Thomas... My Lord and my God

[mikesw]

They wanted to kill Jesus already for the various things he said and did, but that doesn't mean they accurately understood him.

Actually, Jesus called their charges an accusation. It means that if Jesus called what they said an accusation, it means that the charge of him claiming to be God was false. Therefore, Jesus considered a claim to being God a sin. Seems you and the Pharisees have no idea who Jesus is. Are you ready to know the real Jesus?

John 10 (NIV)
33“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” ’? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

Another passage leading to the Trinity doctrine. If you learn nothing else, recognize that their accusation is testimony of the deity of Christ. If it had been a mistaken accusation, the gospel would have said it was a mistaken view that there was a claim to being of the Godhead.

 

[mikesw]

I am aware that trinitarianism is similar to other pagan religions. It doesn't mean I follow them or that I agree with them. Actually, I didn't know about them until you people kept trying to force the trinity on everyone. After that, I needed to look up where you people got your ideas from and found it.

So yes your religion is very similar to others. It's not a new idea nor original.

Sumeria​

"The universe was divided into three regions each of which became the domain of a god. Anu's share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods" (The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, 1994, pp. 54-55)

Babylonia​

"The ancient Babylonians recognised the doctrine of a trinity, or three persons in one god—as appears from a composite god with three heads forming part of their mythology, and the use of the equilateral triangle, also, as an emblem of such trinity in unity" (Thomas Dennis Rock, The Mystical Woman and the Cities of the Nations, 1867, pp. 22-23).

India​

"The Puranas, one of the Hindoo Bibles of more than 3,000 years ago, contain the following passage: 'O ye three Lords! know that I recognize only one God. Inform me, therefore, which of you is the true divinity, that I may address to him alone my adorations.' The three gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva [or Shiva], becoming manifest to him, replied, 'Learn, O devotee, that there is no real distinction between us. What to you appears such is only the semblance. The single being appears under three forms by the acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, but he is one.'

"Hence the triangle was adopted by all the ancient nations as a symbol of the Deity . . . Three was considered among all the pagan nations as the chief of the mystical numbers, because, as Aristotle remarks, it contains within itself a beginning, a middle, and an end. Hence we find it designating some of the attributes of almost all the pagan gods" (Sinclair, pp. 382-383).

Greece​

"In the Fourth Century B.C. Aristotle wrote: 'All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bounded by threes, for the end, the middle and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity'" (Arthur Weigall, Paganism in Our Christianity, 1928, pp. 197-198).

Egypt​

"The Hymn to Amun decreed that 'No god came into being before him (Amun)' and that 'All gods are three: Amun, Re and Ptah, and there is no second to them. Hidden is his name as Amon, he is Re in face, and his body is Ptah.' . . . This is a statement of trinity, the three chief gods of Egypt subsumed into one of them, Amon. Clearly, the concept of organic unity within plurality got an extraordinary boost with this formulation. Theologically, in a crude form it came strikingly close to the later Christian form of plural Trinitarian monotheism" (Simson Najovits, Egypt, Trunk of the Tree, Vol. 2, 2004, pp. 83-84).

Other areas​

Many other areas had their own divine trinities. In Greece they were Zeus, Poseidon and Adonis. The Phoenicians worshipped Ulomus, Ulosuros and Eliun. Rome worshipped Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto. In Germanic nations they were called Wodan, Thor and Fricco. Regarding the Celts, one source states, "The ancient heathen deities of the pagan Irish[,] Criosan, Biosena, and Seeva, or Sheeva, are doubtless the Creeshna [Krishna], Veeshnu [Vishnu], [or the all-inclusive] Brahma, and Seeva [Shiva], of the Hindoos" (Thomas Maurice, The History of Hindostan, Vol. 2, 1798, p. 171).

source: https://www.ucg.org/learn/bible-stu...-ancient-trinitarian-gods-influenced-adoption

Stupid again. No normal claim in Christian doctrine says there are three gods. Nor is there any expectation that the writers of scripture were influenced incorrectly to imprint pagan ideas into scripture or into doctrines of God and Christ. Nor are there paths where ideas of three gods would infiltrate the early church influencers. Instead of this information enhancing your thinking, you use the false gods to detract your from the true Triune God. Worse, you use false gods to persuade other people against the testimony of scripture.

