The point is whenever a believer in the Bible uses the expression "my God" it always refers to the Almighty.
Jesus denied being God
- Thread starter Runningman
- Start date
The point is whenever a believer in the Bible uses the expression "my God" it always refers to the Almighty.
Peterlag
Well-known member
He may have been referring to the Almighty. He saw the Almighty working in Jesus who just raised him from the dead. So he saw Jesus standing in front of him and he saw God working in and with Jesus so he called out to both.
I see the Almighty working in fellow believers but I don't refer to a fellow believer as "my God."
Peterlag
Well-known member
You might if your fellow believer was the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the now Lord and Christ to the Christian who was just raised from the dead. Most people including you might just say something like my Lord, and my God. Meaning that you were seeing Jesus standing in front of you and God working with him. Not that you would be calling Jesus God.
Last edited:
My fellow believer is not the Son of God.
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
You post the Scripture and then prove you neither understand what it says, nor do you believe it.
Jesus is God in the flesh:
John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
This verse suggests that Jesus existed before creation and shares the same nature as God.
John 8:58: "Jesus said to them, 'Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I am.' " This statement echoes God's declaration to Moses in Exodus 3:14 ("I AM THAT I AM") and implies Jesus' eternal existence.
John 10:30: "I and the Father are one."
This statement emphasizes the unity and equality between Jesus and God the Father.
Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
This verse highlights that Jesus, in his human form, fully embodied the divine nature.
Philippians 2:5-8: This passage describes Jesus as being in the form of God but willingly taking on the form of a servant, demonstrating his humility and equality with God.
Receive or reject. There is no medium.
Peterlag
Well-known member
John 10:30
There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up "one God." The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what they meant... he and his Father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, "... he who plants and he who waters are one..." (1 Corinthians 3:8 NKJV). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up "one being." Christ uses the concept of "being one" in other places, and from them one can see that "one purpose" is what is meant. John 11:52 says Jesus was to die to make all God's children "one." In John 17:11, 21 and 22, Jesus prayed to God that his followers would be "one" as he and God were "one." I think it's obvious that Jesus was not praying that all his followers would become one being in "substance" just as he and his Father were one being or "substance." I believe the meaning is clear: Jesus was praying that all his followers be one in purpose just as he and God were one in purpose.
Peterlag
Well-known member
Well, then you would have no reason to yell out my Lord and my God.
1. Thomas didn't yell.
2. Agree, because I know only believers are refer to the Almighty as "my God."
Peterlag
Well-known member
If you were the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the Lord and Christ to the Christian and you just was raised from the dead by God and you were standing in front of me. I would be very excited probably in a state of shock if I did not believe God could have done this. Then I like most humans on the planet would be yelling Oh My God... My Lord.
that is a horrible argument. I first would doubt that any Jew would use "My Lord and my God" as an exclamation of surprise. The other problem would be of Luke quoting this and then Jesus confirming that Thomas has believed those points properly. Your response is a terrific example of eisegesis.
I would then correct you by saying you should not refer to me as "my God" because I am not the Almighty.
Jesus didn't do this because Jesus is the Almighty.
Last edited:
Peterlag
Well-known member
You're not understanding. Thomas never referred to Jesus as God. He saw God had raised him from the dead. He did not see God working in Jesus like you see God working in your friends. He saw God working in him to the tune of raising him from the dead.
Peterlag
Well-known member
That Jew saw the resurrected Lord Christ standing in front of him and he then saw that God had done this and so any normal human would be very excited and that's when he said like any human would something that could easily be compared to in English in our culture like Holy Smokes my Lord and I do see my God. But let's get to the facts... Thomas is not a teaching on the trinity.
There's no teaching on the trinity anywhere in the Bible. No whole paragraph or chapter teaching that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.
All you folks ever put in front of me are bits and pieces of words and half verses that are scattered all over the Bible. Also there's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. Such a concept accomplishes nothing. Romans says a man (Adam) caused sin to enter into the world, and also that a man would have to redeem it from sin. Some theologians teach that only God could pay for the sins of mankind, but the Bible specifically says that a man must do it. The book of Corinthians makes the same point Romans does when it says “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:21).
If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it? I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said...
Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.
The Epistles would have writings like...
Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.
And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.
You will have to ask someone who goes to heaven why God did not add a clear paragraph to exactly describe the Trinity so that Unitarians could deny the Trinity when all the more blatantly revealed in scripture.
Peterlag
Well-known member
It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach. God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God. Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity.
You still have not read the Two Powers in Heaven, which argues for the struggle of Jews on the passages that speak of this stuff. I guess that aids your eisegesis. I also do not care if anyone says knowledge of the Triune nature of God is required for justification; that is something you can argue to the people who hold that. Otherwise, your point is meaningless. If you still only have a preference of how God reveals himself, that is of no interest to the discussion either. If you come up with an argument, you can surely share that for whoever will pay attention to it -- sort of the boy who called wolf syndrome.
Peterlag
Well-known member
John 20:28 Lord, kurios: Principal ruler. Is used of man as the possessor owner or master. E. W. Bullinger., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1975), p. 466.The above proves you are not understanding.
See here for help:
Also Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible: page 620
Peterlag
Well-known member
Called wolf... like if I have a horse in this race. I could not care less if you believe the truth. I'm not here to convince you. I'm here for those who would enjoy hearing the truth.
