John 1:1 - Jesus is the Father or he's not the one true God?

@Aunty Jane @Rich R @APAK @Ronald David Bruno (edit: post #350 about this strikethrough) @tigger 2

The Apostle Paul calls Jesus "the great God" with "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior of us, Christ Jesus" (Titus 2:13).

The Apostle Peter calls Jesus "the God" with "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours by the righteousness of the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1).

The Apostle Thomas calls Jesus "my God" wirh "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28).

The Apostle Matthew attests that Jesus is "God with us" Immanuel (Matthew 1:23) thus Jesus is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us the children of God (Revelation 1:8).

The Apostle John calls Jesus "the Word" and "God" with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).

The Apostle Jesus (Hebrews 3:1) calls Jesus the One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4) by saying "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58) and "I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20) thus declaring Himself eternal and only One God is eternal.

NO SCRIPTURE STATES THAT JESUS WAS CREATED.

Jesus is YHWH God according to consistent Apostolic testimony.

Kermos said:

@Aunty Jane @Rich R @APAK @Ronald David Bruno @tigger 2

The Apostle Paul calls Jesus "the great God" with "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior of us, Christ Jesus" (Titus 2:13).

The Apostle Peter calls Jesus "the God" with "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours by the righteousness of the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1).

The Apostle Thomas calls Jesus "my God" wirh "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28).

The Apostle Matthew attests that Jesus is "God with us" Immanuel (Matthew 1:23) thus Jesus is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us the children of God (Revelation 1:8).

The Apostle John calls Jesus "the Word" and "God" with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).

The Apostle Jesus calls Jesus "I AM" with says "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58) thus declaring Himself eternal and only God is eternal.

NO SCRIPTURE STATES THAT JESUS WAS CREATED.

Jesus is YHWH God according to consistent Apostolic testimony.

Click to expand...

Again, you are mistaken about me!!!
I am a TRINITARIAN and you are lumping me in with non- Trinnies.
What tye heck gave you the impression that I wasn't? I know, you skim through the posts irresponsibly and misinterpret the message. Why bother reading and trying to communicate?

Kermos said:

@Aunty Jane @Rich R @APAK @Ronald David Bruno @tigger 2

The Apostle Paul calls Jesus "the great God" with "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior of us, Christ Jesus" (Titus 2:13).

The Apostle Peter calls Jesus "the God" with "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours by the righteousness of the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1).

The Apostle Thomas calls Jesus "my God" wirh "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28).

The Apostle Matthew attests that Jesus is "God with us" Immanuel (Matthew 1:23) thus Jesus is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us the children of God (Revelation 1:8).

The Apostle John calls Jesus "the Word" and "God" with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).

The Apostle Jesus calls Jesus "I AM" with says "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58) thus declaring Himself eternal and only God is eternal.

NO SCRIPTURE STATES THAT JESUS WAS CREATED.

Jesus is YHWH God according to consistent Apostolic testimony.

Click to expand...

Yes, why do you bother reading and communicating at all as Ron just said. You don't listen to and do not bother to be careful in how you interpret scripture, let alone read other posts from an unbiased view. You keep twisting the very words of scripture to suit your own needs. Look at the mess you have made just in the first verse you list, Titus 2:13? And yes you just list a verse here or there because that is all you can do. You have no knowledge of what most you write.

Why don't you just give it up and stop embarrassing yourself. You will in the end I'm sure of it. Just say you are a creed believer and leave it at that. And then most folks will thus understand you will slant the meaning of your scripture to suit your creeds.

Paul calls Jesus "the great God"....in your dreams mate

tigger 2 said:

......................................................
1 Timothy 3:16

Noted Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:

“A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where ‘OS’ (OC or ὃς, ‘who’) was later taken for theta sigma with a bar above, which stood for theos (θεὸς, ‘god’). Since the new reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts ….” – p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed., pp. 696-698, vol. 3.)

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] as the original reading in their NT text for this verse:

“it is supported by the earliest and best uncials.” And, “Thus, no uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports θεὸς [“God”]; all ancient versions presuppose ὃς [or OC, “who” - masc.] or ὅ [“which” - neut.]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [ca. 370 A.D.] testifies to the reading θεὸς. The reading θεὸς arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of OC as ΘC, or (b) deliberately....” - p. 641.

In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the emphasis on the latter). You see, the word ὃς was written in the most ancient manuscripts as OC (“C” being a common form for the ancient Greek letter “S” at that time). Most often at this time the word for God (θεὸς) was written in abbreviated form as ΘC. However, to show that it was an abbreviated form, a straight line, or bar, was always drawn above ΘC. So no copyist should have mistaken ὃς (or OC) for ΘC, in spite of their similarities, simply because of the prominent bar which appeared over the one and not over the other.

What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714. As he was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known (the Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the word originally written there was OC but that a horizontal stroke from one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not qualify as an abbreviation for θεὸς, of course, but Wetstein discovered that some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit ΘC [with bar above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)!

Of course, since Wetstein’s day many more ancient NT manuscripts have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D. have been found with ΘC (“God”) at this verse!

Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes:

“The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [‘who’], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a ‘B’ rating) [also the Westcott & Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [‘Jesus is God’] use of θεὸς.” - Jesus as God, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992.

And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture:

“He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). The correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [‘mystery’] the reading of Western documents.” - p. 577, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press.

And even hyper-trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun ὃς (‘who’) in this scripture and tells us:

“The textual variant θεὸς [‘god’] in the place of ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the ‘majority text’ school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested [8], but the syntactical argument that ‘mystery’ (μυστήριον) being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (ὃς) is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading θεὸς may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text.” [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp. 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.

The correct rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16, then, is: “He who was revealed in the flesh ….” - NASB. Cf. ASV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; JB; NJB; NIV; NEB; REB; ESV; Douay-Rheims; TEV; CEV; BBE; NLV; God’s Word; New Century Version; Holman NT; ISV NT; Lexham English Bible; The Message; Weymouth; Moffatt; etc.

Click to expand...

Yes it is true that there is controversy surrounding the Timothy passage. many early manuscripts have it and many don't. But even if the passage should read he, there is still enough evidence to prove Jesus is as divine as His Father.

tigger 2 said:

.....................................................................

Matt. 1:23, Immanuel

Immanuel

Should Jesus really be considered to be God because he was symbolically “named” Immanuel (Is. 7:14; Mt. 1:23) which means “God is with us”?[1] No more so than Gabriel was calling himself God when he visited Mary and declared: “The Lord is with thee” - Luke 1:28. Nor did Zacharias mean that John the Baptizer (his new son) was actually God when he was asked, “I wonder what this child [John] will turn out to be?”, and he answered, “Praise the Lord, the God of Israel, for he has come to visit his people and has redeemed them.” - Luke 1:66-68, LB.

Gabriel and Zacharias (Zechariah) meant exactly what Israelites have meant throughout thousands of years when saying “God is with us” and similar statements. They meant “God has favored us” or “God is helping us”! - Gen. 21:22; Ex. 18:19; Nu. 23:21; josh. 1:9; 1 Chron. 17:2; 2 chron. 1:1; 35:21; ezra 1:3; is. 8:10. And Joshua 1:17; 1 Samuel 10:7; 2 Chron. 15:2-4, 9 (cf., Jer. 1:8; Haggai 1:13). But if we insist on trinitarian-type “proof,” then Gabriel must have meant that he (Gabriel) is God! And Zacharias (whose own name means ‘Jehovah is renowned’ - p. 678, TDOTB) must have meant that John the Baptizer is God! – Also see 1 Sam. 17:37; 2 Sam. 14:17; 1 Ki. 8:57; 1 Chron. 17:2; 22:18; 2 Chron. 36:23; Is. 41:10; Amos 5:14; Zech 8:23.

This understanding is seen throughout the Bible. For example, “But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.” - 1 Corinthians 14:24-25, RSV.

Or, in a Psalm many of us apply to ourselves or our friends:

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me - ASV.


The acclaimed trinitarian Bible dictionary, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Vol. 2, pp. 86, 87, states:

“The name Emmanuel [or Immanuel] which occurs in Isa. 7:14 and 8:8 means lit. ‘God [is] with us’ .... In the context of the times of Isaiah and King Ahaz the name is given to a child as yet not conceived with the promise that the danger now threatening Israel from Syria and Samaria will pass ‘before the child knows how to refuse evil and choose the good.’ Thus, the child and its name is a sign of God’s gracious saving presence among his people .... [The name Emmanuel] could be a general statement that the birth and naming of the special child will indicate that the good hand of God is upon us.” - p. 86. And, “The point of the present passage [Matt. 1:23] is to see in the birth of Jesus a saving act of God, comparable with the birth of the first Emmanuel. Both births signify God’s presence with his people through a child.” - p. 87.

Or as noted trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris tells us:

“Matthew [in Matt. 1:23] is not saying, ‘Someone who is “God” is now physically with us,’ but ‘God is acting on our behalf in the person of Jesus.’” - p. 258, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Footnotes:

1. How do we know that Immanu El in Hebrew means ‘God is with us’? We know because shortly after it is introduced in Isaiah 7:14 and repeated in 8:8, the very same Hebrew term is explained in 8:10 - “God is with us” - KJV; RSV; NRSV; NASB; NIV; NEB; REB; NJB; NAB; MLB; LB; etc.

2. Barnes' Notes on the NT:
Phil. 4:9

And the God of peace shall be with you.

The God who gives peace. Comp. Hebrews 13:20; 1 Thessalonians 5:23. See Barnes "Philippians 4:7". The meaning here is, that Paul, by pursuing the course of life which he had led, and which he here counsels them to follow, had found that it had been attended with the blessing of the God of peace, and he felt the fullest assurance that the same blessing would rest on them if they imitated his example. The way to obtain the blessing of the God of peace is to lead a holy life, and to perform with faithfulness all the duties which we owe to God and to our fellow-men.

