The answer of hell and its origins

[Jack]

The point is you're taking Abraham's Bosom as being symbolic so the story of the rich man and Lazarus is a story to be taken symbolically. Just as Abraham's Bosom isn't being taken literally in the story neither am I going to take the rest of the story literally.

Have you ever disagreed with Kingdom Hall doctrine? Why don't you answer simple questions about Kingdom Hall? Doesn't that seem suspicious to you?

 

[The Learner]

The point is you're taking Abraham's Bosom as being symbolic so the story of the rich man and Lazarus is a story to be taken symbolically. Just as Abraham's Bosom isn't being taken literally in the story neither am I going to take the rest of the story literally.

4 Maccabees 1
Common English Bible
The principle of clear thinking
1 I’m about to prove a most important philosophical principle: godly thinking[a] is supreme over emotions and desires. I would be giving you good advice then to pay close attention to philosophy. 2 This principle is essential for knowing what to do in every situation, and it also includes the praise of the highest moral trait—I’m talking about good judgment. 3 Therefore, if clear thinking is shown to control the emotions that prevent self-control, such as the tendency to overeat and rampant desire, 4 then it is clear that it also rules the emotions that prevent us from acting in a just way, such as ill will, and those emotions that prevent us from acting with courage, such as anger, fear, and pain.

5 Perhaps some people would object: “If clear thinking can control emotions, why doesn’t it do away with memory loss and ignorance?” But that’s just ridiculous. 6 The mind doesn’t have control over such things, but it controls the emotions and desires that resist justice, courage, and self-control. And it does this so that we won’t surrender to the emotions, not in order to destroy them.

7 I could show you that clear thinking has power over emotions and desires in any number of ways. 8 However, I can do this best by showing you the heroic courage of those who died to preserve their moral character: Eleazar, the seven brothers, and their mother. 9 By ignoring their pain to the point of death, all of these persons showed that clear thinking had complete control of their emotions. 10 On the anniversary of these events, it is appropriate for me to praise the moral achievements of those who died along with their mother to preserve their virtuous character. I would also call them fortunate because of the honor in which they are held. 11 All people, including the ones who tortured them, were amazed at their courage and patient endurance. What’s more, they caused the defeat of the tyranny that had oppressed their nation. They conquered the tyrant by their endurance. As a result, their homeland was purged of its filth through their actions. 12 I will say more about this shortly. First I will begin with my main point, as is my custom, and then I will return to their story, giving glory to God, who possesses all wisdom.

Definition of terms
13 So we are exploring the question of whether clear thinking has full power over the emotions. 14 We need to define what careful reasoning is, what we mean by emotion, how many different kinds of emotions there are, and whether clear thinking has full power over all these things. 15 Clear thinking then is the mind-set that uses plain logic to choose the life of wisdom. 16 Next, wisdom is the knowledge of divine and human behavior and what causes the behavior. 17 This knowledge in turn comes from the instruction provided by the Law, through which we learn about divine matters reverently and human matters to our advantage. 18 The different kinds of wisdom are good judgment, justice, courage, and self-control. 19 Good judgment is the ruler among these kinds of wisdom, because clear thinking controls the emotions with it. 20 There are two general categories of emotions: pleasure and pain. Each of these shows up in different ways in the body and in the soul.

21 Several other emotions accompany pleasure and pain. 22 Desire comes before pleasure, and joy follows it. 23 Fear comes before pain, and grief follows it. 24 Anger is a mixture of both pleasure and pain, as anyone who thinks about the experience would agree. 25 With pleasure there is a tendency to form bad habits, and this is the most varied of the emotions. 26 In the soul, bad habits show up as pride, love of money, thirst for honor, delight in conflict, and envy. 27 In the body, they show up as eating anything and everything, the tendency to overeat, and indulging in binge eating in private. 28 Just as pleasure and pain are two plants growing from the body and the soul, so there are many branches shooting off from each of these plants. 29 But clear thinking, like an expert gardener, pulls out the weeds, trims, supports, waters, and cares for the plants in every way. So it tames the jungle of habits and emotions. 30 Clear thinking is the guide of moral character, but it has full power over the emotions.

clear thinking and the Law
Consider first the way in which clear thinking shows that it is supreme over the emotions through the exercise of self-control. 31 Self-control means having control over your desires. 32 Some desires come from the inner person, and others come from the body. Clear thinking obviously has control over both. 33 Otherwise, how is it that when we are attracted by foods that we aren’t allowed to eat, we can walk away from the pleasure that we would get from them? Isn’t it because clear thinking is in control over our desires? I think so. 34 We keep our distance when we crave any of the foods that are forbidden to us by the Law, whether it is seafood, birds, animals, or anything else, because of the self-control that comes from clear thinking. 35 The sensible mind curbs the drives of the appetite, keeping them in check, and clear thinking silences the impulses of our bodies.

looks literal to me.

