"The word was a god"?

[Pearl]

Did it ever occur to the trinitarians here that calling someone a "god" doesn't always make them a deity. Being "divine" or having divine origins, doesn't make you "God"...it can make you "God-like", but there is only one Yahweh/Jehovah.

If - and only if - Jesus wasn't God, why did he not rebuke Thomas for calling him God?

John 20:27-29
Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Christ is divine as he is the Son of God Jehovah, and God Jehovah is divine because he is the creator of all things, including Christ.

I’m still not understanding how you are defining a divine (meaning “Godly”) person as not “God”.

again: obviously the Father and Son are two different people.

 

[JohnPaul]

I’m still not understanding how you are defining a divine (meaning “Godly”) person as not “God”.

again: obviously the Father and Son are two different people.

1.of, from, or like God or a god: "heroes with divine powers"

It also means from God as Jesus is the Son of God, begotten by God, but not God himself.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

1.of, from, or like God or a god: "heroes with divine powers"

It also means from God as Jesus is the Son of God, begotten by God, but not God himself.

...I"m still not understanding. Maybe a different angle will help.
In your belief, how is Christ alike & different than the Father?
In your belief, how is Christ alike & different than you?

If you want i can post my answer to those same questions.

 

[JohnPaul]

...I"m still not understanding. Maybe a different angle will help.
In your belief, how is Christ alike & different than the Father?
In your belief, how is Christ alike & different than you?

If you want i can post my answer to those same questions.

Because Christ is not the almighty Creator, but his son, so that makes him Devine.

Christ is not like me I am not worthy of being in the same category as Christ our Lord, I was born out of sin, Christ was not.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Because Christ is not the almighty Creator, but his son, so that makes him Devine.

Christ is not like me I am not worthy of being in the same category as Christ our Lord, I was born out of sin, Christ was not.

Do you believe Christ didn’t exist before being born of Mary?

 

[JohnPaul]

Do you believe Christ didn’t exist before being born of Mary?

Christ existed before being born in human form, in Heaven with his father Jehovah.

 

[PinSeeker]

Son of God, that Christ is the Son of God Jehovah...

Well, but but you're stopping short of the fact that He is of Jehovah and just as deific as and equal in glory to the Father, possessing all the same attributes as the Father. This is the terrible inconsistency of your position.

the first created by God before anyone or anything else...

Jesus was not created; rather all things were created through Him ~ all things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made.

The fact that He is the firstborn of all creation speaks to His preeminence over all creation, just as David, the youngest of all his brothers, was the firstborn over all of them and made King over Israel (by God) as a whole.

...who came to Earth through the blessed mother to save those that believe in him as God's only begotten Son.

Mary was certainly blessed to have participated in the work of the triune Jehovah God in the way she did, that's for sure. And Jesus certainly had a unique relationship with the Father (to put it mildly).

Anyway... hmmm. And you seemed to be so close...

Grace and peace to you.

 

[JohnPaul]

Well, but but you're stopping short of the fact that He is of Jehovah and just as deific as and equal in glory to the Father, possessing all the same attributes as the Father. This is the terrible inconsistency of your position.


Jesus was not created; rather all things were created through Him ~ all things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made.

The fact that He is the firstborn of all creation speaks to His preeminence over all creation, just as David, the youngest of all his brothers, was the firstborn over of them and Israel.


Mary was certainly blessed to have participated in the work of the triune Jehovah God in the way she did, that's for sure. And Jesus certainly had a unique relationship with the Father (to put it mildly).

Anyway... hmmm. And you seemed to be so close...

Grace and peace to you.

Believe what you want.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Christ existed before being born in human form, in Heaven with his father Jehovah.

Thank you, these questions/answers really help me understand your perspective.

For me, godliness/divinity isn't about how old a person is but rather how they are -- their goodness, love, grace, mercy, justice, etc. The Father is divine- He is perfect in all those ways, He is God. The Son is likewise divine, perfect in all those ways, and is God.

I'm not God because I'm not perfect: I choose to sin. To be selfish, short-sighted, petty, etc.

 

[PinSeeker]

Believe what you want.

Much the same to you, my friend. Grace and peace to you.

