William C. Jordan

Two questions in particular with regards to 1 Corinthians 8-10.

(1) Who is 1 Corinthians 10.9 speaking about? Which variant do you favor, "Christ" or "Lord"? Why?

(2) In light of Paul’s utilization of κύριος (“Lord”) for Jesus repeatedly throughout 1 Corinthians which alludes to Old Testament texts involving the Divine Name (1 Corinthians 1.2 [c.f. Joel 2.32]; 1 Corinthians 2.16 [c.f. Isaiah 40.13]; 1 Corinthians 6.11 [c.f. Isaiah 45.23]), and subsequently referring to Christ as the "Lord of glory" and the "one Lord," who is it that he refers to as the "Lord" in 1 Corinthians 10.21-22?

How do you deal with issues like these in light of Paul utilizing this very language (“the cup of the Lord”) later in his letter to the Corinthians where it is Jesus who is the referent (1 Corinthians 11.27-28 c.f. 1 Corinthians 10.16-17, 2 Corinthians 6.15-16)?

“Then they prayed and said: 'You, O Jehovah, who know the hearts of all, designate which one of these two men you have chosen to take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas deviated to go to his own place.'”

In light of your view of Jesus, why does the NWT utilize the Divine Name as a surrogate for κύριος ("Lord") in this text when the "Lord" that is being spoken of is Jesus?

Contextually, it is Jesus who is referred to as "Lord" throughout this discourse (Acts 1.6-7, 1.21) who had "chosen" the apostles (Acts 1.1-2 [c.f. Luke 6.13, John 15.16]), knows the inner thoughts of the hearts (Luke 6.8-9 [c.f. Revelation 2.23, John 21.17), and whom appoints apostleship (Acts 20.24).

The author never uses the terms "chosen" (eklegomai), or "appoint" (anadeiknumi) in association with any other but Christ. The fact that the author utilizes a word of very sacred character of Christ which is limited only to the Divine (proseuxomai ["prayed"]), indicates something rather fascinating, does it not?

In Acts 1.24, the NWT states:

“Then they prayed and said: 'You, O Jehovah, who know the hearts of all, designate which one of these two men you have chosen to take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas deviated to go to his own place.'”

In light of your view of Jesus, why does the NWT utilize the Divine Name as a surrogate for κύριος ("Lord") in this text when the "Lord" that is being spoken of is Jesus?

Contextually, it is Jesus who is referred to as "Lord" throughout this discourse (Acts 1.6-7, 1.21) who had "chosen" the apostles (Acts 1.1-2 [c.f. Luke 6.13, John 15.16]), knows the inner thoughts of the hearts (Luke 6.8-9 [c.f. Revelation 2.23, John 21.17), and whom appoints apostleship (Acts 20.24).

The author never uses the terms "chosen" (eklegomai), or "appoint" (anadeiknumi) in association with any other but Christ. The fact that the author utilizes a word of very sacred character of Christ which is limited only to the Divine (proseuxomai ["prayed"]), indicates something rather fascinating, does it not?

I recall reading that one of the uncial texts used in NT textual criticism had mistakenly been cataloged multiple times. This was apparently due to the aging of the manuscript, in which some of the lacunae (i.e., missing folios) had been discovered, and cataloged separately until it was discovered that these missing folios were apart of the uncial. Is anyone aware of which uncial exactly this was?

Was Isaac Newton a real person of history? If we adopt the historical method of skeptics who question the historical existence of Jesus by constructing lists of parallels between Jesus and such mythical figures as Horus and Mithra, the answer would seem to be no. The data below presents 16 parallels between Jesus Christ and Isaac Newton—and unlike nearly all of the alleged parallels between Jesus and mythical figures, all of these parallels are completely accurate.

Jesus Christ

- His birthday has been given both as December 25 and as January 6.

- His birthday is celebrated by his followers as “Christmas,” and the period between December 25 and January 6 has been called “The Twelve Days of Christmas.”

- His name is that of a famous figure in the Old Testament (Joshua).

- John described him as “the true light that comes into the world.”

