Indeed you have helped confirm those who like the truth since many have exposed your confusion. I have learned much from the people who know God's essence when sharing in reaction to your posts. If you are the expert on Unitarianism, you have proven it to be a weak theory.
Jesus denied being God
- Thread starter Runningman
- Start date
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
As I said, the Lord declared He is God, and you can either receive or reject this biblical truth. There is no medium.
Which does nothing to overthrow the use of "my God."
Be aware of this:
My Lord and my God First testimony to the Deity of the risen Lord. Possibly Thomas was using the words of Psalms 86:15 , which in the Septuagint read Kurie ho Theos, and claiming forgiveness for his unbelief on the ground of Exodus 34:6 , to which this verse of the Psalm refers.
John 20 - Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
John 20, Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes, Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes enrich Christian understanding with deep insights into Scripture's original texts and historical context.
www.studylight.org
Jesus being the Deity means He is "God; Supreme Being" (see #5).
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/deity?s=t
Thanks for mentioning Bullinger.
Last edited:
Complete
Well-known member
To @Runningman & Co., - No, He did not!!
* These words were spoken during the period (Matt.6:21-20:34) when the Lord Jesus, Who had proclaimed the gospel of the Kingdom, and made known His person, was now suffering rejection. He Himself as their Messiah and King, and the gospel of the Kingdom which He had preached, was being rejected, and opportunity sought by the Scribes and Pharisees to have Him put to death. This must take place, but in God's time, in accord with the prophesies laid down in the Old Testament concerning Him, and not before. So the Lord's words and works were carefully orchestrated to not precipitate actions which needed to take place within God's timescale.
* I am reliably informed that the word, 'good' does not appear in the original text, yet it is repeated in both Mark and Luke's gospel. For the Lord to accept the word, 'good' in relation to Himself, in that potentially volatile situation would have been like lighting a tinder box, and accelerating His arrest and consequent death. That had to be avoided at all costs, that God's will be fully done. So, speaking as 'The Son of Man' (Matt.18:11), and not as 'The Son of God' he could say what He did without causing offence or precipitation of events.
* The Lord Jesus Christ came to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers, and to destroy the works of the devil. He only spoke the words and performed the works given to Him of His Father. So these words are as 'Divine' as any other revealed in this Divine record.
Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris
Question:-
'And, behold, one came and said unto Him,
'Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Answer:-
And He said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God:
but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Question:-
He saith unto Him, Which?
Answer:-
Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Question:-
The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Answer:-
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
* But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Then said Jesus unto His disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Question:-
When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
Answer:-
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Question:-
Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
Answer:-
And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.
(Mat 19:16-30) see also (Mark 10:17-28 & Luke 18:18-28)
* These words were spoken during the period (Matt.6:21-20:34) when the Lord Jesus, Who had proclaimed the gospel of the Kingdom, and made known His person, was now suffering rejection. He Himself as their Messiah and King, and the gospel of the Kingdom which He had preached, was being rejected, and opportunity sought by the Scribes and Pharisees to have Him put to death. This must take place, but in God's time, in accord with the prophesies laid down in the Old Testament concerning Him, and not before. So the Lord's words and works were carefully orchestrated to not precipitate actions which needed to take place within God's timescale.
* I am reliably informed that the word, 'good' does not appear in the original text, yet it is repeated in both Mark and Luke's gospel. For the Lord to accept the word, 'good' in relation to Himself, in that potentially volatile situation would have been like lighting a tinder box, and accelerating His arrest and consequent death. That had to be avoided at all costs, that God's will be fully done. So, speaking as 'The Son of Man' (Matt.18:11), and not as 'The Son of God' he could say what He did without causing offence or precipitation of events.
* The Lord Jesus Christ came to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers, and to destroy the works of the devil. He only spoke the words and performed the works given to Him of His Father. So these words are as 'Divine' as any other revealed in this Divine record.
Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris
Last edited:
MTMattie
Well-known member
This makes zero sense
Peterlag
Well-known member
It makes a lot of sense. I say the resurrected Christ was standing in front of Thomas who did not believe Jesus would get up from the dead. Thomas was so excited he was probably in shock as he saw Jesus in front of him and God who had done this. Then the guy on here who I wrote what you are quoting from says God works in his friends and he does not get excited when he sees them. I wrote back that his friends are not the resurrected son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the now Lord and Christ to the Christian. And he writes back something like God works in his friends and he does not get excited when he sees them. That's when I wrote... Well, then you would have no reason to yell out my Lord and my God meaning because his friends have not just been raised from the dead.
Peterlag
Well-known member
I do not believe Thomas is a teaching on the trinity. I believe he was a guy so excited probably in shock yelling out to Jesus as his Lord and yelling out to the Father as his God. Again Thomas is not a teaching on the trinity. 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).Which does nothing to overthrow the use of "my God."