 

[JohnPaul]

Thank you, these questions/answers really help me understand your perspective.

For me, godliness/divinity isn't about how old a person is but rather how they are -- their goodness, love, grace, mercy, justice, etc. The Father is divine- He is perfect in all those ways, He is God. The Son is likewise divine, perfect in all those ways, and is God.

I'm not God because I'm not perfect: I choose to sin. To be selfish, short-sighted, petty, etc.

Jane it’s always a pleasure speaking with you, you are kind and respectful, I admire that in a person.

God bless.

 

[farouk]

Thomas called him God and Jesus didn't rebuke him for it. Also Jesus is not the Father nor is he the Holy Spirit. We have one God with three separate and distinct persons. It isn't logical and to try to prove otherwise by using logic just doesn't work in spiritual matters.

@Pearl God in Three Persons is indeed a revealed truth deeply present in Scripture. (As is the work of salvation in which all Three Persons are involved closely.)

 

[Pearl]

@Pearl God in Three Persons is indeed a revealed truth deeply present in Scripture. (As is the work of salvation in which all Three Persons are involved closely.)

Amen farouk.

 

[Stan B]

1.of, from, or like God or a god: "heroes with divine powers"

It also means from God as Jesus is the Son of God, begotten by God, but not God himself.

In responding to this Satanic JW nonsense, I feel that I am compromising my integrity to stoop that low; nevertheless, Satan's JW religion was alive and well all the way back to Jesus' time. They called themselves Pharisees at that time.

The Satanic JW Pharisees were the same then as today. With zero knowledge of real, Scripture they challenged His Divinity, and wanted to kill Him for such pretense.

Jesus replied, "Is it not written in your Law: 'I have said you are gods'? John 10:34

Like JWs "They do not know or understand; they wander in the darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. I have said, ‘You are Gods; you are all sons of the Most High." Psa 82:6

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Re: Post No.181

• John 20:28 . . Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!"

Many moons ago; I asked some JW missionaries to explain to me why the
Watchtower Society translated that particular theós in upper case seeing as
how in their theology; only Jehovah should be referred to as a god spelled
with an upper case G. Well; they were too inexperienced to explain and my
question left them stumped.

The fact of the matter is: in John 20:28, theós is modified by the Greek
definite article "ho". So by the Society's own rules; its translators had to use
upper case because it's normally their practice that whenever theós is
modified by the Greek definite article, then the upper case is required.

But I don't recommend making an issue of capitalization in this particular
case because skilled Witnesses can easily dodge that bullet. Instead, focus
the attention upon Thomas' possessive pronoun because he didn't just
declare that Jesus was a god. No, he clearly declared that Jesus was "my"
god. Here's what it looks like in the 1969 Kingdom Interlinear:

"the god of me"

Thomas was a Jew; so his association with Jehovah began with Abraham
way back in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis. In a nutshell, God
voluntarily covenanted with Abraham's posterity to be their god.

Centuries later, Abraham's posterity entered into a covenant with Jehovah in
the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. They accepted
that covenant voluntarily and under oath, i.e. of their own volition; which is
really important because the covenant forbids them to possess more than
one god. No longer would Jehovah be a god to them; He would be their only
god.

• Ex 20:1-3 . . And God proceeded to speak all these words, saying: I am
Jehovah your God, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of
the house of slaves. You must not have any other gods against my face.

"against my face" is a combination of two Hebrew words that essentially
refer to God's competitors. In other words: it is not Jehovah's wishes to
have a market share of His people's affections; no, He'll settle for nothing
less than 100%. (cf. Mark 12:28-30)

Now; if the apostle Thomas was a Torah-trained Jew, then he was fully
aware that possessing a second god along with Jehovah— in effect
possessing multiple gods --would incur the covenant's curse upon himself.

• Deut 27:26 . . Cursed is the one who will not put the words of this law in
force by doing them.

The way I see it: the Society has two options. Either the apostle Thomas
knew what he was doing when he addressed Jesus as his god, or he meant
to say something else.

Now, if the apostle Thomas knew what he was doing when he addressed
Jesus as his god, then the rank and file need to ask around and find out why
it is that Jesus Christ was the apostle Thomas' god but he isn't the
Watchtower Society's god.