 

[The Learner]

"In the New Testament and in Jewish writings a term signifying the abodeof bliss in the other world. According to IV Macc. xiii. 17, the righteous who die for their faith are received by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in paradise (compare Matt. viii. 11: "Many shall come from the east and the west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven")."

Nope, it is Literal!!!

 

[The Learner]

Read to here, nice discussion all!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

And they all disagree with Kingdom Hall. Jesus is God and Hell fire is "everlasting" as Jesus clearly taught.

Jesus is the only begotten Son of God as the scriptures say he is. Those who don't exercise faith that God sent his only begotten Son to the world of mankind and that it was the only begotten Son of God who sacrificed his life for the world of mankind and those who don't exercise faith that it was God who resurrected his only begotten Son three days after his death are the ones who will not get everlasting life.

 

[Jack]

Jesus is the only begotten Son of God as the scriptures say he is. Those who don't exercise faith that God sent his only begotten Son to the world of mankind and that it was the only begotten Son of God who sacrificed his life for the world of mankind and those who don't exercise faith that it was God who resurrected his only begotten Son three days after his death are the ones who will not get everlasting life.

So you're saying that the JW's own NWT is wrong?

NWT Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God".

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

So you're saying that the JW's own NWT is wrong?

NWT Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God".

Jesus Christ said after he was resurrected at John 20:17 that he has a Father and God, which was his apostles and disciples Father and God. This would include Thomas since he was a disciple of Jesus Christ. So are you saying by what Thomas said at John 20:28 that Jesus Christ was lying or wrong or in error when Jesus said he has a Father and God which was his apostles and disciples Father and God.

 

[Jack]

Jesus Christ said after he was resurrected at John 20:17 that he has a Father and God, which was his apostles and disciples Father and God. This would include Thomas since he was a disciple of Jesus Christ. So are you saying by what Thomas said at John 20:28 that Jesus Christ was lying or wrong or in error when Jesus said he has a Father and God which was his apostles and disciples Father and God.

No, I'm saying Thomas was right in calling Jesus his Lord and his God. And Kingdom Hall is wrong as usual.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

No, I'm saying Thomas was right in calling Jesus his Lord and his God. And Kingdom Hall is wrong as usual.

Seems to me you're saying what Jesus said at John 20:17 means nothing to you. I say this because you have said nothing about what Jesus said at John 20:17 as though only what Thomas said is of any importance and what Jesus said is of no importance at all to you. What's the explanation for what Jesus said at John 20:17? You make a big deal about what Thomas says but not what Jesus says. Jesus said he has a Father and God who is his apostles and disciples Father and God, that included Thomas, was Jesus in error, or mistaken when he said what he said at John 20:17?

 

[The Learner]

No, I'm saying Thomas was right in calling Jesus his Lord and his God. And Kingdom Hall is wrong as usual.

We need a Winner icon, please. I am puzzled how TRuth contradicts our friend's understanding of the Bible.

 

[The Learner]

Seems to me you're saying what Jesus said at John 20:17 means nothing to you. I say this because you have said nothing about what Jesus said at John 20:17 as though only what Thomas said is of any importance and what Jesus said is of no importance at all to you. What's the explanation for what Jesus said at John 20:17? You make a big deal about what Thomas says but not what Jesus says. Jesus said he has a Father and God who is his apostles and disciples Father and God, that included Thomas, was Jesus in error, or mistaken when he said what he said at John 20:17?

10 Then the followers went back home. 11 But Mary stood outside the tomb, crying. While she was crying, she bent down and looked inside the tomb. 12 She saw two angels dressed in white sitting where Jesus’ body had been. One was sitting where the head had been; the other was sitting where the feet had been.

13 The angels asked Mary, “Woman, why are you crying?”

Mary answered, “They took away the body of my Lord, and I don’t know where they put him.” 14 When Mary said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there. But she did not know that it was Jesus.

15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who are you looking for?”

She thought he was the man in charge of the garden. So she said to him, “Did you take him away, sir? Tell me where you put him. I will go and get him.”

16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”

She turned toward him and said in Aramaic, “Rabboni,” which means “Teacher.”

17 Jesus said to her, “You don’t need to hold on to me! I have not yet gone back up to the Father. But go to my followers[a] and tell them this: ‘I am going back to my Father and your Father. I am going back to my God and your God.’”

18 Mary Magdalene went to the followers and told them, “I saw the Lord!” And she told them what he had said to her.

Jesus Appears to His Followers​

19 The day was Sunday, and that same evening the followers were together. They had the doors locked because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders. Suddenly, Jesus was standing there among them. He said, “Peace be with you!” 20 As soon as he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. When the followers saw the Lord, they were very happy.

21 Then Jesus said again, “Peace be with you. It was the Father who sent me, and I am now sending you in the same way.” 22 Then he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of anyone, their sins are forgiven. If there is anyone whose sins you don’t forgive, their sins are not forgiven.”

