stunt you tried to pull, proves character.

    But for the reader.

    Since we are using the account in the Bible let’s keep it within the parameters of Christianity. God offers everyone eternal life. This come with some conditions, believe certain things, and live a life accordingly. Very simple. That a sounds like a great deal. I live life accordingly for approx. 70 years and my reward is eternal bliss. Now the flip side. If I offend God there a punishment. The Canaanites were not innocent. They were a vile people who practiced some of the lowest form of immorality. (Lev. 18:25). God waited patiently for hundreds of years [Gen 15:16] but the Canaanites did not repent. When judgement fell God like a surgeon amputated the cancer. At this time Israel was unique. Never before or after has there been a theocracy, Israel was ruled and directed by God, and God’s extermination was a direct command from God. Israel as a theocracy was an instrument of judgment in the hands of God.

    There is a difference between murder and justifiable killing. If I was in Joshua’s army it is justifiable. If tomorrow I hear a voice that tells me to kill, it would be murder.

    You make God out to be this beast by taking verses in isolation. But let’s look at the whole picture. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah clearly demonstrates that God would save a whole city for ten righteous people (Gen. 18:22f.). In that incident, when God could not find ten righteous people, He took the four or five righteous ones out of the place so as not to destroy them with the wicked (Gen. 19:15). On another occasion God saved some thirty-two thousand people who were morally pure (Num. 31:35). Another notable example is Rahab, whom God saved because she believed ( Heb. 11:31). And in the Gospels Jesus who is God sacrifices Himself taking our place, taking upon Himself the punishment that we justly deserve.

    Let’s talk about morality, since you seem to consider yourself such a moral atheist. Tell me what side of the abortion issue do you take? Since you detest the killing of children in the Biblical accounts, do you detest the murder of innocent children that could survive outside of the womb if they were allowed to be born vs aborted?

    The problem the atheist has here is that any moral denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind. Human life is special, it has intrinsic value. But on the atheistic view there does not seem to be anything about Homo sapiens that make this statement objectively true. Since every individual passes out of existence when they die, what ultimate value can life have? Mankind is thus no more significant that swarm of mosquitoes or a barnyard of pigs, for their end is all the same. When the lion kills he does not commit murder, why then do the Homo sapiens commit murder?

    Notice you are using Christian values that are not supported by an atheistic worldview in order to denounce Christianity.

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    Concerning the subject of the thread, whether 2 Peter 1:1,2 refers to Jesus as being God, it should be said that there are many examples in the Greek scriptures where two distinct persons are connected in the same way as "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (i.e.with the definite article only preceding the first person).

    Acts 13:50 "...they raised up a persecution against [the] Paul (tou Paulon) and Barnabas..."

    Acts 15:22 "...sending chosen men from among them to Antioch along with [the] Paul (tw Paulw) and Barnabas..."

    Ephesians 5:5 "...no fornicator or unclean person or greedy person...has any inheritance in the kingdom of the Christ (tou christou) and God (theou)."

    1 Timothy 5:21 "I solemnly charge you before [the] God (tou theou) and Christ Jesus..."

    1 Timothy 6:13 "In the sight of [the] God (tou theou)...and Christ Jesus...I give you orders"

    2 Timothy 4:1 "I solemnly charge you before [the] God (tou theou) and Christ Jesus..."

    Proverbs 24:21 LXX "My son, fear [the] God (ton theon) and king, and do not disobey either of them."

    The fact that the following verse speaks of the accurate knowledge of [the] God (tou theou) and Jesus our Lord (tou kuriou) makes it quite obvious that Peter was not making a profound theological statement about divinity but was referring to the righteousness of both their God and their Saviour Jesus Christ.
  • towerwatchman
    towerwatchman

    To Earnest

    Thankyou for addressing the OP

    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*. In our texts, this is demonstrated by the words "God" and "Savior" at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. "God" has the article, it is followed by the word for "and," and the word "Savior" does not have the article. Hence, both nouns are being applied to the same person, Jesus Christ.

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    towerwatchman: It is all very well citing Granville Sharp's rule but it should be noted that he stated his rule in a work entitled "Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament, Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, From Passages Which are Wrongly Translated in the Common English Version". So the purpose of his rule was to establish the divinity of Christ.

    You mention that an exception to the rule is when it applies to proper names. You will note another exception in my previous post in Proverbs 4:21. You will also note exceptions in the first and second letters to Timothy which I cite in my previous post where it refers to [the] God and Christ Jesus. I don't think anyone has supported the view that in those verses both "God" and "Christ" should be applied to the same person, Jesus.

    In line with this Georg B. Winer maintains in his work on Greek grammar that another exception is the clause in Titus 2:13 [...the great God] and Saviour ... Christ Jesus as there is no ambiguity the two are distinct.

    So perhaps Granville Sharp should have added the exception where the clause refers to [the] God and Christ. The alternative is to suggest that Peter is referring to Jesus Christ as God the Father.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit