What do you think this text says about the deity of Christ?
- Thread starter oldhermit
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
JBF, please tell me that you saw my previous reply to this? Do not even try to tell me that I gave you either an unrelated, or nonviable interpretation.
You are becoming impossible to take serious, ...which, of course, is expected from anyone who believes such nonsense as the trinity, and in its alleged Biblical testimony.
Just acknowledge that what I offered was a viable explanation. Many men throughout Scripture performed miracles, and all praised God for them, especially the ones who performed them. Why is the case of Jesus any different, especially when no one more than Jesus deferred all praise and glory to the Father, for his bestowed authority and power.
Luke 7:16-16
7:16. Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, "A great prophet has arisen among us!" and, "God has visited His people!"
Matthew 9:6-8
9:6. "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--then He said to the paralytic, "Get up, pick up your bed and go home." 7. And he got up and went home. 8. But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.
Last edited:
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
John 20:28 (part 1)
Notice that the disciples who had seen Jesus earlier did not tell Thomas that Jesus was God (v.25)! This is an incredible oversight if they had really believed they had seen God! Certainly, if they had discovered that Jesus was really God when they saw him resurrected, they would have talked of nothing else!
If, on the other hand, they had already known that Jesus was God even before seeing his resurrected form, then Thomas, too, would have already known about it and certainly would not have meant: “Unless I see ... the print of nails [etc.] ... I will not believe [Jesus is God].”
No, the context of John 20:24, 25, and 29 shows that Thomas refused to believe that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. (See footnote for John 20:8 in The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985: “John did not say what [the disciple who saw the empty tomb of Jesus] believed, but it must have been that Jesus was resurrected.” - Also see Barclay’s The Daily Study Bible Series: The Gospel of John, Revised Edition, Vol. 2, p. 267, and pp. 275, 276.)
Certainly, being resurrected from the dead does not make you God. Other persons in the Scriptures had been resurrected from the dead before (and after) Jesus, and no one, for a moment, ever suspected them of being God! In fact, being resurrected from the dead would have been used as evidence that a person was not God, since God has always been immortal and cannot die in the first place!
Furthermore, Jesus’ statements before and after Thomas’ exclamation (“my Lord and my God!”) show not only that Jesus wanted Thomas to believe that he had been resurrected to life but that he could not possibly be God!!
Jesus’ command to Thomas to literally touch his wounds and actually see his hands proves that he meant, “See, I am the same man you saw die, but now I am alive ... be believing that I have been resurrected to life” (not, “see, these wounds prove I am God ... be believing that I am God”).
Notice that the reason given for Thomas to “be believing” is that he can see Jesus’ hands and their wounds. Likewise, after Thomas says “My Lord and my God,” Jesus reaffirms that Thomas now believes (as did the other disciples after seeing - Jn. 20:20) that Jesus has been resurrected (not that he is God) “because you have seen me” (v.29).
Certainly Jesus wouldn’t mean, “you believe I am God because you can see me.” Instead, this is proof that Jesus, Thomas, John, and the other disciples did not believe Jesus was equally God with the Father! How? Because John himself has made it manifestly clear that “no one [no human] has ever seen God” - 1 John 4:12, RSV. (See the SF study; also OMN 3-5.)
“For the NT God is utterly invisible (Jn. 6:46; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16; Col. 1:15). ‘God does not become visible; He is revealed,’ ... yet the resurrection narratives especially stress that the risen Christ is visible.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, p. 518, Vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.
Therefore, since no man has ever directly seen God (who is the Father only - John 5:37, 6:46; 17:1, 3) but men have only indirectly “seen” God through representations such as visions, dreams, etc., Jesus is saying: “Believe I have been resurrected and that I am obviously not God because you see me directly (and even touch me so you can be sure I’m not a vision or an indirect representation).”
Last edited:
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
John 20:28 (part 2)
What about the rest of the context? (1) Thomas did not bow down, worship, etc. upon learning that it was really Jesus and saying 'my lord and my god.' He could not have just discovered that he was in the presence of God and acted the way he did! (2) It’s also obvious that Jesus did not understand Thomas to be calling him equally God with the Father in heaven. But did John, in spite of the incredible contradiction of a previous statement (like 1 John 4:12 above) at John 1:18 that “no man hath seen God at any time,” somehow think that Thomas understood Jesus to be God?
Well, no other disciple of Jesus ever made a statement to him which could honestly be construed as meaning Jesus is God! So, (3) if John had, somehow, understood Thomas’ statement that way, 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 [John] 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.”
What about the rest of the context? (1) Thomas did not bow down, worship, etc. upon learning that it was really Jesus and saying 'my lord and my god.' He could not have just discovered that he was in the presence of God and acted the way he did! (2) It’s also obvious that Jesus did not understand Thomas to be calling him equally God with the Father in heaven. But did John, in spite of the incredible contradiction of a previous statement (like 1 John 4:12 above) at John 1:18 that “no man hath seen God at any time,” somehow think that Thomas understood Jesus to be God?