Jesus Appears to Thomas​

24 Thomas (called Didymus) was one of the twelve, but he was not with the other followers when Jesus came. 25 They told him, “We saw the Lord.” Thomas said, “That’s hard to believe. I will have to see the nail holes in his hands, put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side. Only then will I believe it.”

26 A week later the followers were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. The doors were locked, but Jesus came and stood among them. He said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here. Look at my hands. Put your hand here in my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28 Thomas said to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Jesus said to him, “You believe because you see me. Great blessings belong to the people who believe without seeing me!”

Why John Wrote This Book​

30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs that his followers saw, which are not written in this book. 31 But these are written so that you can believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. Then, by believing, you can have life through his name.

No contradiction in the text, Jesus is speaking as a man. Thomas was recognizing Jesus's God Nature.

 

[The Learner]

The confession of Thomas, coming as it does at the climax of John's Gospel, is perhaps the clearest affirmation of Christ's deity in the Bible. It is clear, despite various theories to the contrary (see "Other views Considered," below), that Thomas was speaking directly to Jesus. The phrase rendered "answered and said to him" is a rather common construction in the New Testament, and always precedes a direct address to the person referred to ("him," in this case, who can only be Jesus). This verse occurs in the middle of a conversation between Thomas and Jesus, and suggestions that Thomas was addressing the Father, or crying out in surprise are not credible.
For a devout Jew in the first Century to address someone as "my God" could only mean one thing: The "God" being addressed occupied a unique position in the speaker's devotion. For a Jew, this could only be YHWH. The phrase "my God" occurs over 135 times in the Bible, and when spoken by a Jew, always refers to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Thomas was disposed to believe in Jesus by his personal attachment to him, as he demonstrated previously by his resolute adherence in impending danger (11:16). Jesus may have felt that the faith of all the disciples was fragile, for he told them explicitly that the raising of Lazarus was designed to give them a solid basis for a continuing faith (11:15). Now, having been challenged to make a personal test of Jesus’ reality, Thomas expressed fullest faith in him. For a Jew to call another human associate "my Lord and my God" would be almost incredible. The Jewish law was strictly monotheistic; so the deification of any man would be regarded as blasphemy (10:33). Thomas, in the light of the Resurrection, applied to Jesus the titles of Lord (kyrios) and God (theos), both of which were titles of deity (EBC).

apekriqh QwmaV kai eipen autw,`O kurioV mou kai`o qeoV mou
APEKRITHÊ THÔMAS KAI EIPEN AUTWi, hO KURIOS MOU KAI hO THEOS MOU

Answered Thomas and said to him, the Lord of me and the God of me

Not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the Koiné. Thomas was wholly convinced and did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God. And Jesus accepts the words and praises Thomas for so doing (RWP)

Nominative for vocative

Even where the nominative is still formally distinguished from the vocative, there is still a tendency for the nominative to usurp the place of the vocative (a tendency observable already in Homer)....Attic used the nominative (with article) with simple substantives only in addressing inferiors...The NT (in passages translated from a Semitic language) and the LXX do not conform to these limitations, but can even say ho theos, ho patêr, etc., in which the arthrous Semitic vocative is being reproduced by the Greek nominative with article....Jn 20:28 (cf., Rev 4:11) (BDF, pp. 81-82).
About sixty times in the New Testament a nominative case noun is used to designate the person being addressed. The nominative functions like a vocative....The nominative of address is usually preceded by an article (Young, p. 12).
A substantive in the nominative is used in the place of the vocative case. It is used (as is the voc.) in direct address to designate the addressee....The articular use also involves two nuances: address to an inferior and simple substitute for a Semitic noun of address, regardless of whether the addressee is inferior or superior (Wallace, pp. 56 - 57).
In Hebrew typically the noun of address will have the article....In the LXX, God [Elohim] is customarily addressed with an articular nom. (Wallace, p. 57 n. 71).

The nominative for vocative has exactly the same force and meaning as the vocative. This can be seen in numerous parallel passages in the Gospels, in which the vocative appears in one and the nominative in another (see, for example, Matt 27:46 [thee mou, thee mou] and Mark 15:34 [ho theos mou, ho theos mou]).

 

[The Learner]

See Harris pages 110-111, 3. Vocatival, Addressed to Jesus “In response Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and My God!’” And pages 121-122, 2. The Meaning and Theological Significance of Thomas’s Cry.

First Mr. Furuli says, “…it is not possible to claim that the article has semantic importance…” Then he says, “There is of course a possibility that it has semantic importance…” So, is it ‘possible’ or ‘not possible?’ So what, if the article is grammatically required, John wrote this phrase on purpose this way. Like Mr. Furuli states in the next sentence, “Because the phrase has a possessive pronoun (“my”) the word theos must be definite…” So you would still say ‘the Lord and the God’ whether there is an article or not. The Straw Man that Mr. Furuli builds is when he states that Trinitarians try to make Jesus identical with ho theos of John 1:1. Which creed in the Church made that statement? What Trinitarian was he referring to? I don’t know of any official sources that teach that.