- He was circumcised on the eighth day.

- According to tradition, his grandmother’s name was Hannah (usually Anglicized as Anne.)

- According to tradition, his mother’s husband died when he was young.

- He never married.

- He was famous for his knowledgeable exposition of the Scriptures.

- He professed the same faith as that of his countrymen, but they regarded him as a heretic.

- Commenting on the Book of Daniel, he stated that “this gospel of the kingdom must first be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.”

- He rejected the idea that people could determine a date for the end of the world.

- He is regarded by many as one of the greatest men ever to live on earth.

- He was honored by the use of the Greek title kurios, which can be translated “Sir.”

- Portraits of him depict him with strikingly different appearances.

- Marty McFly used his name in vain in the film Back to the Future.

Isaac Newton

- His birthday has been given both as December 25 and as January 4.

- His birthday is celebrated by his followers as “Newtonmas,” and the period between December 25 and January 4 has been called “The Ten Days of Newtonmas.”

- His name is that of a famous figure in the Old Testament (Isaac).

- He is described as bringing light to the world: “God said ‘Let Newton be’ and all was light” (Alexander Pope).

- He was baptized on the eighth day.

- His mother’s name was Hannah.

- His mother’s husband died before he was born.

- He never married.

- He was famous for his knowledgeable exposition of the Scriptures.

- He professed the same faith as that of his countrymen, but they regarded him as a heretic.

- Commenting on the Book of Daniel, he stated that “the Gospel must first be preached in all nations before the great tribulation, and end of the world.”

- He rejected the idea that people could determine a date for the end of the world.

- He is regarded by many, in the words of Richard Dawkins, as “one of the truly great men ever to walk the earth.”

- He was honored by the use of the title “Sir.”

- Portraits of him depict him with strikingly different appearances.

- Doc Emmet Brown used his name in vain in the film Back to the Future II.

Perhaps we need a better historical method.

If Jesus is the first of all of God's creations, why then didn't Christ say in John 8.58, "Before Abraham came into existence, I came into existence"?

Take into consideration the chiastic literary style,

(A) For to which of the angels did He ever say (v. 5a)

— (B) And again (v. 5b)

— — (C) And again when He brings the Firstborn into the world, He says (v. 6)

— — — (D) And of the angels He says (v. 7)

— — (C’) But of the Son He says (vv. 8-9)

— (B’) And (vv. 10-12)

(A’) But to which of the angels has He ever said (v. 13)

Jehovah's Witnesses,

Scripture bears witness that all things that "came into being" were made in, and through/by means of the preincarnate Word (John 1.3, Colossians 1.16), and without Him nothing that "came into being," came into being. If Jesus is YHWH's "master worker," why is it that God rested on the 7th day (Genesis 2.2)?

I asked a question recently pertaining to John 1.18, and the authenticity of μονογενὴς θεὸς, but perhaps I should have rephrased the question. So allow me tailor this question specifically to you Jehovah's Witnesses: Why do you believe μονογενὴς θεὸς is the authentic reading of John 1.18?

While I can appreciate everyone's opinion in regards to the topic at hand, this question is exclusively for Jehovah's Witnesses so please do not flood this forum with comments that do not relate to the question.

Jehovah's Witnesses,

What are the implications of 1 Peter 3.14-15 ["But do not fear what they fear, or be in dread, but honor Christ the Lord as holy”] in light of Isaiah 8.12-13 (LXX) ["But do not fear what it fears, or be in dread; honor the Lord himself as holy”]?

Likewise, compare 1 Peter 2.3 [“if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good”] in light of Psalm 34.8 [“Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good”]. Peter is obviously referring to no other but Christ here, as it is wrought by what the apostle goes on to say, “And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice [lit. ‘chosen’] and precious in the sight of God” (1 Peter 2.4, NASB).

τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε μηδὲ ταραχθῆτε, κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε (1 Peter 3.14-15)

τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτοῦ οὐ μὴ φοβηθῆτε οὐδὲ μὴ ταραχθῆτε, κύριον αὐτὸν ἁγιάσατε (Isaiah 8.12-13 LXX)

Jehovah's Witnesses,

As a part of your theology, you insist that Christ is in no way or fashion (including prayer) is to be worshiped. With all theological biases aside, should με ("Me") be included in John 14.14, or should it be omitted? If you wish to send an answer through e-mail instead of disclosing your identity, please do.

In your response, please consider the following:

1.) Manuscript support in favor of its inclusion: P66 P75 א B W Δ Θ 060 f13 28 33 579 700 892 1006 1342 Byz(pt) [E H] l184(1/2) l514 l547 l672 l673(1/2) l813 l890(1/2) it(c, f) vg syr(p, h)

2.) The inclusion has the strongest transmission throughout time and throughout various geographical locales, rather than its omission, which is predominantly much later than most witnesses, and least wide spread throughout geographical locales.

3.) The inclusion best explains the origin of both variant types, that is, the omission of με ("Me"), and its substitution ("the Father").

4.) Author's symmetrical style (v.14, "If you ask Me..." vs. v.15, "If you love Me...").

5.) The correlation with ἐγώ (“I”) later in the verse.

6.) 1 Chron. 16:8, "call on Him in His name"; Ps. 54:1, "save me in Your name."

7.) Prayer is addressed to Christ elsewhere throughout the NT: Acts 1.20-25, 7.59-60, 9.12-14; 1 Cor. 16.22, 2 Cor. 12.8-9; 1 John 5.13-15; Rev. 22.20

Jehovah's Witnesses: Does the Sahidic Coptic provide some clue to how we should interpret, and translate 2 Peter 1.1?

The standard argument surrounding 2 Peter 1.1 offered by JW's is that the passage, "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" refers really to two persons (rather than one), namely, the Father (as "our God"), and Christ (as "Savior"). However, contra this view, the author elsewhere refers to Christ as "our Lord and Savior" (2 Peter 1.11, 2.20, 3.18), and in four of these passages there is an exact one-to-one word correspondance (with the exception of "God" being present in 2 Peter 1.1 rather than "Lord"). Additionally, in three of these four passages, "Savior Jesus Christ" unanimously signifies a mutual identity with the preceding/head noun:

2 Peter 1:1 - tou Theou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou ("our God and Savior Jesus Christ")

2 Peter 1:11 - tou Kuriou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou ("our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ")

2 Peter 2:20 - tou Kuriou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou (“our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”)

2 Peter 3:18 - tou Kuriou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou ("our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ")

With that being stated, the Sahidic Coptic reads "Lord," rather than "God." Shouldn't this be tantamount to understanding what exactly Peter was trying to express, rather than insisting that it refers to two individuals?

If not: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Arian

What are the implications of 1 Kings 18.24 particularly in light of John 14.14 ["If you ask *Me anything in My name, I will do it"] (c.f. Acts 1.20-25, 7.59-60, 9.12-14; 1 Cor. 16.22, 2 Cor. 12.8-9; 1 John 5.13-15, Rev. 22.20)?

*με ("Me") - P66, P75 א B W Δ Θ 060 f13 28 33 579 700 892 1006 1342 Byz(pt) [E H] f vg syr(p, h)

Do Muslims have the entire Koran? The punchline is this - "a goat ate it." In discussions regarding Qur'anic preservation, the following hadith is sure to come up:

Reported ‘Aisha (RA): ‘the verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times was revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) expired and we were occupied by his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper.’ (Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 1944)

(See also, Musnad Ahmad 6/269 Hadith 26359, if you don't like the chain of narration in Sunan Ibn Majah)

TeeM,

You said in your post entitled, “Gen 1:26, Why did John Calvin make this statement about those who use this verse to prove the trinity?” ( http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArPyT... ) that John Calvin spoke against the Trinitarian interpretation when he said, “Others who deem themselves more acute, but are doubly infatuated, say that God spoke of himself in the plural number, according to the custom of princes. As if, in truth, that barbarous style of speaking, which has grown into use within a few past centuries, had, even then, prevailed in the world. But it is well that their canine wickedness has been joined with a stupidity so great, that they betray their folly to children.”