 

[civic]

Another passage leading to the Trinity doctrine. If you learn nothing else, recognize that their accusation is testimony of the deity of Christ. If it had been a mistaken accusation, the gospel would have said it was a mistaken view that there was a claim to being of the Godhead.

ditto and we have many passages that directly call Christ God ( Theos, YHWH )

 

[civic]

Stupid again. No normal claim in Christian doctrine says there are three gods. Nor is there any expectation that the writers of scripture were influenced incorrectly to imprint pagan ideas into scripture or into doctrines of God and Christ. Nor are there paths where ideas of three gods would infiltrate the early church influencers. Instead of this information enhancing your thinking, you use the false gods to detract your from the true Triune God. Worse, you use false gods to persuade other people against the testimony of scripture.

yes they conflate the Trinity with Tritheism. all they can do is misrepresent and use strawman arguments.

 

[Runningman]

Another passage leading to the Trinity doctrine. If you learn nothing else, recognize that their accusation is testimony of the deity of Christ. If it had been a mistaken accusation, the gospel would have said it was a mistaken view that there was a claim to being of the Godhead.

An accusation is a statement of wrongdoing. So Jesus understood their false charge of claiming to be God as an accusation. In other words, Jesus disagree with them that he is God and, in effect, denied being God. John 10:33-36 is a passage leading to Unitarianism.

 

[Runningman]

Stupid again. No normal claim in Christian doctrine says there are three gods. Nor is there any expectation that the writers of scripture were influenced incorrectly to imprint pagan ideas into scripture or into doctrines of God and Christ. Nor are there paths where ideas of three gods would infiltrate the early church influencers. Instead of this information enhancing your thinking, you use the false gods to detract your from the true Triune God. Worse, you use false gods to persuade other people against the testimony of scripture.

This particular one from India fits quite well with what the Athanasian Creed says regarding the Trinity. Three Gods, three Lords, but not three, there is one. Trinitarianism has roots in the Puranas which is one of the Hindu Bibles that predates trinitarianism by millennia.

India​

"The Puranas, one of the Hindoo Bibles of more than 3,000 years ago, contain the following passage: 'O ye three Lords! know that I recognize only one God. Inform me, therefore, which of you is the true divinity, that I may address to him alone my adorations.' The three gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva [or Shiva], becoming manifest to him, replied, 'Learn, O devotee, that there is no real distinction between us. What to you appears such is only the semblance. The single being appears under three forms by the acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, but he is one.'

 

[mikesw]

An accusation is a statement of wrongdoing. So Jesus understood their false charge of claiming to be God as an accusation. In other words, Jesus disagree with them that he is God and, in effect, denied being God. John 10:33-36 is a passage leading to Unitarianism.

Really? Your eisgetical skills are running overtime. You skip over the fact that the gospel writers insert comments to prevent or reduce misinterpretation by the readers. You are putting ideas in Jesus' thoughts that are not stated in scripture so that you can deny what scripture shows us.

 

[mikesw]

This particular one from India fits quite well with what the Athanasian Creed says regarding the Trinity. Three Gods, three Lords, but not three, there is one. Trinitarianism has roots in the Puranas which is one of the Hindu Bibles that predates trinitarianism by millennia.

India​

"The Puranas, one of the Hindoo Bibles of more than 3,000 years ago, contain the following passage: 'O ye three Lords! know that I recognize only one God. Inform me, therefore, which of you is the true divinity, that I may address to him alone my adorations.' The three gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva [or Shiva], becoming manifest to him, replied, 'Learn, O devotee, that there is no real distinction between us. What to you appears such is only the semblance. The single being appears under three forms by the acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, but he is one.'

If you see that as an influence in Christian doctrine, it is best you just say nothing ever again. Which of the Christians groups held to religions of India. We can give you several days to answer that. I think you would do better than have Satan's distortion totally out of your arguments.

 

[mikesw]

An accusation is a statement of wrongdoing. So Jesus understood their false charge of claiming to be God as an accusation. In other words, Jesus disagree with them that he is God and, in effect, denied being God. John 10:33-36 is a passage leading to Unitarianism.

Thanks. It is good to know that the eisegetical root of Unitarianism is their misinterpretation of John 10:33-36.
Interestingly, Jesus uses a phrase ostensibly of saying "you are gods" and you use that passage in John as as denial of his deity?