See Harris pages 107-108, b. Referring to Jesus: “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord is also my God.’” As can be seen, it is not so strange.

This verse is not very hard to understand. The Aid to Bible Understanding on page 885 quotes the Imperial Bible Dictionary approvingly, “He (the Hebrew) says again and again my God…; but never my Jehovah, for when he says my God, He means Jehovah.” See also Rudolf Bultman’s (who does not believe Jesus is Deity) commentary on the Gospel of John, Westminster Press, 1971 pages 694-695 and footnotes, “Thomas is so overpowered that the confession springs to his lips, “My Lord and My God!” (v.28). That confession is wholly appropriate to him who has risen; going far beyond the earlier confession, “My Master” (v.16), it sees in Jesus God himself. “He who has seen me Has seen the Father,” Jesus had said in 14.9 (cp. 12.45) Thomas has now seen Jesus in the way that Jesus wills to be seen and ought to be seen. By means of these words HO THEOS MOU, the last confession spoken in the gospel makes it clear that Jesus, to whom it refers, is the Logos who has now returned to the place where he was before the Incarnation, and who is glorified with the glory that he had with the Father before the world was (17.5); he is now recognized as the THEOS that he was from the beginning (1:1).” If the man who thinks a supernatural Jesus is a myth can see this, why can’t Mr. Furuli? It is obvious that what is being done by Thomas in John 20:28, is the same thing being done in Rev. 4:11 by the twenty-four elders, “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power,…” This passage is pretty straight forward. Here is a list of scriptures: Psalms 34:23, 43:5, 63:1; Jer. 38:18; Zech. 13:9; Matt. 4:7, 10, 22:37, 27:46; Mk. 5:34,12:29; Lk. 1:78, 4:8, 12; Jn. 8:54, 20:17, 20:28; Acts 2:39; Ro. 1:8; 1Cor. 1:4, 6:11; 2Cor. 12:21; Php. 1:3; 1Thess. 2:2, 3:9; 2Thess. 1:11; Phm. 1:4; Heb. 1:9; Rev. 3:12, 4:11, 5:10, 7:3, 12:10, 19:1, 19:5, 21:3. Take a look at these scriptures and notice similar phrases such as- my God, your God, our God, and their God. Notice the continuity in meaning. The word God is used in various contexts- worship, affirmation, confession, and teaching. There are no quantitative levels of deity in any of these passages. Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that THEOS in Jn 20:28 means god but in a lesser sense. This is an equivocation on the word god based on the presupposition that god when applied to the Father means God and when applied to the son means god. There is no lexical evidence or contextual markers for this change. When he says we “…can’t know exactly…,” is he being philosophical as in we are finite? Or is he being historical such as we would have to talk to John to know for sure? And since we, “…can’t know exactly…,” why is it that the Trinitarian interpretation is ruled out? Why not the Arian? Could it be because he is Arian?

 

[St. SteVen]

GOOGLE question; "when was the word hell invented?"

GOOGLE's answer;
About 17,400,000 results (0.46 seconds)

The modern English word hell is derived from Old English hel, helle (first attested around 725 AD to refer to a nether world of the dead) reaching into the Anglo-Saxon pagan period.

 

[The Learner]

This is a poor title for this section. There is no ‘a god’ in this passage. Regarding the ‘a god’ supposition, I’d be sure to mention that there are 135 occurrences of ‘my God’ in the Bible. When spoken by a Jew, it always refers to Yahweh (unless Jn 20:28 is an exception). Further, calling ‘a god’ MY God would break the first commandment (Ex 20:3). For how could a good 2nd temple Jew call another being His God, without placing that god before Yahweh? MOU is possessive – thus, Thomas is making a very personal statement – “my OWN God!” It simply is not credible that he could say this of any God but Yahwah.

It’s only a possibility if you are a deconstructionist. See Harris pages 106 –111. The scriptures that Mr. Stafford references are only a smoke screen. There is no comparison at all. None of those verses has Paul speaking to the Father or Jesus and directing it to the other.

I must refer to Sam Shamoun’s article on the Trinity Defended web-site called ‘Biblical Monotheism.’ It is a refutation of Mr. Stafford’s chapter ‘Understanding Biblical Monotheism.’ He demonstrates that Mr. Stafford’s ‘Biblical Monotheism’= Henotheism which is a sub-category of polytheism.

Again, I refer to Harris pages 106-111. Is there one example from Biblical or extra-Biblical of someone directing worship to Jehovah by speaking to another. Does Mr. Stafford speak worship to his brother/sister and directed it to Jehovah? APEDRITHE…EIPEN AUTW(i) is a common idiom in the New Testament. This idiom always precedes a statement directed to the referent of the dative AUTOS. There is no lexical support in any of the standard references (BAGD, M&M, and Louw & Nida) for a ‘relative address” with any of the words in question. There is no grammatical support in any of the standard grammars for a ‘relative address’ (spoken to another).