**********************

The Adam Clarke Commentary

Ruth Chapter 2

Verse 4. Boaz came from Beth-lehem

This salutation between Boaz and his reapers is worthy of particular regard; he said, Yehovah immachem, "Jehovah be with you!" They said, yebarechecha Yehovah, "May Jehovah bless thee!" Can a pious mind read these godly salutations without wishing for a return of those simple primitive times? The words may be thus paraphrased: "May God be with you, to preserve you from accidents, and strengthen you to accomplish your work!" "May God bless THEE with the increase of the field, and grace to use his bounty to the glory of the Giver!"


***********************

The Adam Clarke Commentary

Luke 1:28

The Lord is with thee

Thou art about to receive the most convincing proofs of God's peculiar favour towards thee.

**********************

The Adam Clarke Commentary

Phil. 4:9

And the God of peace

He who is the author of peace, the lover of peace, and the maintainer of peace; he who has made peace between heaven and earth, by the mission and sacrifice of his Son, shall be ever with you while you believe and act as here recommended.

*********************

The Adam Clarke Commentary

Ps. 46:7

The Lord of hosts is with us

We, feeble Jews, were but a handful of men; but the Lord of hosts-the God of armies, was on our side. Him none could attack with hope of success, and his legions could not be over-thrown.

**********************

The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible


Luke 1:28


the Lord is with thee;

so the angel to Gideon, (Judges 6:12) or "be with thee", an usual form of salutation among the Jews; (Ruth 2:4)

***********************

The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible

Ruth 2:4


and said unto the reapers, the Lord be with you;

to give them health, and strength, and industry in their work


*************************

Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament

Ruth 2:4

Jehovah be with thee. Jehovah bless thee

(Ruth 2:4). It seems that these were customary salutations, acknowledging the blessing of the Lord in the abundance of the harvest.

***************************

Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament

Ps. 46:7

Jehovah of hosts is with us

(Psalms 46:7). If God be for us, who can be against us, is the New Testament echo of this confidence. The great security is in God.

Click to expand...

all your Watchtower philiosphical ramblings mean nothing. These false teachers are nothing more than slick snake oil salesmen using mens' philosophy to spread their demonic lies!

God is with us! He is ever present! Gabriel was not giving her a greeting or concept, He was telling her that Jesus would be known as God with us!

Phil 2:6-10 also proves this.

tigger 2 said:

.......................................................
I responded to this in post #102, 103 above.

There are several NT Greek words in Phil. 2:6 which are misused by many trinitarian scholars.

One of them is harpagmos.

There could be some doubt about the meaning of the word harpagmos if we looked only at the NT Greek Scriptures (since harpagmos occurs only at Phil. 2:6 in the entire New Testament). We would then only have the meaning of the source words for harpagmos to determine its intended meaning.

Even so, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (by trinitarian writer and trinitarian publisher) tells us that harpagmos means “plunder” and that it comes from the source word harpazo which means: “to seize ... catch away, pluck, take (by force).” - #725 & 726, Abingdon Press, 1974 printing.

“725 harpagmós – to seize, especially by an open display of force. See 726 (harpazō).” - HELPS Word-studies, copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.

And the New American Standard Concordance of the Bible (also by trinitarians) tells us: “harpagmos; from [harpazo]; the act of seizing or the thing seized.” And, “harpazo ... to seize, catch up, snatch away.” Notice that all have to do with taking something away by force. - # 725 & #726, Holman Bible Publ., 1981.

In fact, the trinitarian The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1967, pp. 436, 437, vol. III, tells us:

“We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [which include harpagmos] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’ [as preferred in many trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6]. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize’, ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense [‘snatch violently’] into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”

Even the very trinitarian NT Greek expert, W. E. Vine, had to admit that harpagmos is “akin to harpazo, to seize, carry off by force.” - p. 887, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

And the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us that the majority of Bible scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course)

“have taken harpagmos to mean a thing plundered or seized..., and so spoil, booty or a prize of war.” - p. 604, vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.

The key to both these words (harpagmos and its source word, harpazo) is: taking something away from someone by force and against his will. And if we should find a euphemism such as “prize” used in a trinitarian Bible for harpagmos, it has to be understood only in the same sense as a pirate ship forcibly seizing another ship as its “prize”!

We can easily see this “taken by force” meaning in all the uses of harpazo (the source word for harpagmos) in the New Testament. But since harpagmos itself is used only at Phil. 2:6 in the NT, Bible scholars must go to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (which is frequently quoted in the NT), the Septuagint.

In the Septuagint harpagmos (in its forms of harpagma and harpagmata) is used 16 times according to trinitarian Zondervan’s A Concordance of the Septuagint, p. 32, 1979 printing. And in every case its meaning is the taking of something away from someone by force. Here they are in the Bagster Septuagint as published by Zondervan: Lev. 6:4 “plunder;” Job 29:17 “spoil” (a “prize” taken by force); Ps. 61:10 (Ps. 62:10 in most modern Bibles) “robberies;” Is. 42:22 “prey;” Is. 61:8 “robberies;” Ezek. 18:7 “plunder;” Ezek. 18:12 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:16 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:18 “plunder;” Ezek. 19:3 “prey;” Ezek. 19:6 “take prey;” Ezek. 22:25 “seizing prey;” Ezek. 22:27 “get dishonest gain” (through the use of “harpazo” or “force”); Ezek. 22:29 “robbery;” Ezek. 33:15 “has robbed;” and Malachi 1:13 “torn victims” (compare ASV).