However, as pointed out by several users, such as myself, that John Calvin was actually speaking about “the plural number, according to the custom of princes” (“pluralis majestaticus”). However, you continue to insist othwerwise, as denoted via your comment, “For those who think Calvin was defending Us as used in the NASB refers to God alone, I can only recommend you re-read what Calvin actually wrote. Calvin also understood that to use ‘Elohim’ to mean 3 in one was to believe in polytheism because Elohim means 'gods' and not persons. thus 3 Gods not 1”

Not only did you not give us a reference to your assertion that “Calvin also understood that to use ‘Elohim’ to mean 3 in one was to believe in polytheism because Elohim means 'gods' and not persons,” but you also failed to quote John Calvin in full,

“But since the Lord needs no other counsellor, there can be no doubt that he consulted with himself. *The Jews make themselves altogether ridiculous, in pretending that God held communication with the earth or with angels.* The earth, forsooth, was a most excellent adviser! And to ascribe the least portion of a work so exquisite to angels, is a sacrilege to be held in abhorrence. Where, indeed, will they find that we were created after the image of the earth, or of angels? Does not Moses directly exclude all creatures in express terms, when he declares that Adam was created after the image of God? Others who deem themselves more acute, but are doubly infatuated, say that God spoke of himself in the *plural number, according to the custom of princes.* As if, in truth, that barbarous style of speaking, *which has grown into use within a few past centuries,* had, even then, prevailed in the world. But it is well that their canine wickedness has been joined with a stupidity so great, that they betray their folly to children. Christians, therefore, *properly contend, from this testimony, that there exists a plurality of Persons in the Godhead.* God summons no foreign counsellor; hence we infer that he finds within himself something distinct; as, in truth, his eternal wisdom and power reside within him.”

Can you please read for us what John Calvin wrote concerning Genesis 1:26 in the last two sentences for the Yahoo Community?

BAR- ANERGES,

In response to a previous post I had made concerning Ephesians 5:5 and the Granville Sharp Rule, you suggested that 2 Peter 1:1 refers to two people, the Father, and the Son, in unison with v. 2. However, let’s turn this argument on its head completely. The distinction in v. 2 does not preclude Peter from calling Christ “God” in v. 1. The additional article in v. 2 denotes "Lord" as a second subject, adjacent to "God" -- the very thing Peter could have done in v. 1, had he wished to refer to two Persons. Instead (and as argued previously), Peter uses the same grammar he uses consistently when using two personal singular nouns of one Person (2 Peter 1:11, 2 Peter 2:20, 2 Peter 3:18).

The variant reading here at 2 Peter 1:1 (which reads “Lord” instead of “God”), found in a few witnesses such as the Sahidic, clearly shows that scribes also saw this passage in reference to one Person, in so much that they felt the need to harmonize the passage with 2 Peter 1:11; 2:20, and 3:18.

You asserted in your response that, “The proper name ‘Jesus Christ’ restricts the application of ‘Savior’ and so removes this example from Sharp's rule.”

However, I’d just like to point out that this is far from the truth. “Savior Jesus Christ” is not a common title, and its usage is extremely scarce, only occurring five times in the NT, being confined to 2 Peter, and Titus. “Lord Jesus Christ” on the other hand, occurs 62 times in the NT, and exists in 16 various books/epistles. Such recurring and wide spread attestation gives an exuberant amount of evidence for treating the title “Lord Jesus Christ” as a proper name.

Interestingly, in the entirety of the NT, “Savior Jesus Christ” never occurs outside of the TSKS construction, and in three of its five occurrences (2 Peter 1:11; 2 Peter 2:20; 2 Peter 3:18) unanimously signify mutual identity with the preceding (or “head”) noun.

To argue that the real debate is among Trinitarians... let me turn that completely fallacious argument around and suggest that the real debate is between Unitarians alike, after all, the German-Unitarian, Paul Wilhelm Schmiedel, admits in his revision of Georg Benedikt Winer’s work entitled, Grammatik Des Neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, that in regards to 2 Peter 1:1: “Grammar demands that one person be meant” (pg. 158).

