These are pressing matters to be sure, but the plural is a part of the Hebrew language that I have not grasped in regard to a Trinity doctrine that came after the New Testament was written. See?
John 20:28 and the Trinity
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
These are pressing matters to be sure, but the plural is a part of the Hebrew language that I have not grasped in regard to a Trinity doctrine that came after the New Testament was written. See?
I can see this. It is interesting. I don't know if you are attacking a certain understanding of calling, but proclaiming can be saying or speaking forth. I don't have a problem with the word calling, but I don't see myself having used it and likely would not.
From what I heard, the plural is a plural all the times. Some ancient Jews took them as "God with His angels" though.
In reading this at first I saw something different, the beginning of your post here, but I can also see your conclusion.
So let's start form the beginning of this thread...John 20:28!
My Lord and my God.
There you go, an Apostle refers to Jesus as God. When you look at some verses in the Old and New Testament you have to remember to look at them with a Hebrew or Greek mind of that period, and not a 20th century mind. Some language can mean something to us that it did not mean back then. For example, if an Englishman says, "I am mad about my flat" he means that he is exited about his apartment. To an American, that same phrase means that he is angry about his flat tire. The word "God" for example, means to us in the 20th century "The Almighty God." To a Jew it did not necessarily mean "Almighty God." In Psalms 82: 1 & 6 God refers to earthly rulers as gods. This is the same passage that Jesus quotes to the Jews when they accuse him of saying that he is God. Paraphrasing Jesus, he says to them; "If it is okay to call men gods, why is it blasphemous for me to say that I am the Son of God"(John 10: 33 - 38). Notice how when Jesus is accused of being God, he quickly corrects them that he is not God, but the Son of God. In 2 Corinthians 4: 4 Satan is also called the "god of this age." Does that mean that he is God Almighty? Of course not!
John even tells us just 3 verses later why he wrote about Thomas story… In John 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. If Thomas was really calling Jesus GOD almighty then John just contradicted why he wrote his writings.
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church points out what an early Christian father, Origen (185-254 AD) says about the word "God." "The Son is theos (God), but only the Father is autotheos" (absolute God, God in himself).
This is the reason there is an Almighty God or a Most High God, in order to differentiate the only true God from the others. Another fact to consider when approaching this verse is to understand whom John believes God and Jesus to be.
John wrote his gospel to testify that Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son. Let us take a look again at what John believes in order to not take one verse and unjustly imply a certain belief on John.
John 17:3
"Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."
Revelation 1:6
"Who (Jesus) has made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father"
John 20:17
"But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’"
Remember that John’s whole purpose for writing his Gospel is to prove that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, not God.
"But these are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God" (John 20: 31).
We must keep John's reason for writing his gospel fresh in our minds as we try to understand this verse. In his gospel, John distinguishes completely between the only true God and Jesus Christ To imply that John believed in a three in one God would be to do a terrible injustice to John.
So what does Thomas mean? To us in the modern world it might at first seem odd, but when you put yourself in Thomas’s place as a Jew in Jesus’ day, it will make all the sense in the world.
The Catholic New American Bible defines this usage of the word god:
"The king, in courtly language is called god, representing God to the people."
Aspects of Monotheism states: "god" is an allegorical equivalent for "king."
This is the definition of the Messiah. The Messiah is the king of Israel who represents God to the people (John 1:49). Thomas was just stating that fact. When he saw Jesus resurrected, it proved to him that He was indeed the Messiah. Thomas’ statement is the equivalent of saying, My Lord and my king. This is not just my opinion; it is easily verified in the Old Testament. Remember, God = king = Messiah.
This kind of language was common in those days. Let’s look at a similar verse.
1 Samuel 24:9 states:
"David also stepped out of the cave, calling to Saul, "My lord and my king."
My lord and my God = My lord and my king.
This verse mean the same thing. Thomas is addressing the king of Israel in exactly the same way that David did. You just have to speak like a first century Jew.
Luke 2:11 states:
"A savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord."
Acts 2:36 states:
"God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified."
Lord and Messiah = Lord and king = Lord and God.
There is for me one great proof that Thomas did not mean Jesus is Almighty God when he called Jesus God. When Thomas called Jesus "My lord and my God" all the Apostles were in the room. If this statement is true, then it is logical to assume that from now on, all the Apostles know that Jesus is really God. So from that point onward Jesus should be addressed as God. But as you can see in all the writings of the New Testament, none of the Apostles ever refer to Jesus as Almighty God or YHWH. Not once in the entire New Testament do they ever pray to Jesus. They make clear distinctions between the two. They in fact write about the God of Jesus Christ (John 20:17).
Remember, "No one has ever seen God" (1 John 4: 12). Yet, John saw and spoke to Jesus... Same author of John 20:28 you claim might imply that Jesus is God .
Now... Let's review "Christ"
John wrote in his Book, a clear reason for it's purpose!
Joh 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
Is “Christ” God or title?
Dr. Hugh Schonfield, in his book the Passover Plot. Reported that many Christians he spoke with were not even aware that the term "Christ" was simply a Greek translation of the Hebrew title Messiah, and thought somehow that it referred to the Second Person of the Trinity. "So connected had the word ‘Christ’ become with the idea of Jesus as God incarnate that the title ‘Messiah’ was treated as something curiously Jewish and not associated.”