So, in spite of some trinitarians’ reasonings and euphemistic renderings, it is clear from the way it was always used in scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun).

Many trinitarian translators, however, either make nonsense out of the meaning of Phil. 2:6 by actually using the proper meaning of “robbery” or “taken by force” without showing God’s clear superiority over Jesus which the context demands, or, instead, making sense of it by choosing a word that doesn’t have the proper meaning of “taking by force.”

For example, the King James Version (KJV) does use “robbery” (a nearly-accurate meaning for harpagmos) but obviously mangles the meaning of the rest of the statement so that it doesn’t even make proper sense: “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” This is a nonsensical statement even by itself. In context it is even more inappropriate!

Yes, as we have seen above, even in the KJV it is apparent from context that the purpose of this example is to emphasize lowliness of mind, humility: to regard others as better than yourself (vv. 3-5). Paul certainly wouldn’t destroy this example of humility for fellow Christians by saying that Jesus is thinking that it isn’t robbery for him to be equal with the Most High! Besides being a nonsensical statement, it is just the opposite of humility! Instead, to be in harmony with the purpose of Paul’s example, we must find a Jesus who regards God as superior to himself and won’t give even a moment’s thought about attempting to take by force that most high position himself, but, instead, humbles himself even further.

Trinitarian scholar R. P. Martin, for example, feels the context (especially the obvious contrast of verses 6 and 7) clearly proves that harpagmos in verse 6 means Christ refused to seize equality with God. Emphasizing the fact that this is a contrast with verse 6, verse 7 begins with “but [alla].” In accord with this, he tells us,

“V[erse] 6b states what Christ might have done [or could have attempted to do], i.e. seized equality with God; v. 7 states what he chose to do, i.e. give himself.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 3, p. 604. - Examining the Trinity: PHIL 2:6

Click to expand...

So you know how to cut and paste teh Watchtower line for harpazo. doesn't make their conclusions correct. did you bopther to read teh books they cite?

I have two of them and the full context of the writing disagrees with the JW lies!

But what your indoctrinators fail to do is show you the varied uses of harpagmos in Greek.

STRONGS G725:
ἁρπαγμός, -οῦ, ὁ, (ἁρπάζω);
1. the act of seizing, robbery, (so Plutarch, de lib. educ. c. 15 (others 14, 37), vol. 2:12 a., the only instance of its use noted in secular authors).
2. a thing seized or to be seized, booty: ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγεῖσθαί τι to deem anything a prize — a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained, Philippians 2:6; on the meaning of this passage see μορφή; (ἡγεῖσθαι or ποιεῖσθαί τι ἅρπαγμα, Eusebius, h. e. 8, 12, 2; vit. Const. 2, 31; [Commentaries in Luc. vi., cf. Mai, Nov. Biblical Patr. iv., p. 165]; Heliodorus 7, 11 and 20; 8, 7; [Plutarch, de Alex. virt. 1, 8, p. 330d.]; ut omnium bona praedam tuam duceres, Cicero, Verr. 2:5, 15, 39; [see Bp. Lightfoot on Philippians, p. 133f (cf. p. 111); Wetstein at the passage; Cremer, 4te Aufl., p. 153f] Wetzel in Stud. u. Krit. for 1887, pp. 535-552.).

What you fail to do is think about what the verse declares:

Philippians 2:6-10
King James Version

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;


1. Jesus preexsisted as God!
2. did not think it something to grasp and hold onto (as the greek scholars show)
3. BUT BUT BUT instead of hanging onto to His divinity- He emptied HImself!
4. and took upon Himself the shape of man.

According to Watchtower Doctrine- this passage should read:

" Who, being in the form of Michael the Archangel, didn't think being like God something to grab hold of ."

this is what happens when a cult weaves a web of loies. It catches up with them and they cannot lie their way through their own lies.

Ronald David Bruno said:

Again, you are mistaken about me!!!
I am a TRINITARIAN and you are lumping me in with non- Trinnies.
What tye heck gave you the impression that I wasn't? I know, you skim through the posts irresponsibly and misinterpret the message. Why bother reading and trying to communicate?

Click to expand...

My apologies to you, Ronald David Bruno.

You ask why, so here is your answer.

Look at your post #138 which started off with your declarative statement of "So He was praying to Himself" which has the mocking tone of the unbelievers who think Christ is not God. That is not an interrogative. Your paragraph continues on in the form of the unbelievers.

Later in your post, you wrote "Who is distinct from Jesus and the Father, since He is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent", and the unbelievers try to obfuscate the Truth (John 14:6) with similar writing. Your "He" easily associates with the Father, but it's not requisite.

I do not wish to further disassemble your post.

You made a stern accusation against me with "you skim through the posts irresponsibly", and that is not true

I did mistakenly, even wrongly, include you in the post above, even after you notified me in this thread, so I am sorry, Ronald David Bruno.