Worse yet, you fail to recognize that Jesus goes further to avoid assumptions of denial. When he states further of himself as the Son of God, he presses deeper into a claim of his divinity in the Godhead, not of denying it.

 

[civic]

If you see that as an influence in Christian doctrine, it is best you just say nothing ever again. Which of the Christians groups held to religions of India. We can give you several days to answer that. I think you would do better than have Satan's distortion totally out of your arguments.

Any reliable source has the 3 major monotheistic world religions listed as Islam, Judaism and Christianity.

As we know he is arguing a strawman

 

[Doug Brents]

I understand. So if Jesus was always who you said he is and retained that status then why, among other things, did he become lower than angels?

In order for Him to be our kinsman redeemer, He had to be our kinsman. He had to be one of us, and live our life, and experience all of the temptations and struggles that we experience (Gal 4:4-5).

Why did he achieve power and authority he previously didn't have?

He did have power and authority before He came to Earth. But He laid it down and humbled Himself, beneath the Father, beneath the angels, beneath the rulers of man, beneath the Law; He became the lowliest of servants.

Also, let's look at John 17:5. What was the glory that Jesus had with the Father before the world was and how did Jesus also give that same glory to his disciples in John 17:22?

What was the glory Jesus had with the Father before the world began? It was the full glory of the Father. He was God before the world was made, for through Him everything that was made was made, and NOTHING was made that was not made through Him (John 1:1-3).

And He has given that promise to His disciples; that we will be one with Him and the Father when this world ends and we go to Heaven to be with Him. As a husband and wife are one, so Christ and the Church will be one.

The words for worship in the New Testament actually just mean to bow down or just become prostrate, but the kind of worship Jesus taught others to give to God is the "spirit and truth" variety. So bowing isn't the same thing as spirit and truth worship.

God's angels and His prophets always refused man's worship, bowing, service, etc. in the OT. But Jesus did not stop people from bowing down/worshiping/offering service to Him.

Possibly yes Jesus refused worship if Revelation 22:8,9 is Jesus talking. The context is about John talking to a messenger of God and then suddenly in Revelation 22:12 it's Jesus talking.

It appears that the speaker changes from Rev 22:8-9, which is not Jesus speaking, to Jesus who speaks in Rev 22:12. No angel is the alpha and omega, and Jesus is also not just an angel.

Yes.


I don't know that having no comment is equal to "accepting" worship. Someone could worship you and inside you detest it and disagree, but saying nothing isn't the same as an agreement.

Yes, it is. Even if you detest it in your heart, you are allowing someone to do that which is sin. It is like Saul standing watch over the cloaks of those who stoned Stephen; he was giving his blessing and support of the act even though he did not pick up a stone.

The only problem is that Jesus isn't said to have pre-existed as God prior to the humbling, emptying, lowering, etc. Actually, there is plenty of evidence that Jesus and God are not the same person and that Jesus will not always retain his Lordship over the church.

1 Corinthians 15
27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Yes, Jesus is said to have preexisted with God and as God. Consider marriage: women are in some places spoken of as being "lesser" than their husbands, but in other places they are spoken of as being equal with the husband. Just so with Jesus; He is equal to the Father, but also submissive to the Father. And the Church will likewise be equal with Jesus, but also submissive to Him.

 

[TOTHALORDBEALLGLORY]

Do you believe all of the world religions should find a way to merge into one?

A resounding heck no . interfaith inter religious diaglogue cometh of that which is of antichrist .
But this is what THEY are doing my friend .
THEY are getting the religoins as well as christendom to buy into a version of what they call God and say is love .
AND that version is deadly . Interfaith is of anti christ and has come to merge all anti christs
to be as one mind and one heart under what they all beleive is God and His love and is loving and is the solution
for world peace n safety . peace in the middle east . OH ITS a solution all right
and if by their methods of attain this peace n safety a LIBERTY shall be proclaimed unto them all .
TO THE SWORD to the famine to the pestilence as all go under the WRATH OF ALL MIGHTY GOD and OF THE LAMB
upon whom their love god DENIED . WE BETTEr WAKE UP AND BIBLE UP FAST .