You also seem to adduce that “God” is a proper name, and therefore does not apply to TSKS constructions in which it is utilized. However, “God” is used in a plethora of TSKS constructions throughout the NT, such as, 1 Thessalonians 3:11; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 11:31; James 1:27; Galatians 1:4; Colossians 2:2, and if we do away with all the Christological significant texts, it is always ascribed to one individual. This extraordinary occurrence is not true of any other proper name in like construction -- every occurrence which involves genuine proper names always indicates that two individuals are in view.

Of the eight points you made, only two are of any real concern, which have been addressed above. About seventy-five percent of your argument is strawman at best, and doesn’t appropriately deal with the exchange set forth. You insisted, “Even if Jesus is referred to as God there is no ‘three persons in one God’ taught here.” But nor does this passage refer to Christ as an angel or apart of creation. Trinitarians do not insist that this verse teaches “three persons in one God,” just as Arians do not insist that this passage refers to Jesus is apart of creation. Rather, what Trinitarians affirm is that this passage is a plain identification of a strict monotheistic Jew referring to Christ as “our God and Savior,” *who is not to be confused with the Father (v. 2).*

You simply ignore the explicit and overarching theology of the New Testament in toto, which is wrought in your misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the Trinity, which seems to be very apparent in your recent dialogue with “Christian Sceptic.” It was the Son, who is identified as God (John 1:18, 2 Peter 1:1), and who was ontologically equal to the Father (John 1:1, Philippians 2:6 – “morphe Theou”) that came down off that Great White throne where He shared glory with the Father (John 17:5, Hebrews 12:2, Revelation 3:21), and delve into humanity, stripping Himself of the glory in which He once had, being made lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:9), born under the Law (Galatians 4:4) and in the likeness of man (John 1:14, Philippians 2:7) in order to give His life away (Hebrews 2:17). Being born as a man who is under the Law, Jesus could say things like, “I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God."

You said in a reply to Christian Sceptic's post regarding the Granville Sharp Rule, "You're implicitly appealing to the 'Granville Sharp Rule,' which is certainly accepted by most Trinitiarian Greek scholars, but not all secular scholars.

As far as Granville-Sharp constructions in the NT, the 'rule book' has to be tweaked so that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 apply, whereas others like Ephesians 5:5 do not.

There are extra-biblical Greek writings from the 1st and 2nd century that follow the Granville-Sharp construction, but obviously refer to two or more individuals.

In other words, there's no compelling reasons for anyone to believe that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 demand that Jesus is called God. The Greek is ambiguous."

However, you fail to give any examples whatsoever from any extra-Biblical sources from the first or second centuries that suggest otherwise. Oddly enough, why do I have the feeling you've been reading Jason BeDuhn's unscholarly, not very well researched work on the Granville Sharp rule?

You offered Ephesians 5:5 as a counter example of Sharp's Rule; however, there's three things I'd just like to point out concerning this particular passage,

1.) In Granville Sharp constructions where θεοῦ ("God") is used to refer to one person, in every case it always precedes the second singular personal noun in the clause and is foreshadowed by a definite article, i.e., "the God and Father" (1 Peter 1:3, 2 Corinthians 1:3, etc.).

In Ephesians 5:5, however, Χριστός ("Christ") precedes θεοῦ ("God"), i.e., τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ ("the Christ and God"). Why is this significant? Let me remind you of one of the fundamental restrictions to the Granville Sharp rule, "if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle." As you know already, the unique thing about θεοῦ is that the article doesn't always have to be present in order for it to be definite. Thus, one of the major reasons why most translations see this as referring to two distinct persons rather than having one referent is because, should θεοῦ be definite, then it doesn't necessarily fit the above restriction of Sharp's rule, and would read similarly to, "the kingdom of the Christ and the God," or "the kingdom of Christ and of God."

2.) "Lord Jesus Christ," "Jesus Christ," "Christ" are all common titles throughout the New Testament, and functions as a proper name.