Kermos said:

My apologies to you, Ronald David Bruno.

You ask why, so here is your answer.

Look at your post #138 which started off with your declarative statement of "So He was praying to Himself" which has the mocking tone of the unbelievers who think Christ is not God. That is not an interrogative. Your paragraph continues on in the form of the unbelievers.

Later in your post, you wrote "Who is distinct from Jesus and the Father, since He is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent", and the unbelievers try to obfuscate the Truth (John 14:6) with similar writing. Your "He" easily associates with the Father, but it's not requisite.

I do not wish to further disassemble your post.

You made a stern accusation against me with "you skim through the posts irresponsibly", and that is not true

I did mistakenly, even wrongly, include you in the post above, even after you notified me in this thread, so I am sorry, Ronald David Bruno.

Click to expand...

Like I said, you skimmed and misinterpreted.
My statement was an implication that I disagreed with:
"So He was praying to Himself ... back and forth, praying and then pretending He is doing what the Father tells Him to do -A charade? Nope."
See the question mark and the word after the question mark? It says, NOPE - meaning I do not agree with it.
As far as the other statement you brought up above, "He is distinct from the Father and the Son" is true. He is the Holy Spirit.

APAK said:

Paul calls Jesus "the great God"....in your dreams mate

Click to expand...

APAK said:

Yes, why do you bother reading and communicating at all as Ron just said. You don't listen to and do not bother to be careful in how you interpret scripture, let alone read other posts from an unbiased view. You keep twisting the very words of scripture to suit your own needs. Look at the mess you have made just in the first verse you list, Titus 2:13? And yes you just list a verse here or there because that is all you can do. You have no knowledge of what most you write.

Why don't you just give it up and stop embarrassing yourself. You will in the end I'm sure of it. Just say you are a creed believer and leave it at that. And then most folks will thus understand you will slant the meaning of your scripture to suit your creeds.

Paul calls Jesus "the great God"....in your dreams mate

Click to expand...

Paul with Titus 2:13 truthfully exegeted with Greek grammar rules applied maintains consistent Apostolic testimony.

Here is the English-Greek full word-for-word of Titus 2:13:

awaiting-προσδεχόμενοι the-τὴν blessed-μακαρίαν hope-ἐλπίδα and-καὶ appearing-ἐπιφάνειαν the-τῆς glory-δόξης the-τοῦ great-μεγάλου God-Θεοῦ and-καὶ Savior-Σωτῆρος us-ἡμῶν Christ-Χριστοῦ Jesus-Ἰησοῦ

All of "God", "Savior", "Christ", and "Jesus" are genitive, singular, and masculine thus they are to be taken together as a single cohesive unit according to Greek grammar rules, and this unit has the genitive singular adjectives "glory" and "great" pointing at this unit for all the genitive singular words are inextricably tied together according to Greek grammar rules.

The logical "and" in the phrase "our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (Titus 2:13) is linguistically tied to Jesus Christ because the word "hope", which is singular, as well as the word "glory", which is singular, in the phrase "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of" (Titus 2:13); therefore, Paul singularly refers to "our great God" and "Savior" and "Christ Jesus" as One singular.

See that linguistically, "hope" and "glory" would need to be plural in order for "our great God" and "Savior" and "Christ Jesus" to be disassociated in the evil manner which you think applies.

THE APOSTLE PAUL INDISPUTABLY CALLS JESUS "THE GREAT GOD" (τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ) WITH "LOOKING FOR THE BLESSED HOPE AND THE APPEARING OF THE GLORY OF THE GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR OF US, CHRIST JESUS" (TITUS 2:13).

The Greek grammar rules make it utterly clear in order to avoid confusion, yet you have managed to confuse yourself unto eternal punishment according to your current state. You confuse Paul's words while you neglect the greater Apostolic testimony.

You should read my reply to @Ronald David Bruno. You, APAK, evilly tell me to stop declaring the Word of God (John1:1-5, John 1:14), and I reject your words!

Immanuel (Matthew 1:23 "God with us"), Jesus, is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us (Revelation 1:8) (see see the Truth [John 14:6] that God had me compose in post #283 to expose the deception of tigger 2 and Rich R).

Ronald David Bruno said:

Like I said, you skimmed and misinterpreted.
My statement was an implication that I disagreed with:
"So He was praying to Himself ... back and forth, praying and then pretending He is doing what the Father tells Him to do -A charade? Nope."
See the question mark and the word after the question mark? It says, NOPE - meaning I do not agree with it.
As far as the other statement you brought up above, "He is distinct from the Father and the Son" is true. He is the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Look, you asked why, and I explained. Your post appeared to me to be produced by a proponent of the Jesus is not God group of unbelievers. The "Nope" at the end of your first paragraph seemed to me to indicate that you were saying that Jesus prayed to the Father thus it seemed to me that you conveyed that Jesus not being God prayed to God the Father - just like posts that the unbelievers who say that Jesus is not God - they write things just like you wrote.

Nonetheless, my apology stands for including you in the post at the top of this page.

