Jesus denied being God

Try as you may

You cannot erase the confession

or the blessing upon those who would so confess not having seen

John 20:28–29 (KJV 1900) — 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

believed what?

That Jesus is their lord and their God

Ignoring the passage and running elsewhere does not make the confession disappear
And you can't erase the fact that Jesus said his and his brothers' God is the Father in John 20:17. You also can't erase the fact that Thomas wasn't blessed in John 20:29. You also can't erase the fact that Jesus being "Lord and god" isn't what was revealed by the Father in Matthew 16:13-17.

I'll take my chances with God and Jesus. You're free to follow doubting Thomas if you wish.
 
The Trins have made many of their own Bibles. The vast majority of the Bible translations are by Trinitarians. Are you afraid when someone who isn't a Trinitarian translates the Bible? The Trinitarian Bibles' have many serious errors in them. Even John 1:1 flatout removes the "the" definite article from before The God. There are also several instances of alterations to the Bible perpetuated by Trinitarians. 1 John 5:7, 1 Timothy 3:16, just to name a couple.
That simply shows the Word is not the God he is with (Ton Theon) but is the same as him
 
And you can't erase the fact that Jesus said his and his brothers' God is the Father in John 20:17. You also can't erase the fact that Thomas wasn't blessed in John 20:29. You also can't erase the fact that Jesus being "Lord and god" isn't what was revealed by the Father in Matthew 16:13-17.

I'll take my chances with God and Jesus. You're free to follow doubting Thomas if you wish.
EXPLETIVE........ dummkopf blatherskite.
 
Why do you deflect? Who gives a rats a$$ if Thomas was blessed or not.

The blessing was for the believers.... "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

Do you really care if Thomas was ever blessed? I dont.
Excuse me, @TomL and I are just talking about this. You don't seem to have the temperament to talk about this if you cannot even speak politely and you're using profanity. That reminds me. One of you people sent me a private message saying some very foul and offensive things. I'll conceal his sin out of love, but you people need to represent and straighten up. You're making yourself look bad and it distracts from the Bible discussion.
 
And you can't erase the fact that Jesus said his and his brothers' God is the Father in John 20:17. You also can't erase the fact that Thomas wasn't blessed in John 20:29. You also can't erase the fact that Jesus being "Lord and god" isn't what was revealed by the Father in Matthew 16:13-17.

I'll take my chances with God and Jesus. You're free to follow doubting Thomas if you wish.
I affirm God the Father

The issue is the son of God

The one whom is the same as the father that you deny

There is no need to erase anything in John 20:29 for it place sa blessing on me and all the others who you have been arguing with

A blessing you do not share in

and for the record Thomas finally believed

Jesus was his lord and his God

"
 
I affirm God the Father

The issue is the son of God

The one whom is the same as the father that you deny

There is no need to erase anything in John 20:29 for it place sa blessing on me and all the others who you have been arguing with

A blessing you do not share in

and for the record Thomas finally believed

Jesus was his lord and his God

"
In John 20:28, Thomas didn't use the vocative case when he said "my Lord and my God" which suggests he wasn't addressing Jesus, but rather saying those things as an expression. This is why no one translates what Thomas said as "You are my Lord and my God."
 
Jesus is a teacher and Jesus said his teachings are not his own in John 7:16. He was taught by the Father John 828. Yet Jesus said, we have one teacher, himself, in Matthew 23:8. However, when he was called good teacher in Luke 18:18-19, he denied it because he isn't the good teacher. He isn't God. That's what the subject is. Others are good, including Jesus the good shepherd and the saints who are good and faithful servants, but none of them are God except the Father. Focus.
Jesus never explicitly said that he is not good. That's your interpretation. That totally explains why you always disregard the Bible since you claim that "he isn't the good teacher".
 
In John 20:28, Thomas didn't use the vocative case when he said "my Lord and my God" which suggests he wasn't addressing Jesus, but rather saying those things as an expression. This is why no one translates what Thomas said as "You are my Lord and my God."
UM

THE VOCATIVE CASE

There is a fifth case that really has no sentence slot to live in. Maybe it isn’t a true case. But it does seem to have a discrete ending sometimes. It did not show up on the article chart because this case has no article.
It is the way you spell someone (or something) when you are talking directly to him (it):

πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς (Father, forgive them.)