Be aware of this:
My Lord and my God First testimony to the Deity of the risen Lord. Possibly Thomas was using the words of Psalms 86:15 , which in the Septuagint read Kurie ho Theos, and claiming forgiveness for his unbelief on the ground of Exodus 34:6 , to which this verse of the Psalm refers.
John 20 - Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
John 20, Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes, Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes enrich Christian understanding with deep insights into Scripture's original texts and historical context.
Jesus being the Deity means He is "God; Supreme Being" (see #5).
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/deity?s=t
Thanks for mentioning Bullinger.
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.
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.
Peterlag
Well-known member
Just because you do not believe the truth of God's Word that I teach does not make me wrong. It just makes you blind to the truth of God's Word.
I file that point with all the other beliefs you have.
Again, thanks for mentioning Bullinger.
Peterlag
Well-known member
Thomas' statement is not an address to anyone. It's a statement of praise for Jesus' resurrection. Words of praise often were not complete statements. Its probable meaning is "My Lord and my God be praised!"
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
As I said elsewhere the doctrine of the Trinity of God did not find its fullest expression until the advent of the Son (Jesus the Christ.)
This truth is in Scripture and it is hidden away until God determines its revelation:
25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever.
Rom. 16:25–27.
There was a great deal in the Hebrew Scripture that the apostles and other Jewish Christians had to study from those Scriptures to come to the knowledge of the truth of the New Covenant era Israel found itself in.
It is all written in the Hebrew Scripture and if we study it under the anointing as they did we would come to the same conclusions they did concerning the Deity of Jesus being the Son of God and member of the Godhead.
"Thomas answered and said unto Him..." (John 20:28)
So you are incorrect. The statement by Thomas is an address to Jesus.
101G
Well-known member
this is the worst excuse 101G have ever hear. just ridiculous. this shows just how lost some people are. with Great GL.
101G.
Runningman
Well-known member
Now that the OP has already been discussed, if there was anyone in doubt about the non-deity of Jesus still, then the Bible directly and explicitly rules Jesus out as being God. It's perfectly clear in no uncertain terms because it is with language that we are able to understand each other.
The Bible is a coherent literary work, consistent in its language. This means that if language is used to define God as a single person, it should be understood in that way, just as the language would be interpreted for any other individual. This is not to deny that anthropomorphic language may be used to describe God, but outside of this specific context, there is consistency. To suggest otherwise creates a "God language" where the meaning of words is altered, allowing for an arbitrary application that can make the text mean anything—even the opposite of what is stated. Instead of seeking a "God language," the better approach is to accept that the Bible authors used language in a way that allowed readers to understand the text clearly. Trinitarians often accuse others of assuming their doctrine, but the truth is, Trinitarians impose their theology onto the text, overriding a consistent reading of it. Barron 2009
John 17 (KJV)
3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Ephesians 4 (KJV)
6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
1 Corinthians 8 (KJV)
6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.
The Bible is a coherent literary work, consistent in its language. This means that if language is used to define God as a single person, it should be understood in that way, just as the language would be interpreted for any other individual. This is not to deny that anthropomorphic language may be used to describe God, but outside of this specific context, there is consistency. To suggest otherwise creates a "God language" where the meaning of words is altered, allowing for an arbitrary application that can make the text mean anything—even the opposite of what is stated. Instead of seeking a "God language," the better approach is to accept that the Bible authors used language in a way that allowed readers to understand the text clearly. Trinitarians often accuse others of assuming their doctrine, but the truth is, Trinitarians impose their theology onto the text, overriding a consistent reading of it. Barron 2009
John 17 (KJV)
3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Ephesians 4 (KJV)
6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
1 Corinthians 8 (KJV)
6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.
Runningman
Well-known member
How do you reckon that isn't a denial of being God?
Runningman
Well-known member
Jesus' teacher is the Father. By the fact that Jesus needed to be taught is indication that he needed to learn something. Those who need to learn something are by default not omniscient. God doesn't lack the divine quality of omniscience, but Jesus did.
John 8
28So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing on My own, but speak exactly what the Father has taught Me.
So when Jesus was called "Good teacher" of course he gave deference to God because only God alone is truly the good teacher. Make more sense now?
Receive or reject. There is no medium.
Last edited:
Runningman
Well-known member
That's true and it is supported by the Greek case in which John recorded the words of Thomas.
Jesus was effectively saying..don't call me good..you don't know what you are saying..I am good...more than good.
Its a challenge to them to address Him in better terms than 'good teacher'.
Not that He isn't God. That He is more than what they say.