If you continue in this vein, then I do not plan to respond to you further about this.

May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you, Ronald David Bruno.

Rich R said:

You keep saying Jesus is speaking, "in the form of man." ... There is nothing about him speaking, "in the form of a man"

Click to expand...

He said what He said during His lifetime here on earth, in both the form of God and the form of man. But he had set aside for a time for our sake the former and lived His life in the latter.

Rich R said:

The scriptures actually say that he always said only what his Father told him to say.

Click to expand...

Sure, in relating the things of God to men, yes. "Always..." You think that when He was a child, God told Jesus to tell Mary he had to go pee every time he had to go pee?

Rich R said:

God told Jesus to say that he has a God, and that's what Jesus said.

Click to expand...

The Father did tell the Son to say He was (and is and always will be) I AM. Yes.

Rich R said:

This whole idea of Jesus being 100% human and 100% is pure Gnosticism at its finest.

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. The Gnostics were heretics, supposing that the world was created and ruled by a "lesser divinity" and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit. That should sound familiar to you, Rich, because it seems to be, based on our conversations here, the thought streams in which you yourself (Jehovah's Witness or not) are swimming.

Rich R said:

It is a total mental disconnect used in a futile attempt to explain the unexplainable.

Click to expand...

Well, as I pointed out before, Paul is very clear in 1 Corinthians 2 "these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit," that "no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." However, we as Christians "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 these things are "impart(ed) in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:10-14). The ones who are spiritual, Rich, are the ones who have been born again of the Spirit. The others are not spiritual (though, certainly, they may think they are)... they remain dead in their sin, and they cannot understand the things of the Spirit, so to them, yes, it is... well, not unexplainable, but they are unable to perceive.

Rich R said:

On another note, you got me to thinking about the marriage relationship... Seems like if a husband truly followed this exhortation, then the wife ought not to have any problem with obeying.

Click to expand...

Well, it's a result of the Fall, like all sin. And this very thing was mentioned by God in Genesis 3, that Eve's desire would be contrary to her husband ~ and so it is for all women since. One great day ~ at the Day of Christ ~ it will be so no longer.

Rich R said:

It's just like we, knowing Jesus always has our best interest in mind, ought to obey what he says.

Click to expand...

Well... men, even Christian husbands, are sinners, too. And though we may want them to or think they should, our wives are probably wise not to obey us in everything. On a similar note, Rich, remember what Paul says in Romans 13 about our being subject to the governing authorities, that there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God, and that whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. (Romans 13:1-2). Is Paul saying here that we should always obey these governing authorities without question?

Rich R said:

Too bad it's pretty much gone in our society today. I believe the violence and division we have today is a direct result of abandoning God's idea on the family.

Click to expand...

That's a big part of it, for sure. But still, it's all about what happened in Genesis 3; that's at the root of all sin. But again, one great Day it will be so no longer:

"And the ransomed of the LORD shall return and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon (our) heads; (we) shall obtain gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away." (Isaiah 35:10)

On that day, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be His people, and God Himself (all three Persons, especially in the Person of Jesus) will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things (will) have passed away.” (Revelation 21:3-4)

Jesus Himself says, “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with Me, to repay each one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end... Surely I am coming soon.” (Revelation 22

So we all say, "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!" (Revelation 22:12-20)

The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen. (Revelation 22:21)

Kermos said:

The logical "and" in the phrase "our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (Titus 2:13) is linguistically tied to Jesus Christ because the word "hope", which is singular, as well as the word "glory", which is singular, in the phrase "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of" (Titus 2:13); therefore, Paul singularly refers to "our great God" and "Savior" and "Christ Jesus" as One singular.

See that linguistically, "hope" and "glory" would need to be plural in order for "our great God" and "Savior" and "Christ Jesus" to be disassociated in the evil manner which you think applies.

Click to expand...

Kermos, let me start by saying that I agree with your interpretation of "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" as a reference to one and the same person in Titus 2:13. So I hope you do not take it as a personal affront if I question one of your reasons -- the one I quote above.

Respectfully, "glory" would NOT need to be plural ("glories") in order to be attributed to two or more distinct persons, so the use of the singular δόξης is not a proof that "our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" must be referring to one and the same person. An example of the singular δόξα (nominative rather than genitive) attributed to more than one person may be found in Philippians 3:19. So what you say cannot linguistically happen, actually does happen.

I have other reasons to think that the phrase is referencing one and the same person. But I think it is important for you and I, in defending our interpretations of Scripture, not to overreach, lest our credibility be diminished.

[Not to get too deep into the weeds here, but I think your argument regarding the singular ἐλπίδα, "hope," as necessarily ascribed to a single person fails for a different reason: it is in the accusative case! Thus, it serves as an object of a different participle, so it is not using "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" as its referent at all.]

Kermos said:

Paul with Titus 2:13 truthfully exegeted with Greek grammar rules applied maintains consistent Apostolic testimony.