Here, “Father” is written in the Vocative case.
New Testament Vocatives are rare and those with discrete endings differing from the Nominative endings are extremely rare


Edward W. Goodrick, Do It Yourself Hebrew and Greek: A Guide to Biblical Language Tools (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980), x.

Hear Greek Scholar A.T. Robertson

My Lord and my God (ὁ κυριος μου και ὁ θεος μου [Ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou]). 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.

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Jn 20:28.

And Alford

The Socinian view, that these words, ὁ κύρ. μου κ. ὁ θεός μου, are merely an exclamation, is refuted—(1) By the fact that no such exclamations were in use among the Jews. (2) By the εἶπεν αὐτῷ. (3) By the impossibility of referring ὁ κύριός μου to another than Jesus: see ver. 13. (4) By the N.T. usage of expressing the vocative by the nom. with an article. (5) By the utter psychological absurdity of such a supposition: that one just convinced of the presence of Him whom he deeply loved, should, instead of addressing Him, break out into an irrelevant cry. (6) By the further absurdity of supposing that if such were the case, the Apostle John, who of all the sacred writers most constantly keeps in mind the object for which he is writing, should have recorded any thing so beside that object. (7) By the intimate conjunction of πεπίστευκας—see below. Dismissing it therefore, we observe that this is the highest confession of faith which has yet been made

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary (vol. 1; Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 912.
 
Excuse me, @TomL and I are just talking about this. You don't seem to have the temperament to talk about this if you cannot even speak politely and you're using profanity. That reminds me. One of you people sent me a private message saying some very foul and offensive things. I'll conceal his sin out of love, but you people need to represent and straighten up. You're making yourself look bad and it distracts from the Bible discussion.
By your leave.

I shall go off to more "interesting"debates . SDA and Preterists always offer a lot of meat to sink ones teeth into.

As to me... I never sent you a PM on here. And I never used profanity.

Have fun.tipping_hat_smiley.gif
 
Why do you deflect? Who gives a rats a$$ if Thomas was blessed or not.

The blessing was for the believers.... "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

Do you really care if Thomas was ever blessed? I dont.
Of course such a notation is irrelevant

Those who hold Jesus as their lord and their God are blessed

He would be excluded from that blessing
 
Jesus never explicitly said that he is not good. That's your interpretation. That totally explains why you always disregard the Bible since you claim that "he isn't the good teacher".
You're disregarding the fact that Jesus was taught by God and spoke the teachings that were not his own. He isn't the good teacher. He isn't God or omniscient.
 
By your leave.

I shall go off to more "interesting"debates . SDA and Preterists always offer a lot of meat to sink ones teeth into.

As to me... I never sent you a PM on here. And I never used profanity.

Have fun.View attachment 851
It would have been better if you had some class and backtracked for using profanity, but suit yourself.
 
Your claim runs counter to the bible's affirmation of the deity of Jesus Christ/the word
Jesus is a teacher and Jesus said his teachings are not his own in John 7:16.
He was taught by the Father John 828.
Yet Jesus said, we have one teacher, himself, in Matthew 23:8.
However, when he was called good teacher in he denied it Luke 18:18-19

Scripture says what it says. Jesus was a man who was taught by God and spoke the teachings of God as a teacher, but he can't take glory for it. That's why he said only God is good.

You are misunderstanding who Jesus is.
 
You're disregarding the fact that Jesus was taught by God and spoke the teachings that were not his own. He isn't the good teacher. He isn't God or omniscient.
You're so silly. So whenever someone teaches a subject that is not his own, like Quantum Physics, then automatically he is not a good teacher?!?! No matter how well he knows the subject? Your logic is becoming more wacky the more you open your mouth. 🤪
 
He approved the statement of Thomas

John 20:28–29 (KJV 1900) — 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Yes Thomas called Jesus the Lord of him and the God of him.

No Jew would ever utter those words to anyone except YHWH. And we know Jesus did not rebuke him for idolatry and breaking Gods commandment of idol worship and have no other Gods before Him.

Jesus accepted being called God and being worshipped by His disciples and those He healed.

Its crazy to watch the unitarians side step these facts and to their song and dance around it, dodging it and redefining the words worship and God.
 
Um that really does nothing to address much of what I stated

How can an impersonal thing

have an attitude of humility?

Exist in the form of God?

Consider?

take another form?


Philippians 2:3–7 (NASB 2020) — 3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility consider one another as more important than yourselves; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men.