Well, no other disciple of Jesus ever made a statement to him which could honestly be construed as meaning Jesus is God! So, (3) if John had, somehow, understood Thomas’ statement that way, 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 [John] 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.”
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
John 20:28 (part 3)
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!
So it is clear from context that neither Jesus, nor John, (nor Thomas) considered the statement at John 20:28 to mean that Jesus is equally God with the Father. (Remember this is the same Gospel account that also records Jesus’ last prayer to the Father at John 17:1, 3: “Father,.... This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” - NEB. It is obvious from this scripture alone that Jesus and the writer of the Gospel of John do not believe Jesus is equally God with the Father!)
This may be, then, one of those places where the idioms of an ancient language are not completely understood by modern translators.
As the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th ed., vol. 13, p. 25, puts it:
"And it is not certain that even the words Thomas addressed to Jesus (Jn. 20:28) meant what they suggest in the English Version." - (Britannica article by Rev. Charles Anderson Scott, M.A., D.D. Dunn Professor of New Testament, Theological College of the Presbyterian Church of England, Cambridge.)
And John M. Creed, as Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, wrote:
“‘my Lord and my God’ (Joh.xx.28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself ... (v.17): ... ‘I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.’” - The Divinity of Jesus Christ, J. M. Creed, p. 123.
Yes, think about that very carefully: After Jesus was resurrected, he continued to call the Father in heaven “my God”! (Even after he was fully restored to heaven and seated at the right hand of God - Rev. 3:2; 3:12.) So if we must insist, as many trinitarians do, that the single instance of Thomas’ saying “My God” in Jesus’ presence, with all its uncertainties, means that Jesus was superior in every way to Thomas (in essence, eternity, authority, etc.), what do Jesus’ even clearer statements that the Father is his God actually mean? -
“He who conquers, ... I will write on him the name of MY God, and the name of the city of MY God, ... and my own name.” - Rev. 3:12, RSV (Compare Rev. 14:1).
You can’t have it both ways. If Thomas’ statement (“my God”) can only mean that Jesus is ultimately superior to Thomas in all respects (as God), then Jesus’ repeated and even clearer statements that the Father is his God can only mean that the Father is ultimately superior to Jesus in all respects. If Thomas really understood that Jesus was equally God with the Father, it is certainly blasphemous for John and other inspired Bible writers to turn around and call the Father the God of the Christ! - Micah 5:4; 1 Cor. 11:3; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3, 17; 1 Peter 1:3.
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!
So it is clear from context that neither Jesus, nor John, (nor Thomas) considered the statement at John 20:28 to mean that Jesus is equally God with the Father. (Remember this is the same Gospel account that also records Jesus’ last prayer to the Father at John 17:1, 3: “Father,.... This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” - NEB. It is obvious from this scripture alone that Jesus and the writer of the Gospel of John do not believe Jesus is equally God with the Father!)
This may be, then, one of those places where the idioms of an ancient language are not completely understood by modern translators.
As the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th ed., vol. 13, p. 25, puts it:
"And it is not certain that even the words Thomas addressed to Jesus (Jn. 20:28) meant what they suggest in the English Version." - (Britannica article by Rev. Charles Anderson Scott, M.A., D.D. Dunn Professor of New Testament, Theological College of the Presbyterian Church of England, Cambridge.)
And John M. Creed, as Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, wrote:
“‘my Lord and my God’ (Joh.xx.28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself ... (v.17): ... ‘I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.’” - The Divinity of Jesus Christ, J. M. Creed, p. 123.
Yes, think about that very carefully: After Jesus was resurrected, he continued to call the Father in heaven “my God”! (Even after he was fully restored to heaven and seated at the right hand of God - Rev. 3:2; 3:12.) So if we must insist, as many trinitarians do, that the single instance of Thomas’ saying “My God” in Jesus’ presence, with all its uncertainties, means that Jesus was superior in every way to Thomas (in essence, eternity, authority, etc.), what do Jesus’ even clearer statements that the Father is his God actually mean? -
“He who conquers, ... I will write on him the name of MY God, and the name of the city of MY God, ... and my own name.” - Rev. 3:12, RSV (Compare Rev. 14:1).
You can’t have it both ways. If Thomas’ statement (“my God”) can only mean that Jesus is ultimately superior to Thomas in all respects (as God), then Jesus’ repeated and even clearer statements that the Father is his God can only mean that the Father is ultimately superior to Jesus in all respects. If Thomas really understood that Jesus was equally God with the Father, it is certainly blasphemous for John and other inspired Bible writers to turn around and call the Father the God of the Christ! - Micah 5:4; 1 Cor. 11:3; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3, 17; 1 Peter 1:3.
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
John 20:28 (part 4)
I do not believe this expression by Thomas is an address to anyone. If Thomas had said, “You are my Lord and my God,” we might have reason for such a representational interpretation. Or if he had addressed Jesus with the intent of saying something further (e.g. “My Lord and my God, how have you returned to us?”). But there is no indication of any intent by Thomas to follow up an “address” with anything further as is normally required of nouns of address. (cf. Acts 1:6; 22:8; Rev. 7:14.)
The very fact that the words of Thomas are not a complete statement show that it is probably the abbreviated form of a common expression or doxology and not a statement of identification such as “you are my lord and my god.” Whereas doxologies and other common expressions are sometimes abbreviated to the point of not being complete statements (cf. Dana & Mantey, p. 149), statements of identification appear to be complete statements (certainly in the writings of John, at least), e.g., Jn 1:49, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.” - NASB. Cf. Jn. 6:14, 69; 7:40, 41; 9:17; 11:27; 21:7. A doxology, however, would be understood as something like, "My Lord and my God [is to be praised]."
Many trinitarian scholars tell us that Thomas is addressing Jesus as 'Lord and God.' But unfortunately for them it is grammatically certain that Thomas is not addressing anyone!
In the writings of John, when using the term “Lord” in address to another person, a different form of the NT Greek word is always used instead of the form found at John 20:28 (ho kurios mou).
“The vocative is the case used in addressing a person .... κύριε [kurie] (O Lord), Θee (O God) ... are almost the only forms found in the N.T.” - pp. 14, 15, The New Testament Greek Primer, Rev. Alfred Marshall, Zondervan, 1978 printing.
This is especially true of “Lord” and “my Lord” in both the Septuagint and the New Testament. Kurie (κύριε), not kurios (κύριός), is the form used when addressing someone as “Lord” or “My Lord.” - See the KURIE study. (“God,” Θεε, however, is not so certain. In fact it is very rare in the NT which normally uses the nominative Θεὸς in address.). http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2016/04/all-uses-of-vocative-noun-of-address.html
We can see a good example of this vocative form, which is used in addressing a person as “Lord,” at 3 Kings 1:20, 21 (1 Kings 1:20, 21 in modern English Bibles) in the ancient Greek of the Septuagint: “And you, my Lord [κύριε μου], O King ...” - 3 Kings 1:20, Septuagint. Then at 3 Kings 1:21 we see the same person (King David) being spoken about (but not addressed) in the same terms as Jn 20:28: “And it shall come to pass, when my Lord [Ὁ κύριός μου] the king shall sleep with his fathers .... - 3 Kings 1:21, Septuagint.
We also find Thomas himself, at Jn 14:5, addressing Jesus as “Lord” by using κύριε.
And, when addressing the angel at Rev. 7:14, John himself says kurie mou (“My Lord”)!
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 – Also, for Colwell’s Rule fans, note the use of the article and the word order of the clause in the two clauses identifying the Lord here.)
Therefore, it is safe to say that when John wrote down the incident with Thomas at Jn 20:28 and used the nominative form for “My Lord” [Kurios] he was not saying that Thomas was addressing Jesus as “My Lord and my God!”
I do not believe this expression by Thomas is an address to anyone. If Thomas had said, “You are my Lord and my God,” we might have reason for such a representational interpretation. Or if he had addressed Jesus with the intent of saying something further (e.g. “My Lord and my God, how have you returned to us?”). But there is no indication of any intent by Thomas to follow up an “address” with anything further as is normally required of nouns of address. (cf. Acts 1:6; 22:8; Rev. 7:14.)
The very fact that the words of Thomas are not a complete statement show that it is probably the abbreviated form of a common expression or doxology and not a statement of identification such as “you are my lord and my god.” Whereas doxologies and other common expressions are sometimes abbreviated to the point of not being complete statements (cf. Dana & Mantey, p. 149), statements of identification appear to be complete statements (certainly in the writings of John, at least), e.g., Jn 1:49, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.” - NASB. Cf. Jn. 6:14, 69; 7:40, 41; 9:17; 11:27; 21:7. A doxology, however, would be understood as something like, "My Lord and my God [is to be praised]."
Many trinitarian scholars tell us that Thomas is addressing Jesus as 'Lord and God.' But unfortunately for them it is grammatically certain that Thomas is not addressing anyone!
In the writings of John, when using the term “Lord” in address to another person, a different form of the NT Greek word is always used instead of the form found at John 20:28 (ho kurios mou).
“The vocative is the case used in addressing a person .... κύριε [kurie] (O Lord), Θee (O God) ... are almost the only forms found in the N.T.” - pp. 14, 15, The New Testament Greek Primer, Rev. Alfred Marshall, Zondervan, 1978 printing.
