A Question for Jehovah's Witnesses

[marks]

Sure he was. I wonder what set of circumstances would you accept one is making an exclamation if not seeing somone come back from the dead?

Just because you are used to sloppy and irreverant speech is no need to presume that these men were being equally sloppy and irreverant in their speech in the presence of their Lord.

Much love!

 

[face2face]

I stick with the literal Christian Bible. Jesus is God and Hell Fire is EVERLASTING.

The Pharisees said the same of their Holy Books.

 

[Aunty Jane]

John 3:16.

James 2:19

 

[Wrangler]

Just because you are used to sloppy and irreverant speech is no need to presume that these men were being equally sloppy and irreverant in their speech in the presence of their Lord.

Exclamations are anything but sloppy and irreverant speech. And it is no assumption or answer to my question. What set of circumstances would you accept one is making an exclamation if not seeing someone come back from the dead?

 

[face2face]

I have just one word, arrogance.

Even King David did not realise that, for around eight to ten years, God was not pleased about what he had done or was doing until he was confronted with his sin of turning away from God by Nathan the Prophet because of Satan's influence in his life.

2 Samuel 11:28b: - But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD.

Wow you attached some fanciful notions in that statement! Your Satan isn't even mentioned in the Old Testament.

 

[Wrangler]

Your Satan isn't even mentioned in the Old Testament.

Never read Job huh?

 

[Jay Ross]

Wow you attached some fanciful notions in that statement! Your Satan isn't even mentioned in the Old Testament.

But yours is????????????????

 

[face2face]

@marks
@Jack
@Wrangler

If you were totally honest with the text, do you believe Thomas' confession is an acknowledgment that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead, rather than a declaration that Jesus is "God the Son"?

And if we were in doubt of this, do you believe Thomas, a Jew, used a mode of expression common to the Old Testament in which accredited representatives of God are referred to as "God".

Angels are called "God" in the following passages: Gen 16:7; Genesis 13; 22:8, 11, 15, 16; Exodus. 23:20, 21.

Moses is referred to as a "god" to Pharaoh in Exod 7:1, "god" is translated from the Heb. "elohim"

Put that to one side for the moment.

What about the context? Earlier in chapter 20, Jesus told Mary, "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God." John 20:17.

Can you see the problem here?

Since Jesus was to ascend to his God, then clearly he was not himself "Very God"

The confusion is not in Christ's teaching or in the revelation of God through His Word, its what we attach to that Word which is where error is found. In no way can a Trinitarian hang all the formulated dogma off Thomas' words, to do so is to change the Word of God into a lie.

F2F

 

[face2face]

Never read Job huh?

3 possibilities to the nature of the adversary, 2 of which have more Scriptural evidence than the 1st which comes to your mind.
One day you will see the OT is silent on a rebel angel!
It's a figment of the imagination.

BTW your rebel angel appears in 3 chapters in Job, has no power of his own and disappears (poof!).

It is comical what people do with that book.

F2F

 

[face2face]

But yours is????????????????

It's in your best interest to challenge those notions, questioning their origins and allowing the Word to instill right images. Happy to explore that with you anytime.
F2F

 

[Aunty Jane]

Just because you are used to sloppy and irreverant speech is no need to presume that these men were being equally sloppy and irreverant in their speech in the presence of their Lord.

The exclamation of Thomas to his risen Lord was one of shock…..he was a doubter and demanded proof of Jesus’ resurrection, and when he saw with his own eyes the wounds on his flesh….what did he say?

What had the apostles collectively already confessed?
1 Cor 8:5-6…
”For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven oron earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; AND one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.”

Was Thomas contradicting his fellow apostles when he called Jesus his “theos”?

The primary definition of “theos” in Greek is……

1. “a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities”.

Also….

1. refers to the things of God
   
   1. his counsels, interests, things due to him
2. whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
   
   1. God's representative or viceregent
      
      1. of magistrates and judges” (Strongs)

In confirmation, John 10:31-36 Jesus says that Yahweh called the judges in Israel “gods” (“theos” without the definite article).….so, calling Jesus “theos“ is not calling him “God” with a capital “G”……as you are aware, there are no capital letters in Greek, so capitalizing the “G” is at the translator’s discretion….and to support this doctrine, they presented “theos” as “ho theos” and made Jesus into Yahweh, thus violating the first Commandment by putting another “god” in the place of the Father, whom Jesus himself identified as “the only true God”. (John 17:3)

But for obvious reasons the English translators chose a definition that is an invention of the RCC in support of its primary teaching, which for some strange reason, is thoroughly indoctrinated into all of Christendom’s many denominations.…..in spite of the evidence for this travesty, Christendom ignores and denies that clear evidence, and continues to perpetuate this doctrine that is insulting to both Yahweh and his son….blasphemy in fact.