See Harris c. The Meaning of THEOS pages 124-127

See Harris pages 107-108 b. Referring to Jesus: “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord is also my God.’”

See Harris pages 120-121 e. Experimental. At this point, I want to give a quote by A.T. Robertson in his grammar page 466 that responds to Abbott in this context, “In Rev. 4:11 we have also the vocative case in HO KURIOS KAI HO THEOS. In Jo. 20:28 Thomas addresses Jesus as HO KURIOS MOU KAI HO THEOS MOU, the vocative like those above. Yet, strange to say, Winer calls this exclamation rather than address, apparently to avoid the conclusion that Thomas was satisfied as to the deity of Jesus by his appearance to him after the resurrection. Dr. E.A. Abbott follows suit also in an extended argument to show that KURIE HO THEOS is the LXX way of addressing God, not HO KURIOS KAI HO THEOS. But after he had written he appends a note to p. 95 to the effect that “this is not quite satisfactory. For xiii 13, PHONEITE ME HO DIDASKALOS KAI HO KURIOS, and Rev. 4:11 AXIOS EI HO KURIOS KAI HO THEOS HEMON, ought to have been mentioned above.” This is a manly retraction, and he adds: “John may have used it here exceptionally.” Leave out “exceptionally” and the conclusion is just. If Thomas used Aramaic he certainly used the article. It is no more exceptional in Jo. 20:28 than in Rev. 4:11.”

Again I reference Sam Shamoun’s article.

John 20:17 is a great passage demonstrating that “My God” is this passage means the same semantic meaning as Jn 20:28. See Answers to Furuli note 3. If Jesus note God in Jn 20:28, then neither is the Father in 20:17!

Harnack (History of Dogma, 4:41-42) has an interesting evaluation of Arius that somewhat applies here: “A son who is no son, a Logos who is no logos, a monotheism which nevertheless does not exclude polytheism, two or three ousias which are to be revered, while yet only one of them is really distinct from the creatures, and indefinable being who first becomes God by becoming man and who is yet neither God nor man, and so on. In every single point we have apparent clearness while all is hollow and formal, a boyish enthusiasm for playing with husks and shells, and a childish self-satisfaction in the working out of empty syllogisms.” Whether Thomas had a concept of the Trinity or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Thomas (a true monotheistic Hebrew not a biblical monotheistic polytheist) worshiped Jesus as his God.

 

[The Learner]

Harris, R. Laird; Archer, Gleason L.; and Waltke, Bruce K. 1980. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 2 Volumes. Chicago: Moody Press. (TWOT).

Harris, Murray J. 1991. Colossians and Philemon. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans. (Harris, Colossians).

Harris, Murray J. 1992. Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. (Harris, Jesus).

For an Answer: Christian Apologetics - Bibliography

 

[The Learner]

I. There Is One God

A. One God: Explicit Statements

1. OT: Deut. 4:35; 39; 32:39; 2 Sam. 22:32; Isa. 37:20: 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5; 14; 21-22; 46:9
2. NT: John 5:44; Rom. 3:30; 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25

B. None like God (in his essence)

1. Explicit statements: Ex. 8:10; 9:14; 15:11; 2 Sam. 7:22; 1 Kgs. 8:23; 1 Chr. 17:20; Psa. 86:8; Isa. 40:18, 25: 44:7; 46:5, 9; Jer. 10:6-7; Micah 7:18
2. Being like God a Satanic lie: Gen. 3:5; Isa. 14:14; John 8:44
3. Fallen man become "like God" only in that he took upon himself to know good and evil, not that he acquired godhood: Gen. 3:22

C. Only one true God: 2 Chr. 15:3; Jer. 10:10; John 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 John 5:20-21
D. All other "gods" are therefore false gods (idols), not gods at all: Deut. 32:21; 1 Sam. 12:21; Psa. 96:5; Isa. 37:19; 41:23-24, 29; Jer. 2:11; 5:7; 16:20; 1 Cor. 8:4; 10:19-20
E. Demons, not gods, are the power behind false worship: Deut. 32:17; Psa. 106:37; 1 Cor. 10:20; Gal. 4:8
F. How human beings are meant to be "like God"

1. The image of God indicates that man is to represent God and share his moral character, not that man can be metaphysically like God: Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; 1 Cor. 11:7; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10
2. The goal of being like Christ has the following aspects only:

a. Sharing His moral character: 1 John 3:2; Rom. 8:29
b. Being raised with glorified, immortal bodies like His: Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:49

3. Becoming partakers of the divine nature refers again to moral nature ("having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust"), not metaphysical nature: 2 Pet. 1:4; see also Heb. 12:10; on the meaning of "partakers," see 1 Cor. 10:18, 20; 2 Cor. 1:17; 1 Pet. 5:1