Here is the English-Greek full word-for-word of Titus 2:13:

awaiting-προσδεχόμενοι the-τὴν blessed-μακαρίαν hope-ἐλπίδα and-καὶ appearing-ἐπιφάνειαν the-τῆς glory-δόξης the-τοῦ great-μεγάλου God-Θεοῦ and-καὶ Savior-Σωτῆρος us-ἡμῶν Christ-Χριστοῦ Jesus-Ἰησοῦ

All of "God", "Savior", "Christ", and "Jesus" are genitive, singular, and masculine thus they are to be taken together as a single cohesive unit according to Greek grammar rules, and this unit has the genitive singular adjectives "glory" and "great" pointing at this unit for all the genitive singular words are inextricably tied together according to Greek grammar rules.

The logical "and" in the phrase "our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (Titus 2:13) is linguistically tied to Jesus Christ because the word "hope", which is singular, as well as the word "glory", which is singular, in the phrase "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of" (Titus 2:13); therefore, Paul singularly refers to "our great God" and "Savior" and "Christ Jesus" as One singular.

See that linguistically, "hope" and "glory" would need to be plural in order for "our great God" and "Savior" and "Christ Jesus" to be disassociated in the evil manner which you think applies.

THE APOSTLE PAUL INDISPUTABLY CALLS JESUS "THE GREAT GOD" (τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ) WITH "LOOKING FOR THE BLESSED HOPE AND THE APPEARING OF THE GLORY OF THE GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR OF US, CHRIST JESUS" (TITUS 2:13).

....

Click to expand...

...........................................................
In vol. 5, p. 257 the respected The Expositor's Greek Testament speaking of Sharp’s Rule says:

"In the present case [Jude 1:4], however, the second noun (kupiov [“lord”]) belongs to the class of words which may stand without the article .... A similar doubtful case is found in Tit. ii. 13.…”

The key here is that 1. Sharp used prepositional constructions (usually genitives) in his ‘proofs.’ 2. Sharp used personal names in his ‘proofs.’ 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 a proper name is used as an appositive it also causes irregular article usage with the other associated nouns. - Robertson, pp. 760, 791.

These are well-known reasons why the noun so affected (prepositional construction or use of personal name) can, and often does, mean that the definite article is to be understood. For example Titus 2:13 may mean “…of the great God and savior of us Christ Jesus” Or it may well mean “…of the great God and of the savior [genitive] of us Christ Jesus.”

Unfortunately, nearly all trinitarian translators render Titus 2:13 in a trinitarian way (SURPRISE!). But even so we find a few who admitted the the likelihood of the two-person meaning:

Titus 2:13

Bible translations old and new:

13 lokynge for that blessed hope and appearynge of the glory of ye greate God and of oure Sauioure Iesu Christ - Coverdale

13 lokynge for þe blessed hope & appearinge of the glory of the greate God, & of oure sauioure Iesu Christ, - The Great Bible

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of that glorie of that mightie God, and of our Sauiour Iesus Christ, - Geneva

13 abidinge the blessid hope and the comyng of the glorie of the greet God, and of oure sauyour Jhesu Crist; - Wycliffe

13 lokinge for that blessed hope and glorious apperenge of ye myghty god and of oure savioure Iesu Christ - Tyndale

13 in expectation of that desirable happiness, the glorious appearance of the supreme God, and of our saviour Jesus Christ, - Mace

13 awaiting the blessed hope of the appearance of the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus, - Moffatt

13 expecting the blessed hope; namely, the appearing of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ; - The Living Oracles

13 looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ; - Noyes

13 waiting for the blessed hope, the glorious appearing of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus, - Riverside

13 looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, - Sawyer

(KJV) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious [F9] appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Note: 'F9 glorious...: Gr. the appearance of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ' - http://classic.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=titus+2%3A13§ion=2&translation=kjv&oq=&sr=1

(New American Bible - 1970) as we await our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus

(New American Bible - 1991) as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ

(New American Bible - 2010) as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ

(A New Translation in Plain English - Charles K. Williams) while we wait for the blessed thing we hope for, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ

And while we live this life we hope and wait for the glorious denouement of the Great God and of Jesus Christ our saviour. - Phillips

We are to be looking for the great hope and the coming of our great God and the One Who saves, Christ Jesus. - NLV

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of that glory of that mighty God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ. - GNV

"looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of the mighty God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ," - NMB

According to An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p. 109, at Titus 2:13, the sense "of the Great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ ... is possible in [New Testament] Greek even without the repetition [of the definite article before the second noun]."

Noted British NT scholar and trinitarian clergyman Henry Alford wrote: "I would submit that [a translation which clearly differentiates God from Christ at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s [Paul’s] way of writing: and I have therefore preferred it." - The Greek Testament, p. 421, Vol. 3.


“Of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ (tou megalou qeou kai swthrov hmwn Cristou Ihsou). …. According to A.V. [KJV] two persons are indicated, God and Christ. Revelations with others rend. of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus, thus indicating one person, and asserting the deity of Christ. I adopt the latter, although the arguments and authorities in favor of the two renderings are very evenly balanced. 155” - Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament.