Thomas calling Jesus “theos” is not calling him Yahweh….but simply acknowledging his divine status as the son of God….’a divine mighty one’, which is in essence, what the word means in Greek….

Why do people place such trust in Christendom’s translators who only had one agenda….to make Jesus into a deity, rather than the divine being that he was….”sent” by his God and Father to complete a mission to save all who “believe”…and yet what does James tell us about this?
James 2:19…
”You believe that there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the demons believe and shudder.”…..be careful “what” you “believe”…..nothing in a world ruled by the devil is as it appears. (1 John 5:19; 2 Cor 11:14-15)

Please remember that “few” will be found on the road to life…..and the reason why, is obvious to those not so indoctrinated. (Matt7:13-14; 21-23)

 

[marks]

Exclamations are anything but sloppy and irreverant speech. And it is no assumption or answer to my question. What set of circumstances would you accept one is making an exclamation if not seeing someone come back from the dead

I'm saying they didn't talk that way. Show me one clear example in Scripture were one of Christ's disciples referred to the risen Christ in such an empty and vain way. You know, where the context actually shows it the way you mean.

Much love!

 

[marks]

If you were totally honest with the text,

If I were??

Right-o.

to do so is to change the Word of God into a lie.

Um . . . I'm not the one making Thomas' words untrue.

Much love!

 

[RedFan]

The exclamation of Thomas to his risen Lord was one of shock…..he was a doubter and demanded proof of Jesus’ resurrection, and when he saw with his own eyes the wounds on his flesh….what did he say?

I have to disagree that Thomas is just speaking out of shock, akin to saying “Oh my God!” English speakers might use that type of phrase to express shock, but in first-century Jewish society, that kind of careless uttering of God’s name would never happen.

 

[face2face]

If I were??

Right-o.


Um . . . I'm not the one making Thomas' words untrue.

Much love!

Do you think it's transparent the above text you selected?

 

[marks]

Do you think it's transparent the above text you selected?

What do you mean?

Much love!

 

[marks]

I have to disagree that Thomas is just speaking out of shock, akin to saying “Oh my God!” English speakers might use that type of phrase to express shock, but in first-century Jewish society, that kind of careless uttering of God’s name would never happen.

Exactly!

Much love!

 

[face2face]

I have to disagree that Thomas is just speaking out of shock, akin to saying “Oh my God!” English speakers might use that type of phrase to express shock, but in first-century Jewish society, that kind of careless uttering of God’s name would never happen.

I agree, Thomas could see this now clearly!

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He (Jesus) was manifested in the flesh, vindicated (justified) by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16

Thomas was in awe and impressed with how a man could become a god...a hope for all the Saints!

F2F

 

[face2face]

What do you mean?

Much love!

Your usual MO is to pluck a few words from a post and leave the weightier matters behind. The irony here is your response is a demonstration of how you handle the Word of God.

Take this question as a case in point:

If you were totally honest with the text, do you believe Thomas' confession is an acknowledgment that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead, rather than a declaration that Jesus is "God the Son"?

Can you answer that question honestly?

Would your answer be "no F2F, I believe Thomas was providing us an exposition on the Godhead which outlines all the intricacies of Trinitarian Doctrine"

Or,

Would it be "F2F, I believe it was spoken out of Awe of what Jesus his Lord had become!"

But unfortunately Marks you choose some lame response which held no value whatsoever to the conversation and in fact revealed dishonesty in mishandling the post.

Lets see if you can have another crack so to speak!

 

[Wrangler]

In no way can a Trinitarian hang all the formulated dogma off Thomas' words

Because there is no actual teaching of their doctrine, they must resort to doctrinally investing in ambiguous text. The more ambiguous, the more it serves their doctrinal purposes.

Yes, Thomas exclaimed upon seeing the risen Lord. Who wouldn't? By contract, there is explicit Scripture that rejects their eisegesis. 'For us, there is one God the Father.' If their doctrine were true, there would not be one single verse that obliterates it. But there are many.