Jesus never said he was God Almighty

[marks]

Well, there it is.

BTW, the expression, ‘taking the Lord’s name in vain’ applies to court cases, as does the Commandment against perjury, not general lying.

What I'm saying is, we commonly say such things, well, I don't, but many do. It's become a cultural thing. But you are saying that was Thomas' mode of speech? To use God's Titles, LORD, God, not to really address God, more like today's OMG. I'm not convinced. That this was how they spoke. Is that so? That this was how Jesus' disciples spoke in His resurrected Presence? No, I'm definitely NOT convinced.

"He said it to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!", but he wasn't really saying that JESUS was his Lord and God, more just an empty expression of his excitement." If there were a personal direction for Thomas' words ASIDE from Jesus, and we are saying it wasn't just an exclamation, it would of course be the Father, however, the Scripture says Thomas said this to Jesus.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Again, it is NOT taking his name in vain but an exclamatory statement.

Isn't an exclamatory statement using the titles of God in ways other then what those really are?

And there is the idea out there that when the disciples and Apostles said Lord, they were often meaning LORD, as in referring to YHWH.

This doesn't seem like them to me, that the disciples would be so loose with God's Name.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Neither do I. The logical alternative is there but you don’t want to answer why the excluded the HS in all their epistles.

So be it.

I'm sorry, I thought I did. Maybe it was another conversation. They tend to blur sometimes!



Wait, it seems I did, maybe you disagreed?

I believe the Bible was inspired by God, so that what they wrote was what God wanted them to write.

I believe was through the Holy Spirit that God moved the writers to write.

John 16:13-14 KJV
13) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14) He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

All the answers are there!

The Holy Spirit directs attention not to Himself, but to Jesus.

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

But there is more to taking up the Name of the LORD in vain, I think.

There is not more. The Commandment was a prohibition against perjury.

To this day, we swear on a Bible to tell the truth in a court proceeding. Any more meaning is beyond and outside the word of God.

 

[Wrangler]

The Holy Spirit directs attention not to Himself, but to Jesus.

The when today’s Christians reference the HS and the trinity, they are not directed by the HS?

Seems you want to have it both way.

How about, the Epistles prologues do not mention the HS because they were not trinitarians? Isn’t that plausible?

 

[marks]

The when today’s Christians reference the HS and the trinity, they are not directed by the HS?

Seems you want to have it both way.

How about, the Epistles prologues do not mention the HS because they were not trinitarians? Isn’t that plausible?

So, who IS the Holy Spirit, anyway?

The Epistles teach concerning the Holy Spirit. You were asking about the blessing at the beginning. The Holy Spirit does not stay silent about Himself, He does teach us such things as He intends.

Likewise we may speak of the Holy Spirit "in the Spirit", just the same, I think we'll find the same thing, that it won't be to bring glory to Himself.

Much love!

 

[marks]

There is not more. The Commandment was a prohibition against perjury.

To this day, we swear on a Bible to tell the truth in a court proceeding. Any more meaning is beyond and outside the word of God.

That doesn't even involve God's Name. I swear to tell the truth . . . and Actually, we're told not to swear, just to tell the truth.

The LXX has an interesting reading on this passage,

Exodus 20:7 Brenton
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord thy God will not acquit him that takes his name in vain.

We trust in Jesus, and we are called Christian. What of the one who calles themself Christian without really being born again? Are their sins forgiven them?

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

Isn't an exclamatory statement using the titles of God in ways other then what those really are?

You got to be kidding me! The Bible has to be the most metaphorical book of all time. Now you are holding Apostles to only literal use of words?

And there is the idea out there that when the disciples and Apostles said Lord, they were often meaning LORD, as in referring to YHWH.

An anti-Scriptural idea, which presumed God is unable to effectively communicate and communicate the difference between himself and his chosen, suffering servant.

See my thread on the Biblegateway conspiracy.

This doesn't seem like them to me, that the disciples would be so loose with God's Name.

Yet, there it is.

Said differently, your entire line of reasoning is to deny the monotheist God of the Jews, who wrote every book of the Bible, whose unitarian nature was unequivocally established 1,000’s of times and hinges on Thomas’ words meaning non-exclamatory.

 

[marks]

You got to be kidding me! The Bible has to be the most metaphorical book of all time. Now you are holding Apostles to only literal use of words?

No, I'm pointing to this particular instance, not making a generalization. That's not metaphor anyway, it's "exclamatory utterance". We're just looking at what sort. He just burst out with it. I think it was right on target, and true. He said to Jesus, my Lord and my God!

And then of course there is so much in the Bible that some think is metaphor, though I do not. I think each instance deserves to be looked at individually.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Said differently, your entire line of reasoning is to deny the monotheist God of the Jews, who wrote every book of the Bible, whose unitarian nature was unequivocally established 1,000’s of times and hinges on Thomas’ words meaning non-exclamatory.