3.) You said that there was no compelling evidence to suggest that 2 Peter 1:1 identifies Jesus as God. However, that's a bit of an understatement, and I would say, a purely theological objection with absolutely no attestation.

There are a total of five Granville Sharp constructions in the Book of Second Peter alone (1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 3:18). In three of those five examples, Jesus is referred to as "our Lord and Savior," and in four of those constructions there is an exact one-to-one word correspondance (with the exception of "God" being present in 2 Peter 1:1 rather than "Lord"):

2 Peter 1:1 - tou Theou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou ("our God and Savior Jesus Christ")

2 Peter 1:11 - tou Kuriou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou ("our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ")

2 Peter 2:20 - tou Kuriou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou (“our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”)

2 Peter 3:18 - tou Kuriou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou ("our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ")

One would hardly object that 2 Peter 1:11, 2 Peter 2:20, or 2 Peter 3:18 apply the nouns "Lord" and "Savior" to Christ, or that 1 Peter 1:3 applies "God" and "Father" to the Heavenly Father; however, when applying the exact same rule of thumb to 2 Peter 1:1 ("our God and Savior Jesus Christ") — ah, a theological conundrum occurs. It is simply inescapable that Peter consistently uses the "The—Substantive—Kai—Substantive" construction to refer two singular personal nouns to one individual — "Lord" and "Savior" (2 Peter 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 3:18); "God" and "Savior" (2 Peter 1:1); "God" and "Father" (1 Peter 1:3).

You said in a response to another in regards to the Granville Sharp rule, "You're implicitly appealing to the 'Granville Sharp Rule,' which is certainly accepted by most Trinitiarian Greek scholars, but not all secular scholars.

As far as Granville-Sharp constructions in the NT, the 'rule book' has to be tweaked so that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 apply, whereas others like Ephesians 5:5 do not.

There are extra-biblical Greek writings from the 1st and 2nd century that follow the Granville-Sharp construction, but obviously refer to two or more individuals.

In other words, there's no compelling reasons for anyone to believe that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 demand that Jesus is called God. The Greek is ambiguous."

However, you fail to give any examples whatsoever from any extra-Biblical sources from the first or second centuries that suggest otherwise. Oddly enough, why do I have the feeling you've been reading Jason BeDuhn's unscholarly, not very well researched work on the Granville Sharp rule?

You offered Ephesians 5:5 as a counter example of Sharp's Rule; however, there's three things I'd just like to point out concerning this particular passage,

1.) In Granville Sharp constructions where θεοῦ ("God") is used to refer to one person, in every case it always precedes the second singular personal noun in the clause and is foreshadowed by a definite article, i.e., "the God and Father" (1 Peter 1:3, 2 Corinthians 1:3, etc.).

In Ephesians 5:5, however, Χριστός ("Christ") precedes θεοῦ ("God"), i.e., τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ ("the Christ and God"). Why is this significant? Let me remind you of one of the fundamental restrictions to the Granville Sharp rule, "if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle." As you know already, the unique thing about θεοῦ is that the article doesn't always have to be present in order for it to be definite. Thus, one of the major reasons why most translations see this as referring to two distinct persons rather than having one referent is because, should θεοῦ be definite, then it doesn't necessarily fit the above restriction of Sharp's rule, and would read similarly to, "the kingdom of the Christ and the God," or "the kingdom of Christ and of God."

2.) "Lord Jesus Christ," "Jesus Christ," "Christ" are all common titles throughout the New Testament, and functions as a proper name.

3.) You said that there was no compelling evidence to suggest that 2 Peter 1:1 identifies Jesus as God. However, that's a bit of an understatement, and I would say, a purely theological objection with absolutely no attestation.