This is especially true of “Lord” and “my Lord” in both the Septuagint and the New Testament. Kurie (κύριε), not kurios (κύριός), is the form used when addressing someone as “Lord” or “My Lord.” - See the KURIE study. (“God,” Θεε, however, is not so certain. In fact it is very rare in the NT which normally uses the nominative Θεὸς in address.). http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2016/04/all-uses-of-vocative-noun-of-address.html
We can see a good example of this vocative form, which is used in addressing a person as “Lord,” at 3 Kings 1:20, 21 (1 Kings 1:20, 21 in modern English Bibles) in the ancient Greek of the Septuagint: “And you, my Lord [κύριε μου], O King ...” - 3 Kings 1:20, Septuagint. Then at 3 Kings 1:21 we see the same person (King David) being spoken about (but not addressed) in the same terms as Jn 20:28: “And it shall come to pass, when my Lord [Ὁ κύριός μου] the king shall sleep with his fathers .... - 3 Kings 1:21, Septuagint.
We also find Thomas himself, at Jn 14:5, addressing Jesus as “Lord” by using κύριε.
And, when addressing the angel at Rev. 7:14, John himself says kurie mou (“My Lord”)!
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 – Also, for Colwell’s Rule fans, note the use of the article and the word order of the clause in the two clauses identifying the Lord here.)
Therefore, it is safe to say that when John wrote down the incident with Thomas at Jn 20:28 and used the nominative form for “My Lord” [Kurios] he was not saying that Thomas was addressing Jesus as “My Lord and my God!”
What makes you say that the DECLARATION of Thomas is incomplete? Do you or do you not believe that Thomas stated the truth by recognizing that Jesus is God? That was the only suitable response, and he did not need to say another word.
It is extremely TIRESOME to hear all these naysayers making every excuse in the book to deny the deity of Christ, no matter how bizarre or illogical. They should all stand back and see how foolish it all sounds.
If you don't see it don't worry about it. I won't try to explain it. I see something that for me makes it impossible to embrace a Trinity combined with other things.
Well put together, as 2 of my 3 viable and sound arguments I was going to offer and you wrote them more eloquently.....I was also going to offer my least favorite, 3rd option, although a sound solution none the less. Similar to your use and meaning of 'Lord' as you wrote, by replacing 'God' as 'god' that more accurately represents this verse in John. Christ, the Son of God as the god to Thomas, the true representative of the source of power, YHWH. And that his Father saved him with his resurrection from the dead.
In Christ, for the glory of our Father,
APAK
I hear everything you are saying but I assure that you are not the first one to tell me those same things in approximately the same way. You would be surprised at the varieties and similarities I have encountered on Internet forums in the last 20 years. I don't discard a person's words out of hand just because they don't match where my own beliefs are. I have learned things from people, which resulted in changing where I am on issues. Someday if I live so long I could write a book on Internet experiences. Many of them I have saved to my computer over the years... so it is a possibility. See you on the forum!
to @tigger 2, @APAK, @DNB, and cohorts,
Could each of you explain to me, what is your motivation?
It seems to me that you all have a divested interest in believing that Jesus isn't the Lord (God).
If each of you would explain to me what their motivation is for not believing in the Deity of Christ, when it is presented as essential for salvation, that would be appreciated.
Could each of you explain to me, what is your motivation?
It seems to me that you all have a divested interest in believing that Jesus isn't the Lord (God).
If each of you would explain to me what their motivation is for not believing in the Deity of Christ, when it is presented as essential for salvation, that would be appreciated.
You're weird! The fundaments have already been laid out, do not make me repeat them.
You are not serious, nor are you competent. You are cultish in your exegesis, obstinate and have indoctrinated beliefs.
I would eagerly engage with anyone on this issue, as the doctrine of the trinity is heretical, and, in my opinion, denies one from salvation. But you have proven to be unreasonable, childish, and again, incompetent.
Every accusation that you have made towards us, has defined yourself. This is how absurd it is to discuss anything with you. Even @Angelina could not refrain from incessantly disparaging your ability to debate on this issue. In other words, you're a few posts away from being on my 'do not engage' list.
Take this as a word of advice.
1Co 5:11, But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Co 6:9, Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 6:11, And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
1Co 6:9, Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 6:11, And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
This was simply uncalled for.
Also, my religion is not considered to be a cult; whereas those who deny the Trinity are considered to be cults by everything in Christianity.
But I suppose that you would define orthodox Christianity as a cult; in order that your doctrine (which is cultish by nature) might be considered to be orthodox in the view of those to whom you preach the false doctrines that you espouse.
I am blessed (Matthew 5:10-12, Luke 6:22-23, 2 Timothy 3:10-12).
Last edited:
Similar threads
