The Trinity is Biblical

"there is no passage in scripture which teaches that only God can receive or answer prayer." Payer is a form of worship. All followers of God refuse worship (Acts 10:25-26; 14:13-14; Revelation 19:10; 22:9), but not Jesus. (Matt 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52) Hebrews 1:6 says of Jesus "And let all the angels of God WORSHIP him." Paul is here quoting under inspiration from the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 32:43 which says of Yahweh "Be glad, O heavens, together with him, and let all the angels of God WORSHIP him." (Septuagint, with an English translation by Sir I Brenton, S. Bagster & Sons, 1851) Deuteronomy 32:43 was talking about Yahweh (Dec 32:36-39), so the Yahweh of Deuteronomy 32:43 is Jesus. He claims that asking Jesus (John 14:14; Acts 7:59-60; 1 John 5:12-15) is not prayer to him, which begs the question, how is talking to Jesus and "asking" him for something any different from "praying" to him? "the fact that Jesus was given "all authority in heaven and in earth" and "the name that is above every name" qualifies him to do things that ordinary humans can't do." If Jesus has ALL authority then he has equal authority to God, but since God says he has no equal (Isa 40:25; 46:5), Jesus must either be God, or God was lying. If Jesus was not Yahweh, Yahweh's name would be above his; but Jesus, having the name that is above EVERY name, must have the highest name imaginable, God's name. Con uses Smith's work to show exceptions to Sharp's rule in the Greek as proof that Sharp was wrong. But Sharp delineated four requirements which he felt needed to be met if the two nouns were necessarily to be seen as having the same referent: both nouns must be (1) personal—i.e., they must refer to a person, not a thing; (2) common epithets—i.e., not proper names; (3) in the same case; and (4) singular in number. The significance of these requirements can hardly be overestimated, for those who have misunderstood Sharp's rule have done so almost without exception because they were unaware of the restrictions that Sharp set forth, and both my opponent and Herbert Smith are among them. "Smyth gives an example of "the generals and captains", and "the largest and smallest ships"." Both of which do not apply because they are not personal, and are in the plural. So my opponent has not shown any example in Greek that violates Smith's rule. I'm sure I pointed out in my opening defense that "This rule states that when there are 2 nouns that are both singular which describe A PERSON." Sharp's rule can only be refuted by finding a statement with two nouns in the Greek of that time connected by kai WHICH MEET THE 4 RESTRICTIONS ABOVE, and yet do not both refer to the same person. He has not done so, so Sharp's rule stands. As for Sharp not including Greek writers outside the NT, the semantic function of the article-noun-kai-noun construction is confirmed in the Koine papyri by grammarians. (Non-Literary Papyri: Private Affairs, vol. 1 of Select Papyri, trans. A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press, 1932; and Non-Literary Papyri: Public Documents, vol. 2 of Select Papyri, trans A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press, 1934). Scores of examples of the TSKS construction were discovered in these papyri, and no exceptions to Sharp's rule were discovered in over five hundred pages of Greek text. Middleton, in his Doctrine of the Greek Article, devotes fifteen pages (56-70) of proof demonstrating the validity of the rule in classical Greek, citing texts from such authors as Plutarch, Demosthenes, Plato, Aeschylus, Herodotus, and Aristophanes. He concludes "that Mr. Sharp's application of it to the New Testament is in strict conformity with the usage of Greek writers, and with the Syntax of the Greek Tongue;" Con has chose an inferior translation of 2 Pet 1:1 on the basis of verse 2, which he says distinguishes between God and Christ. Such translation on the basis of theological prejudices is hardly commendable. 2 Peter contains five "Granville Sharp" constructions. They are 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, and 3:18. No one would argue that the other four instances are exceptions to the rule. In 2:20, it is obvious that both "Lord" and "Savior" are in reference to Christ. Such is the case in 3:2, as well as 3:18. No problem there, for the proper translation does not step on anyone's theological toes. 1:11 is even more striking. The construction here is IDENTICLE to the construction found in 1:1, with only one word being different. Here are the passages as they are transliterated into English: 1:1: tou theou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou 1:11: tou kuriou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou Notice the exact one-to-one correspondence between these passages! The only difference is the substitution of "kuriou" for "theou". No one questions the translation of "our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" at 1:11; why question the translation of "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" at 1:1? Consistency in translation demands that we not allow our personal prejudices to interfere with our rendering of God's Word "Another one of Smyth's rules is that if a word denoting class is used of a person, then such a word may omit the article [5]; it is clear that "savior" is definitely a class of being, so the fact that Jesus is called a "savior" in these passages could also explain why the author omitted the second article." The problem with this argument when applied to 2 Peter 1:1 is that there is ONLY ONE BEING in the class "God" and "Savior." These terms cannot refer to any class of beings outside of God, because Scripture makes it EXPLICITLY clear that there is ONLY ONE God and ONLY ONE Savior in all of existence. "There is NO SALVATION IN ANYONE ELSE." (Acts 4:12) "I, even I, am the Lord, and BESIDE ME THERE IS NO SAVIOR." (Isa 43:11) "Thou believest that there is ONE God, thou doest well." (James 2:19) "I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is NO GOD BESIDE ME." (Isa 45:5) "There is NO GOD ELSE BESIDE ME; a just God and a Savior; THERE IS NONE BESIDE ME." (Isa 45:21) So while God and Savior are classes of being, only ONE BEING is in this class, which would require Jesus to be Yahweh to be in this class. Con has given us no evidence from Scripture or from the Greek writers to support this empty claim that "savior" is treated as a proper name. Titus 2:13 uses the expression "Savior of us" (soteros hemon), showing that "Savior" is not being used of Christ as a name, but as a title, therefore not violating Sharp's rule. "Titus 1:4 reads "From God the Father and from our Savior Jesus Christ"; it would make very little sense for Paul to make such a clear distinction between God and Jesus in the 1st chapter, and then obliterate that distinction only one chapter later" It doesn't obliterate the distinction. Titus 2:13 shows that Jesus is God, not that he is God the Father; to call Jesus God is to say he has the same nature as the Father who is also God. You are the human ezs777; to call me human is not to say I am ezs777, it only means I am as human as you are. However, there are many humans, but only one God, making the Father and the Son part of the same Being. What makes sense to some doesn't make sense to others and vice versa, so we can't translate on the basis of what makes sense to ezs777. You say the text are in dispute, what isn't? Many don't even believe the holocaust happened or that Jesus existed. There is ONLY ONE God (Deu 4:35; Isa 43:10-11; 44:6, 8; 45:5-6, 14, 21-22; 46:9; Mal 2:10; Rom 3:30; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6; Jam 2:19), and ONLY ONE true God (John 17:3; 1 John 5:20), suggesting that all other gods are false; so where Jesus is called God (Heb 1:8-10; Isa 9:6; John 20:28; 2 Pet 1:1; Tit 2:13) he must either be the true God, or a false god; Con has been AVOIDING THIS QUESTION THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE DEBATE. How convenient for him that I won't get to rebut him after this. Sorry, but I'm out of space.