"Some Trinitarians say that the grammar of Titus 2:13 forces the interpretation that Jesus is God because of the Granville Sharp rule of Greek grammar. That is not the case, however. The Granville Sharp rule has been debated and successfully challenged. When Scripture refers to “our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” it can indeed be referring to two separate beings: the “Great God,” and the “Savior,” Jesus Christ. The highly regarded Trinitarian Henry Alford gives a number of reasons as to why the grammar of the Greek does not force the interpretation of the passage to make Christ God (Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, Moody Press, Chicago, 1958, Vol. 3, entry on Titus 2:13 ). [For more on the Granville Sharp rule, see commentary on 2 Peter 1:1]." - Revised English Version Commentary - Titus 2:13.

And, finally, concerning Titus 2:13, the steadfastly trinitarian The Expositor's Greek Testament (vol. 4, p. 195) says specifically of Titus 2:13:

"On the whole, then, we decide in favour of the R.V.m. in the rendering of this passage, appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. The grammatical argument - [Sharp's Rule] - is too slender to bear much weight, especially when we take into consideration not only the general neglect of the article in these epistles but the omission of it before σωτὴρ ['savior'] in I Tim. i. I, iv. 10 [1:1; 4:10]."

Kermos wrote: "THE APOSTLE PAUL INDISPUTABLY CALLS JESUS "THE GREAT GOD" (τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ) WITH "LOOKING FOR THE BLESSED HOPE AND THE APPEARING OF THE GLORY OF THE GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR OF US, CHRIST JESUS" (TITUS 2:13)." - Obviously, the apostle Paul did not INDISPUTABLY call Jesus "the great God"! - [I am removing an unkind remark I made here. Pardon me, please]

For my full study of this, see:

Examining the Trinity: SHARP'S Rule

tigger 2 said:

Kermos wrote: "THE APOSTLE PAUL INDISPUTABLY CALLS JESUS "THE GREAT GOD" (τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ) WITH "LOOKING FOR THE BLESSED HOPE AND THE APPEARING OF THE GLORY OF THE GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR OF US, CHRIST JESUS" (TITUS 2:13)." - Obviously, the apostle Paul did not INDISPUTABLY call Jesus "the great God"!

Click to expand...

As a Trinitarian, and as one who does think Paul meant one and the same person in Titus 2:13, let me nevertheless express my agreement with you that the textual and linguistic evidence regarding Titus 2:13 is inconclusive on the point. (I know Kermos disagrees.)

Ronald Nolette wrote in #346:
....

Philippians 2:6-10
King James Version

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;


1. Jesus preexsisted [sic] as God!
2. did not think it something to grasp and hold onto (as the greek scholars show)
3. BUT BUT BUT instead of hanging onto to His divinity- He emptied HImself!
4. and took upon Himself the shape of man.

According to Watchtower Doctrine- this passage should read:

" Who, being in the form of Michael the Archangel, didn't think being like God something to grab hold of."

this is what happens when a cult weaves a web of loies [sic]. It catches up with them and they cannot lie their way through their own lies.
.............................................................

I have many copies of the NWT from the 1951 printing to the most recent. None of them say "in the form of Michael" nor "something to grab hold of." They all have in "God's form" and "gave no consideration to a seizure [harpagmos]...."

RedFan said:

As a Trinitarian, and as one who does think Paul meant one and the same person in Titus 2:13, let me nevertheless express my agreement with you that the textual and linguistic evidence regarding Titus 2:13 is inconclusive on the point. (I know Kermos disagrees.)

Click to expand...

Here is the translator's note from the NET Bible on Titus 2:13...

The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, theos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, sōtēr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on Sharp’s rule see ExSyn 270-78, esp. 276. See also 2 Pet 1:1 and Jude 4.

APAK said:

Enjoy your pagan Greek-Roman religious mythological dribble. Just look at what you keep writing. Are you really trying to persuade anyone here? You are incoherent in your thinking and in need of spiritual and mental healing.

Happy trails as you wander about in your rubber room...

Click to expand...

The flesh always gives itself away.
You sound nothing like our Lord.

Jesus is the true God, or He is not the true God.

Them that know Him, know He is. Them that know Him not, don't want Him to be.

Once again, how does anyone knowing neither the Father nor the Son have enough hootzpah, as to declare who He is and is not?

An honestly ignorant person would rather say, I don't know either way.

Rich R said:

John calls Jesus the son more than 50 times and never calls him the Father.

Click to expand...

Duh!!! Jesus IS the Only Begotten SON. His Father is God.

John 1:1, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Click to expand...

Chuckle!! That must mean that the "WORD" was God (duh!!!).

If we say Jesus is God then that means he is either the Father (which is totally counter to the Creeds) or he is not the true God (John 17:3) nor the one God (1 Cor 8:6).

Click to expand...

And, of course neither you, nor I, nor do the "Professional Theologians", have ANY REAL CONCEPT of the totality of God, or how He works. But that doesn't stop anybody from trying to apply their pathetically limited "Human wisdom" to reach "Precious conclusions", does it????

All verses have to fit.

Click to expand...

And so they do. You don't understand how???? Join the crowd. Personally I'll ask later - (if I even have to).

Simple as that.