Plus: I would really like to know how it is that the apostle Thomas and the
Watchtower Society are poles apart in their opinions of Christ's status when
Thomas actually associated with Jesus and was one of his close personal
friends.

FAQ: If Jesus isn't/wasn't Thomas' god, then why didn't Jesus strenuously
object when his apostle addressed him as such?

REPLY: That's a very intelligent question because Jesus said, in so many
words; it was not his intention to annul the old covenant. (Matt 5:17-19). In
other words: were Jesus not actually Thomas' god, then Jesus himself
would've fallen under the curse for accepting his apostle's statement without
protest.

• Lev 19:17 . .You should by all means reprove your associate, that you may
not bear sin along with him.
_

 

[Phoneman777]

Please help me to understand what is meant here. If Jesus was "a god" then He could be THE God or a false god. What else could this mean? How can Jesus be "a god"?

There's a simple way to clear up this issue:

1. Place a New World Translation on a well lit reading table.

2. Set the table on fire.

3. Buy a KJV or any version based on the Textus Receptus MSS and never read the NWT again.

 

[tigger 2]

Weber's_Home posted in #196 above:

FAQ: If Jesus isn't/wasn't Thomas' god, then why didn't Jesus strenuously
object when his apostle addressed him as such?
.....................................................
Because it was not a statement addressing him as 'God.'

John 20:28 is a statement by Thomas who had refused to believe that Jesus had been resurrected. His statement is a phrase without subject or verb and if subject and verb are to be supplied by the translator, it could read “you are My Lord and My God.” It is more likely, however, that it would be translated more like “My Lord and my God be praised.” This would mean that the phrase was meant as a doxology to the Father. Doxologies and other commonly used phrases frequently have words missing in the Greek text.

Many trinitarians say, instead, that this phrase by Thomas was an ADDRESS to Jesus. If true, this would mean that Thomas was naming Jesus by these words. However, it is rare that a person is addressed and not spoken to further. For example, “Then they said to him, ‘Lord, always give us this bread.’” (John 6:34).

However, there is actual proof that John did not intend this as an ADDRESS to Jesus.

You see, whenever John, and the other NT writers, used “Lord” as a noun of address, they used the form of the word known as a vocative. This means that if John understood Thomas’ word as an address to Jesus, he would write the word kurie. There are 33 uses of kurie in the Gospel of John alone. Here are a few of them: John 9:38; 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37; 14:5. (Compare these with an actual identification of the lord: “it is the lord [kurios],” John 21:7). Whereas when the NT writers intended it as a subject (“The Lord then answered him..." - Luke 13:15) they used the nominative form of the word (Kurios). Kurios is the form used at John 20:28.

So, the probability is that this incomplete phrase is a doxology to the Father.

Furthermore, if John had, somehow, understood Thomas’ statement as some trinitarians insist, he certainly would have provided some follow-up clarification and emphasis in his own comments.

Surely John would have shown Thomas prostrating himself before “God” and worshiping him (but he doesn’t!). So how does John summarize this incident?

- “But these were written that you may believe [Believe what? That Jesus is God? Here, then, is where it should have been written if John really believed such a thing:] that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” - John 20:31, RSV. (Be sure to compare 1 John 5:5.)

Or, as the trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985, states in a footnote for this scripture:

“This whole Gospel is written to show the truth of Jesus’ Messiahship and to present him as the Son of God, so that the readers may believe in him.”

Obviously, neither Jesus’ response, nor Thomas’ responses (before and after his statement at John 20:28), nor John’s summation of the event at 20:31 recognizes Thomas’ statement to mean that Jesus is the only true God!

See my study of this scripture here:

Examining the Trinity: MYGOD

 

[PinSeeker]

.
Re: Post No.181

• John 20:28 . . Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!"

Many moons ago; I asked some JW missionaries to explain to me why the
Watchtower Society translated that particular theós in upper case seeing as
how in their theology; only Jehovah should be referred to as a god spelled
with an upper case G. Well; they were too inexperienced to explain and my
question left them stumped.