N.T. Write, the Bishop of Litchfield, agrees: “One of the most persistent mistakes throughout the literature on Jesus and the last hundred years is to use the word ‘Christ,’ which simply means ‘Messiah’, as though it was a ‘divine’ title.” Who was Jesus? p.57.
According to its OT usage, the term Messiah/Christ, the Anointed One, indicates a call to office.
Most certainly, it was not the title of an aspect of the Godhead. This is a later Gentile invention that came about by ignoring Jesus’ Jewish context and inventing a doctrine called the Incarnation- the idea that a second member of the Trinity, God the son, became a human being. As Lockhart says, in Jesus the Heretic, p.137. “Christianity ignored the ‘Messiah’ and theologically worked the ‘Christ’ up into the ‘God-Man.’ Jesus as the ‘Messiah’ is a human being; Jesus as the ‘Christ’ is something entirely different.”
Jesus calls himself "a man" (John 8:40) "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. Jesus clearly states... He is a man which heard from God also note... the apostles call him "a man" (Acts 2: 22; 1 Tim. 2:5). Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- 1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, He is constantly contrasted with and distinguished from God, his Father.
The Hebrew Bible or OT, predicted Jesus would be a man (Is.53:3). But never does the scriptures use the term "God-Man" to tell us who Jesus is. The Greek language of the day had a perfectly good word for “God-Man” (theios aner) but it never appears in the New Testament. So why do we persist with these extra-biblical terms? Why do we continue to employ non-biblical (i.e. unbiblical) language to describe Jesus?
The Bible verse saying is true which says that we are very quick to spot the speck in the eye of another's theology, but how blind we are to the beam in our own. Mary is not the mother of God, according to the scriptures. And neither is Jesus God the Son, nor is he the "God-Man" according to the Bible. And he is nowhere called "God of from God" as the later Nicene Creed called him. Protestants, people of the Bible ought to know that the contentious extra-biblical word used at Nicea, homoousios, meaning ‘of equal substance,’ “did not come from Scripture but, of all things, from Gnostic systems.” Quote from Born Before All-Time? p. 500. Kuschel.
The result was that such terminology introduced alien notions into Christian understanding of God. In other words, "an epoch-making paradigm shift has taken place between Scriptures and Nicea.” Born Before All-Time? p. 503. Kuschel
To the Jewish mind, accustomed to Old Testament teaching on the principles of agency and
representation by which God appoints a man to speak or act on his behalf, such a concept was
both familiar and acceptable. Whilst it is true that some of Christ's enemies believed him to be
usurping or laying claim unlawfully to certain Divine rights or powers, not a single Jew ever
thought that the miracles performed by Christ proved that he was a Divine being, and the gospel
record indicates that many recognised that he was a man Divinely appointed to exercise power
and authority on God's behalf. read Joh 3:2
Joh 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Do you know the only true God... the One whom sent His Christ/Messiah? This Knowledge is eternal life according to Jesus! Make no mistake about Jesus' claims! The doctrine of the Trinity is Blasphemy according to Jesus!
:sherlock:oly:
Paul
I don't understand all of this but it is very interesting. My Lord and Messiah or my Lord and my King. Interesting.
Interesting. Yes, thank you. What did Thomas know then or though?
Do you think Thomas, as a Jew, arbitrarily called Jesus God?
Matthew 13:10-11 (NIV2011)
The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.
Jesus spent some time with the disciples after His resurrection. How many secrets of the kingdom of heaven have been given to them, but not you?
Interesting. I am not sure about that.
Great questions! I don't know what to do about all this. It is my believe that Jesus is not God, but the interpretation that I have of this verse is that Thomas said my Lord and my God.
First is if you are correct, then is making God in your own image which is not good.
I tried to point out that His disciples, including Thomas, should have known better about who Jesus really is, because the chances are "Secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them."
JWs have some things wrong, so I would not accept what they say.
Who do you believe that Jesus (really) is?
I can tell from the Bible that God is a Trinity. By my own experience (rather a supernatural encounter) God is a Trinity. I had this "knowing His Trinity" experience even before I was formally a Christian, I basically had zero biblical knowledge back then.
To put it another way, I believe that He "showed" me the He's a Trinity, and that's before I had any concept about what a Trinity could possibly be! I didn't have any Christianity concept back then, as I was raised an atheist with no religion.
Interesting. Feel free or welcome to share. I don't believe in the Trinity, and I grew up Christian.
Correct. I don't accept what they say. But if the Scriptures state something, and the JWs happen to agree, I am NOT going to contradict the Scripture, just to avoid ANY agreement with the JW's ...... LOL.
So it is important for you to know what you are thinking, and where it comes from.
Rosenritter
New member
Such as the angels of heaven that were present when God created the earth.
Job 38:6-7 KJV
(6) Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
(7) When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
http://www.hope-of-israel.org/royalwe.html
The "royal we" understanding of "Let us create man in our image" works regardless of any particular theory of the Godhead.
Apple7
New member
Satan has over one hundred names, titles and epithets within the pages of scripture.
The Triune God has over 1,000.
You will not locate any commentary on the planet that does not hold to Satan being referred to in your examples.
2 Cor 4.4, however, does indeed have commentary that Theos refers to God, and NOT to Satan.
You would do well to focus on 2 Cor 4.4, in lieu of diversionary tactics.
You already agreed that Jesus is referred to as Theos in other portions of scripture.
How many 'other' portions of scripture have Satan identified as Theos?
Zero.
Thus...your argument is one from silence, and not from fact.