G. Are mighty or exalted men gods?

1. Scripture never says explicitly that men are gods
2. Powerful, mighty men are explicitly said not to be gods: Ezek. 28:2, 9; Isa. 31:3; 2 Thess. 2:4
3. Men and God are opposite, exclusive categories: Num. 23:19; Isa. 31:3; Ezek. 28:2; Hosea 11:9; Matt. 19:26; John 10:33; Acts 12:22; 1 Cor. 14:2
4. Moses was "as God," not really a god: Ex. 4:16; 7:1
5. Ezek. 32:21 speaks of warriors or soldiers as "mighty gods," but in context they are so regarded by their pagan nations, not by God or Israel; cf. Ezek. 28:2, 9
6. The elohim before whom accused stood in Exodus was God Himself, not judges, as many translations incorrectly render: Ex. 22:8-9, 28; compare Deut. 19:17

 

[The Learner]

7. The use of elohim in Psalm 82, probably in reference to wicked judges, as cited by Jesus in John 10:34-36, does not mean that men really can be gods.

a. It is Asaph, not the Lord, who calls the judges elohim in Psa. 82:1, 6. This is important, even though we agree that Psa. 82 is inspired.
b. Asaph's meaning is not "Although you are gods, you will die like men," but rather "I called you gods, but in fact you will all die like the men that you really are"
c. The Psalmist was no more saying that wicked judges were truly gods than he was saying that they were truly "sons of the Most High" (v. 6b)
d. Thus, Psa. 82:1 calls the judges elohim in irony. They had quite likely taken their role in judgment (cf. point 5 above) to mean they were elohim, or gods, and Asaph's message is that these so-called gods were mere men who would die under the judgment of the true elohim (vss. 1-2, 7-8)
e. Christ's use of this passage in John 10:34-36 does not negate the above interpretation of Psalm 82
f. The words, "The Scripture cannot be broken," means "the Scripture cannot go without having some ultimate fulfillment" (cf. John 7:23; Matt. 5:17). Thus Jesus is saying that what the OT judges were called in irony, He is in reality; He does what they could not do, and is what they could never be (see the Adam-Christ contrasts in Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45 for a similar use of OT Scripture)
g. The clause, "those against whom the word of God came" (John 10:35) shows that this "word" was a word of judgment against the so-called gods; which shows that they were false gods, not really gods at all
h. Finally, these wicked men were certainly not "godlike" or "divine" by nature, so that in any case the use of elohim to refer to them must be seen as figurative, not literal

8. Even if men were gods (which they are not), this would be irrelevant to Jesus, since He was God as a preexistent spirit before creation: John 1:1

H. Are angels gods?

1. Scripture never explicitly states that angels are gods
2. Demonic spirits are not gods, 1 Cor. 10:20; Gal. 4:8; thus, being "mighty spirits" does not make angels gods
3. Satan is therefore also a false god: 2 Cor. 4:4
4. Psalm 8:5 does not teach that angels are gods

a. Psa. 8:5 is paraphrased in Heb. 2:7, not quoted literally (cf. Psa. 68:18 with Eph. 4:8). In Psa. 8:5, elohim certainly means God, not angels, since Psa. 8:3-8 parallels Gen. 1:1, 8 16, 26-28. Note that the Psalmist is speaking of man's exalted place in creation, whereas Hebrews is speaking of the lower place taken by Christ in becoming a man. Thus, Heb. 2:7 may not mean to equate angels with gods at all.
b. Even if Heb. 2:7 does imply that angels are "gods," in the context of Hebrews 1-2 these angels would be those falsely exalted above Christ: Note Heb. 1:6 (which quotes Psa. 97:7, which definitely speaks of "gods" in the sense of false gods); and cf. Col. 2:16 on the problem of the worship of angels.

5. Elsewhere in the Psalms angels, if spoken of as gods (or as "sons of the gods"), are considered false gods: Psa. 29:1; 86:8-10; 89:6; 95:3; 96:4-5; 97:7-9 (note that these false gods are called "angels" in the Septuagint); 135:5; 136:2; 138:1; cf. Ex. 15:11; 18:11; Deut. 10:17; 1 Chr. 16:25; 2 Chr. 2:5.
6. Even if the angels were gods (which the above shows they are not), that would be irrelevant to Jesus, since He is not an angelic being, but the Son who is worshipped by the angels as their Creator, Lord, and God: Heb. 1:1-13.

I. Conclusion: If there is only one God, one true God, all other gods being false gods, neither men nor angels being gods, and none even like God by nature - all of which the Bible says repeatedly and explicitly - then we must conclude that there is indeed only one God.