There are a total of five Granville Sharp constructions in the Book of Second Peter alone (1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 3:18). In three of those five examples, Jesus is referred to as "our Lord and Savior," and in four of those constructions there is an exact one-to-one word correspondance (with the exception of "God" being present in 2 Peter 1:1 rather than "Lord"):

2 Peter 1:1 - tou Theou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou ("our God and Savior Jesus Christ")

2 Peter 1:11 - tou Kuriou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou ("our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ")

2 Peter 2:20 - tou Kuriou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou (“our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”)

2 Peter 3:18 - tou Kuriou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou ("our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ")

One would hardly object that 2 Peter 1:11, 2 Peter 2:20, or 2 Peter 3:18 apply the nouns "Lord" and "Savior" to Christ, or that 1 Peter 1:3 applies "God" and "Father" to the Heavenly Father; however, when applying the exact same rule of thumb to 2 Peter 1:1 ("our God and Savior Jesus Christ") — ah, a theological conundrum occurs. It is simply inescapable that Peter consistently uses the "The—Substantive—Kai—Substantive" construction to refer two singular personal nouns to one individual — "Lord" and "Savior" (2 Peter 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 3:18); "God" and "Savior" (2 Peter 1:1); "God" and "Father" (1 Peter 1:3).

Since the question was deleted, this is a repost.

2 Peter 1:1 is one of the clearest passages in Scripture, if not the clearest, that ascribes the title θεός ("God") to Christ. This passage is an example of what is known as the Granville Sharp "The—Substantive—Kai—Substantive" construction. That is, when two singular personal nouns (not proper names, such as "John," "James," "Peter," "Paul") are connected by "kai" ("and"), and the article "ho" ("the") or any of its cases ("ton," "tou") precedes the first noun/participle, both nouns refer to one singular person/individual.

Or as Granville Sharp himself defines it,

"When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e., it denotes a farther description of the first named person." -- Granville Sharp, 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, (Philadelphia: B. B. Hopkins and Co., 1807), p. 3.

For instance, consider 2 Peter 1:11,

tou Kuriou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou

Literally rendered as, "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Both, "Lord" ("Kuriou") and "Savior" ("Soteros") are personal singular nouns with reference of the same Person, to Christ Jesus. The article before Kuriou ("tou" ["the"]) is dropped from our English translations, for we would not say, "our the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," rather, we would say, "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

It's vital to understand that there are passages such as Matthew 21:12 ("tous polountas kai agroazontas," "those who were buying and selling"), and Mark 11:15 that appear to have a very similar structure to Sharp's TSKS construction, though, they do not fit the rule, for they do not use singular personal nouns as defined by the rule, rather, plural participles. Let me reiterate for clarity sake that there's three essential things that must be stressed when determining whether a passage is a valid example of the rule:

1.) The passage possesses two singular personal nouns (i.e., "tou KURIOU hemon kai SOTEROS Iesou Christou")

a.) This excludes names, such as, "Paul," "John," "Peter"

2.) The copulative "kai" connects the two singular personal nouns (i.e., "tou Kuriou hemon KAI Soteros Iesou Christou")

3.) The article "ho" ("the"), or any of its cases, precedes the first noun/participle (i.e., "TOU Kuriou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou")

There are a total of five Granville Sharp constructions in the Book of Second Peter alone (1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 3:18). In four of those five examples, Jesus is referred to "our Lord and Savior," and in three of those constructions there is an exact one-to-one word correspondance (with the exception of "God" being present in 2 Peter 1:1 rather than "Lord"):

2 Peter 1:1 - tou Theou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou ("our God and Savior Jesus Christ")

2 Peter 1:11 - tou Kuriou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou ("our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ")

2 Peter 3:18 - tou Kuriou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou ("our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ")

One would hardly object that 2 Peter 1:11 and 2 Peter 3:18 both apply the nouns "Lord" and "Savior" to Christ, or that 1 Peter 1:3 applies "God" and "Father" to the Heavenly Father; however, when applying the exact same rule of thumb to 2 Peter 1:1 ("our God and Savior Jesus Christ") — ah, a theological conundrum occurs. Peter consistently uses the "The—Substantive—Kai—Substantive" construction to refer two singular personal nouns to one individual — "Lord" and "Savior" (2 Peter 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 3:18); "God" and "Savior" (2 Peter 1:1); "God" and "Father" (1 Peter 1:3).