BTW TDNT

Thus the phrase μορφὴ θεοῦ, which Paul coins in obvious antithesis to μορφὴ δούλου, can be understood only in the light of the context. The appearance assumed by the incarnate Lord, the image of humiliation and obedient submission, stands in the sharpest conceivable contrast to His former appearance, the image of sovereign divine majesty, whose restoration in a new and even more glorious form is depicted for the exalted κύριος at the conclusion of the hymn, v. 10f. The specific outward sign of the humanity of Jesus is the μορφὴ δούλου, and of His essential divine likeness (τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ → III, 353 f.) the μορφὴ θεοῦ.

The μορφὴ θεοῦ in which the pre-existent Christ was is simply the divine δόξα; Paul’s ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων corresponds exactly to Jn. 17:5: τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί.




Johannes Behm, “Μορφή, Μορφόω, Μόρφωσις, Μεταμορφόω,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 751.
Perhaps you don't understand what I post and that's why you often say I'm not responding like you have also said here. The word "form" that you think means Jesus is in the form of God does not mean that and I wrote it down for you very plainly quoting some of the best biblical minds. They define the word "form" as an outward and not an inward. I have the outward form of my parents and that does not make me my parents.
 
If the Jews had no trinity, and the Christians had no trinity until it was officially declared by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. Then don’t you have to wonder where it came from? If it was formulated by the same Church that brought you Mary Mother of God, immortality of the soul, purgatory and hellfire... then don't you wonder just a little bit?
 
If the Jews had no trinity, and the Christians had no trinity until it was officially declared by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. Then don’t you have to wonder where it came from? If it was formulated by the same Church that brought you Mary Mother of God, immortality of the soul, purgatory and hellfire... then don't you wonder just a little bit?
Wow. I cannot believe Peterlag is still pushing this ignorant idea that the Roman Catholic church exited distinctly and in control in the 4th century. Isn't this what other JWs say? Maybe he means to refer to those leaders and churches that were not heretics.
 
Perhaps you don't understand what I post and that's why you often say I'm not responding like you have also said here. The word "form" that you think means Jesus is in the form of God does not mean that and I wrote it down for you very plainly quoting some of the best biblical minds. They define the word "form" as an outward and not an inward. I have the outward form of my parents and that does not make me my parents.
You were asked multiple questions on how an impersonal thing could

Have an attitude or mind

no answer

consider

no answer


humble himself

no answer

exist in the form of God

We know God has no outward appearance

and the information provided as to the meaning morphe was mixed

Being (ὑπαρχων [huparchōn]). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of ὑπαρχω [huparchō]. In the form of God (ἐν μορφῃ θεου [en morphēi theou]). Μορφη [Morphē] means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. A prize (ἁρπαγμον [harpagmon]). Predicate accusative with ἡγησατο [hēgēsato]. Originally words in -μος [-mos] signified the act, not the result (-μα [-ma]). The few examples of ἁρπαγμος [harpagmos] (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to ἁρπαγμα [harpagma], like βαπτισμος [baptismos] and βαπτισμα [baptisma]. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”). To be on an equality with God (το εἰναι ἰσα θεοι [to einai isa theoi]). Accusative articular infinitive object of ἡγησατο [hēgēsato], “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case θεῳ [theōi] after ἰσα [isa]). Ἰσα [Isa] is adverbial use of neuter plural with εἰναι [einai] as in Rev. 21:16. Emptied himself (ἑαυτον ἐκενωσε [heauton ekenōse]). First aorist active indicative of κενοω [kenoō], old verb from κενος [kenos], empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Php 2:6.

The first word which we must carefully study is “form.” The Greek word has no reference to the shape of any physical object. It was a Greek philosophical term. Vincent has an excellent note on the word. In discussing it, he has among other things, the following to say: “We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophical sense to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character … As applied to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself.

Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (vol. 5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 62.

Being in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων). Being. Not the simple εἶναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jas. 2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character

Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (vol. 3; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 430.

in the form of God (not merely the nature of God, which however is implied: but, as in Heb. 1:3, the ἀπαύγασμα τ. δόξης κ. χαρακτὴρ τ. ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ—cf. John 5:37, οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε, with ib. 17:5, τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary (vol. 3; Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 166.

But scripture settles this

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Now explain how an impersonal thing could be

the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,

so you really have not met the obligation put to you.
 
Back
Top Bottom