 

[The Learner]

II. This One God Is Known in the OT as "Jehovah/Yahweh" ("The Lord")

A. Texts where Jehovah is said to be elohim or el: Deut. 4:35, 39; Psa. 100:3; etc.
B. Texts where the compound name "Jehovah God" (Yahweh Elohim) is used: Gen. 2:3; 9:26; 24:3; Ex. 3:15-18; 4:4; 2 Sam. 7:22, 25; etc.
C. Only one Yahweh/Jehovah: Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29
D. Conclusion: Jehovah is the only God, the only El or Elohim

III. God Is a Unique, Incomprehensible Being

A. Only one God, thus unique: See I.A.
B. None are even like God: see I.B.
C. God cannot be fully comprehended: 1 Cor. 8:2-3
D. God can only be known insofar as the Son reveals Him: Matt. 11:25-27; John 1:18
E. Analogical language needed to describe God: Ezek. 1:26-28; Rev. 1:13-16
F. God is transcendent, entirely distinct from and different than the universe, as the carpenter is distinct from the bench

1. Separate from the world: Isa. 40:22; Acts 17:24
2. Contrasted with the world: Psa. 102:25-27; 1 John 2:15-17
3. Created the world: Gen. 1:1; Psa. 33:6; 102:25; Isa. 42:5; 44:24; John 1:3; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 1:2; 11:3

IV. Is God One Person?

A. God is one God (cf. I above), one Yahweh, one Lord (cf. II above), one Spirit (John 4:24)
B. However, the Bible never says that God is "one person"

1. Heb. 1:3 KJV speaks of God's "person," but the word used here, hupostasis, is translated "substance" in Heb. 11:1 KJV; also in Heb. 1:3 "God" refers specifically to the Father
2. Gal. 3:20 speaks of God as one party in the covenant between God and man, not as one person
3. Job 13:8 KJV speaks of God's "person," but ironically the Hebrew literally means "his faces"

C. The use of singular and plural pronouns for God

1. Over 7000 times God speaks or is spoken of with singular pronouns (I, He, etc.); but this is proper because God is a single individual being; thus these singular forms do not disprove that God exists as three "persons" as long as these persons are not separate beings
2. At least three times God speaks of or to himself using plural pronouns (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7), and nontrinitarian interpretation cannot account for these occurrences.

a. A plural reference to God and the angels is possible in Isa. 6:8, but not in the Genesis texts: in 1:26 "our image" is explained in 1:27, "in God's image"; in 3:22 "like one of us" refers back to 3:5, "like God."
b. The "literary plural" (possibly, though never clearly, attested in Paul) is irrelevant to texts in which God is speaking, not writing.
c. The "plural of deliberation" (as in "Let's see now...") is apparently unattested in biblical writings, and cannot explain Gen. 3:22 ("like one of us").
d. The "plural of amplitude" or of "fullness" (which probably does explain the use of the plural form elohim in the singular sense of "God") is irrelevant to the use of plural pronouns, and again cannot explain Gen. 3:22.
e. The "plural of majesty" is possibly attested in 1 Kgs. 12:9; 2 Chron. 10:9; more likely Ezra 4:18; but none of these are certain; and again, it cannot explain Gen. 3:22; also nothing in the context of the Genesis texts suggests that God is being presented particularly as King.

D. The uniqueness of God (cf. III above) should prepare us for the possibility that the one divine Being exists uniquely as a plurality of persons

 

[The Learner]

V. The Father of Jesus Christ Is God

A. Explicit statements: John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; etc.
B. The expression, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ": 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3

VI. Jesus Christ Is God

A. Explicit statements

1. Isa. 9:6; note 10:21. Translations which render "mighty hero," are inconsistent in their rendering of 10:21. Also note that Ezek. 32:21 is (a) not in the same context, as is Isa. 10:21, and (b) speaking of false gods, cf. I.G.5. above.
2. John 1:1 Even if Jesus is here called "a god" (as some have argued), since there is only one God, Jesus is that God. However, the "a god" rendering is incorrect. Other passages using the Greek word for God (theos) in the same construction are always rendered "God": Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38; John 8:54; Phil 2:13; Heb. 11:16. Passages in which a shift occurs from ho theos ("the God") to theos ("God") never imply a shift in meaning: Mark 12:27; Luke 20:37-38; John 3:2; 13:3; Rom. 1:21; 1 Thess. 1:9; heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 4:10-11
3. John 1:18. The best manuscripts have "the unique God" (monogenês, frequently rendered "only-begotten," actually means "one of a kind," "unique," though in the NT always in the context of a son or daughter). Even if one translates "only-begotten," the idea is not of a "begotten god" as opposed to an "unbegotten god."
4. John 20:28. Compare Rev. 4:11, where the same construction is used in the plural ("our") instead of the singular ("my"). See also Psa. 35:23. Note that Christ's response indicates that Thomas' acclamation was not wrong. Also note that John 20:17 does show that the Father was Jesus' "God" (due to Jesus becoming a man), but the words "my God" as spoken by Thomas later in the same chapter must mean no less than in v. 17. Thus, what the Father is to Jesus in His humanity, Jesus is to Thomas (and therefore to us as well).
5. Acts 20:28: "the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." The variant readings (e.g. "the church of the Lord") show that the original was understood to mean "His own blood," not "the blood of His own [Son]" (since otherwise no one would have thought to change it). Thus all other renderings are attempts to evade the startling clarity and meaning of this passage.
6. Rom. 9:5. While grammatically this is not the only possible interpretation, the consistent form of doxologies in Scripture, as well as the smoothest reading of the text, supports the identification of Christ as "God" in this verse.
7. Titus 2:13. Grammatically and contextually, this is one of the strongest proof-texts for the deity of Christ. Sharp's first rule, properly understood, proves that the text should be translated "our great God and Savior" (cf. same construction in Luke 20:37; Rev. 1:6; and many other passages). Note also that Paul always uses the word "manifestation" ("appearing") of Christ: 2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2. Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8.
8. Heb. 1:8. The rendering, "God is your throne," is nonsense - God is not a throne, He is the one who sits on the throne! Also, "God is your throne," if taken to mean God is the source of one's rule, could be said about any angelic ruler - but Hebrews 1 is arguing that Jesus is superior to the angels.
9. 2 Pet. 1:1. The same construction is used here as in Titus 2:13; see the parallel passages in 2 Pet. 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18.
10. 1 John 5:20. Note that the most obvious antecedent for "this" is Jesus Christ. Also note that the "eternal life" is Christ, as can be seen from 1:2.