Not at all! I have many reasons. I'm focusing on this one.

Much love!

 

[marks]

An anti-Scriptural idea, which presumed God is unable to effectively communicate and communicate the difference between himself and his chosen, suffering servant.

See my thread on the Biblegateway conspiracy.

See the LXX.

It shows the way the Jews communicated, and how they wrote, and how they treated God's Name. And rather than translate, or transliterate, they used a substitution, Adonai, Lord.

Question . . .

Zechariah 14:3-4 KJV
3) Then shall YHWH go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4) And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Whose feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, that will then split into two?

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

That doesn't even involve God's Name.

Context. The Commandment prohibits perjury WHEN swearing to tell the truth in God’s name.

 

[Wrangler]

He said to Jesus, my Lord and my God!

And Jesus said he’s going to his God. That is the only God. Jesus’ God is the only God.

 

[Wrangler]

It shows the way the Jews communicated, and how they wrote, and how they treated God's Name.

No. It does not. Keep in mind Jews are monotheists who reject the trinity to this day.

Another thread delved into what God does directly compared to indirectly, yet he is credited with the action. This is how the Jews write about Adonai.

Two examples were who spoke to Moses through the burning bush and who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. In both cases, angels did the deed but the Bible credits it as the work of God.

This working through others, such as the words of the prophets, is understood to be God who is not the actual actor - except in the trinitarian invention.

 

[Emily Nghiem]

No, I'm pointing to this particular instance, not making a generalization. That's not metaphor anyway, it's "exclamatory utterance". We're just looking at what sort. He just burst out with it. I think it was right on target, and true. He said to Jesus, my Lord and my God!

And then of course there is so much in the Bible that some think is metaphor, though I do not. I think each instance deserves to be looked at individually.

Much love!

Dear @marks and @Wrangler
Not either or, but all the above and more!

The universality of God's Word expressed in the Bible is that it is all these things at once.

Both historical and literal.
And metaphorical with parables and true wisdom that can be applied in infinite diverse ways.

Whatever you get from it, God is talking to each of us in our own unique relationship with God through Christ.

Each soul is unique.
Each relationship between two unique souls is a unique line of communication.

So the way God talks with me and @Wrangler can be totally unique to us

While @marks would share a different perspective with me when we connect in Christ

I love how this works, and doesn't have to be the same for everyone.

God is greater than our human differences.
Hi love and truth will always find a way to be revealed and established in Christ Jesus.

We are each believers, so we have that gift to use.

Thank you for sharing and explaining where you are coming from. God's truth is universal but so much more than each of us can capture, it takes all our angles and approaches to put God's fuller truth together.

Brilliant! Thank you so much
And may God continue to richly bless you and give you even more clarity, favor to be received by others, and unity in understanding how much greater God is than anyone of us can explain on our own!

In Jesus name Thanks and Amen!

 

[marks]

Dear @marks and @Wrangler
Not either or, but all the above and more!

I'd respectfully have to disagree. I believe the Bible says a certain thing. I believe God uses the Bible to speak with us each in a unique way, as you said, but in the teaching of truth, I think there is a certain truth, and that truth will set us free, into true liberty.

Much love!

 

[marks]

No. It does not. Keep in mind Jews are monotheists who reject the trinity to this day.

Yet just the same, it shows how they used the language. That's what I'm pointing to. Not their theology, their use of language.

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

Yet just the same, it shows how they used the language. That's what I'm pointing to. Not their theology, their use of language.

Much love!

I’m pointing to both, the Hebrew theology and use of language. Otherwise, one risks projecting false trinitarian doctrine onto unitarian text.

 

[marks]

I’m pointing to both, the Hebrew theology and use of language. Otherwise, one risks projecting false trinitarian doctrine onto unitarian text.

I propose we set doctrine aside for the moment while we work at understanding what the text says.

We can talk about "projecting unitarian doctrine", or trinitarian doctrine, I like to first get settled on what they wrote.

In this instance, I'm seeing where they follows the form of the time, and quoted the OT saying LORD instead of YHWH, just like the LXX reads, and then identified this as Jesus.

I don't think we are in disagreement over the reading of the OT passage or the reading of the NT passage, only whether or not the Apostle was using LORD there in the same way as the Bible he was quoting from did.

The LXX used the word that way. The Apostle quoted from the LXX, and identified Jesus.

Much love!

 

[Emily Nghiem]

I'd respectfully have to disagree. I believe the Bible says a certain thing. I believe God uses the Bible to speak with us each in a unique way, as you said, but in the teaching of truth, I think there is a certain truth, and that truth will set us free, into true liberty.

Much love!

Yes but the use of Parables are Metaphors.
They are not literally about growing mustard bushes from seeds or moving physical mountains.

Still universal truth but not limited to literal words, meanings or interpretations.