The fact of the matter is: in John 20:28, theós is modified by the Greek
definite article "ho". So by the Society's own rules; its translators had to use
upper case because it's normally their practice that whenever theós is
modified by the Greek definite article, then the upper case is required.

But I don't recommend making an issue of capitalization in this particular
case because skilled Witnesses can easily dodge that bullet. Instead, focus
the attention upon Thomas' possessive pronoun because he didn't just
declare that Jesus was a god. No, he clearly declared that Jesus was "my"
god. Here's what it looks like in the 1969 Kingdom Interlinear:

"the god of me"

Thomas was a Jew; so his association with Jehovah began with Abraham
way back in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis. In a nutshell, God
voluntarily covenanted with Abraham's posterity to be their god.

Centuries later, Abraham's posterity entered into a covenant with Jehovah in
the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. They accepted
that covenant voluntarily and under oath, i.e. of their own volition; which is
really important because the covenant forbids them to possess more than
one god. No longer would Jehovah be a god to them; He would be their only
god.

• Ex 20:1-3 . . And God proceeded to speak all these words, saying: I am
Jehovah your God, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of
the house of slaves. You must not have any other gods against my face.

"against my face" is a combination of two Hebrew words that essentially
refer to God's competitors. In other words: it is not Jehovah's wishes to
have a market share of His people's affections; no, He'll settle for nothing
less than 100%. (cf. Mark 12:28-30)

Now; if the apostle Thomas was a Torah-trained Jew, then he was fully
aware that possessing a second god along with Jehovah— in effect
possessing multiple gods --would incur the covenant's curse upon himself.

• Deut 27:26 . . Cursed is the one who will not put the words of this law in
force by doing them.

The way I see it: the Society has two options. Either the apostle Thomas
knew what he was doing when he addressed Jesus as his god, or he meant
to say something else.

Now, if the apostle Thomas knew what he was doing when he addressed
Jesus as his god, then the rank and file need to ask around and find out why
it is that Jesus Christ was the apostle Thomas' god but he isn't the
Watchtower Society's god.

Plus: I would really like to know how it is that the apostle Thomas and the
Watchtower Society are poles apart in their opinions of Christ's status when
Thomas actually associated with Jesus and was one of his close personal
friends.

FAQ: If Jesus isn't/wasn't Thomas' god, then why didn't Jesus strenuously
object when his apostle addressed him as such?

REPLY: That's a very intelligent question because Jesus said, in so many
words; it was not his intention to annul the old covenant. (Matt 5:17-19). In
other words: were Jesus not actually Thomas' god, then Jesus himself
would've fallen under the curse for accepting his apostle's statement without
protest.

• Lev 19:17 . .You should by all means reprove your associate, that you may
not bear sin along with him.
_

Jehovah's Witnesses unintentionally suppose Thomas to be doing at least two things in John 20:28, Webers_Home. In no particular order:

• Thomas is acknowledging Jesus to be His God and thereby breaking Commandment 1 ("You shall have no other gods before Me").
• Thomas is taking the LORD's name in vain, thereby breaking commandment number 3 ("You shall not take the Name of the LORD your God in vain").

Astounding, no? Yes, if Jesus were not God, He would have rebuked Thomas, and probably quite severely. But He didn't do that, and rather accepted Thomas's worship, and probably silently praised Him for it, considering what Paul says about true Jews in Romans 2:29 ~ "But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.".

Grace and peace to you, brother.

 

[tigger 2]

Please help me to understand what is meant here. If Jesus was "a god" then He could be THE God or a false god. What else could this mean? How can Jesus be "a god"?

....................................................
As for the use of "a god" by John,
This is a fact acknowledged by even most trinitarian experts:

Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, faithful Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods (or a god) include:

1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;

2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;

4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7; 82:1; Jn 10:34; 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown

(John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.

25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.

26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.

27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.

(also John 10:34, 35 - NEB; CEV; TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV)

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”

They saw nothing wrong with calling certain men “gods” if they were trying to follow God and be his representatives or ambassadors. Just because it sounds strange to our ears today in modern English is no reason to ignore the facts!

Not only does the literal grammar of John 1:1c translate into English as "a god", but all proper examples of parallel constructions by John are translated as indefinite nouns ("a prophet," "a king," etc.)