B. Jesus is Jehovah/Yahweh

1. Rom. 10:9-13: Note the repeated "for," which links these verses closely together. The "Lord" of 10:13 must be the "Lord" of 10:9, 12.
2. Phil. 2:9-11. In context, the "name that is above every name" is "Lord" (vs. 11), i.e., Jehovah.
3. Heb. 1:10: Here God the Father addresses the Son as "Lord," in a quotation from Psa. 102:25 (cf. 102:24, where the person addressed is called "God"). Since here the Father addresses the Son as "Lord," this cannot be explained away as a text in which a creature addresses Christ as God/Lord in a merely representational sense.
4. 1 Pet. 2:3-4: This verse is nearly an exact quotation of Psa. 34:8a, where "Lord" is Jehovah. From 1 Pet. 2:4-8 it is also clear that "the Lord" in v. 3 is Jesus.
5. 1 Pet. 3:14-15: these verses are a clear reference to Isa. 8:12-13, where the one who is to be regarded as holy is Jehovah.
6. Texts where Jesus is spoken of as the "one Lord" (cf. Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29): 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:5; cf. Rom. 10:12; 1 Cor. 12:5.

C. Jesus has the titles of God

1. Titles belonging only to God

a. The first and the last: Rev. 1:17; 22:13; cf. Isa. 44:6
b. King of kings and Lord of lords: 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16

2. Titles belonging in the ultimate sense only to God

a. Savior: Luke 2:11; John 4:42; 1 John 4:14; Titus 2:13, cf. v. 10; etc.; cf. Isa. 43.11; 45:21-22; 1 Tim. 4:10; on Jesus becoming the source of salvation; Heb. 5:9, cf. Ex. 15:2; Psa. 118:14, 21
b. Shepherd: John 10:11; Heb. 13:20; cf. Psa. 23:1; Isa. 40:11
c. Rock: 1 Cor. 10:4; cf. Isa. 44:8

D. Jesus received the honors due to God alone

1. Honor: John 5:23
2. Love: Matt. 10:37
3. Prayer: John 14:14 (text debated, but in any case it is Jesus who answers the prayer); Acts 1:24-25; 7:59-60 (cf. Luke 23:34, 46); Rom. 10:12-13; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 12:8-10 (where "the Lord" must be Jesus, cf. v. 9); 2 Thess. 2:16-17; etc.
4. Worship (proskuneô): Matt. 28:17; Heb. 1:6 (cf. Psa. 97:7); cf. Matt 4:10
5. Religious or sacred service (latreuô): Rev. 22:13
6. Doxological praise: 2 Tim. 4:18; 2 Pet. 3:18; Rev. 1:5-6; 5:13
7. Faith: John 3:16; 14:1; etc.

E. Jesus does the works of God

1. Creation: John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 3:14 (where archê probably means ruler); on "through" and "in" cf. Rom. 11:36; Heb. 2:10; Acts 17:28; cf. also Isa. 44:24
2. Sustains the universe: Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3, 11-12
3. Salvation:

a. In General: See C.2.a. above
b. Forgives sins: Matt. 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26; note that Jesus forgives sins not committed against Him.

4. All of them: John 5:17-29 (including judgment, cf. Matt. 25:31-46; 2 Cor. 5:10)

F. Jesus has all the incommunicable attributes of God

1. All of them: John 1:1; Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:15; 2:9; Heb. 1:3
2. Self-existent: John 5:26
3. Unchangeable: Heb. 1:10-12 (in the same sense as YHWH); 13:8
4. Eternal: John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:2
5. Omnipresent: Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13; Eph. 1:23; 4:10; Col. 3:11
6. Omniscient: John 16:30; 21:17; cf. 2:23-24
7. Incomprehensible: Matt. 11:25-27