 

[mikesw]

In order for Him to be our kinsman redeemer, He had to be our kinsman. He had to be one of us, and live our life, and experience all of the temptations and struggles that we experience (Gal 4:4-5).

From a unitarian viewpoint it has to be really ignorant of Paul to feel he has to add that Jesus was "born of woman" when Paul and the letter's recipients would pretty much know that point.
In reality, we have to recognize the reason Paul states that is due to Christ Jesus' pre-existence, and, more, of his divinity before being sent.

 

[TOTHALORDBEALLGLORY]

Any reliable source has the 3 major monotheistic world religions listed as Islam, Judaism and Christianity.

As we know he is arguing a strawman

If they hear not the prophets or the law They can claim all day to be of abraham , but i tell us all they are of their father the devil .
Now before i get accused of being a hater allow me to explain .
IF even the jews WHO claimed to follow MOSES , the law , to be of abraham and cliamed GOD was their father
was TOLD BY THE SON , had you beleived MOSES you would have BELIEVED ME
IF ye were of abraham YOU would do the works of abraham . GOD SPOKE abraham believed , JESUS spoke these did not beleive .
And if JESUS told even them ye are of your father THE DEVIL
believe you me the muslims wont get a pass either . NONE BELIEVETH THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST , THE MESSIAH SON OF GOD .
and thus they can lip and cliam all day long to be of abraham , BUT I SAY the flesh profits them nothing
and that whether a man was born of ISSAC or claims to be of ISHMAEL , THE SOUL is under satan NOT GOD
for it denies JESUS TO BE THE CHRIST . making it a liar , calling GOD himself a liar as they wont beleive
the testimony that GOD gave of the SON .
WE got a serious and deadly and massive lie that has come claoked as though its of GOD and his love . AND IT AINT my friend .
We better all watch out too . cause many are arleady being snared and led right into this lie .

 

[Runningman]

Really? Your eisgetical skills are running overtime. You skip over the fact that the gospel writers insert comments to prevent or reduce misinterpretation by the readers. You are putting ideas in Jesus' thoughts that are not stated in scripture so that you can deny what scripture shows us.

You're in a different world. If they were right about Jesus claiming to be God then Jesus wouldn't have called it an accusation. It means they were wrong and that Jesus isn't God.

 

[Doug Brents]

Nothing about the Scripture that you post is clear or quite clear. The following verse is just one example. The communion of the spirit is born within all Christians at the time they get saved. See Acts chapter 2. There's no trinity in the following verse. Only if you see things that are not there.

2 Corinthians 13:14
14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. (The second epistle to the Corinthians was written from Philippi, a city of Macedonia, by Titus and Lucas.)

smh

Jesus Christ is not a lexical definition of logos. The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus." The "Word" is not synonymous with Jesus, or even the "Messiah." The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God's creative self-expression... His reason, purpose and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God's self-expression or communication of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation and especially the heavens. It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture. Most notably it has come into being through His Son. The logos is the expression of God and is His communication of Himself just as a "word" is an outward expression of a person's thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son and thus it's perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the "Word." Jesus is an outward expression of God's reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason we call revelation "a word from God" and the Bible "the Word of God."

Pathetic. The Word/Logos was with God and was God and became flesh and dwelt among us and we have beheld His glory? Who is John talking about? Jesus.

If we understand that the logos is God's expression... His plan, purpose, reason and wisdom. Then it is clear they were with Him "in the beginning." Scripture says God's wisdom was "from the beginning" and it was common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. The fact that the logos "became" flesh shows it did not exist that way before. There is no pre-existence for Jesus in this verse other than his figurative "existence" as the plan, purpose or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the "word" in writing. It had no literal pre-existence as a "spirit-book" somehow in eternity past, but came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.

The logos of God is not just an expression of Him. It is not just His plan, purpose, reason and wisdom. You are a physical body, and you have a mind, and a soul, and a spirit. Is your mind any less YOU than your body is? And if you could send your mind out to do something while your body stayed behind, would it be any less YOU? The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are likewise ONE GOD.

 

[Runningman]

If you see that as an influence in Christian doctrine, it is best you just say nothing ever again. Which of the Christians groups held to religions of India. We can give you several days to answer that. I think you would do better than have Satan's distortion totally out of your arguments.

Christian doctrine is completely unrelated to the Trinity. You're conflating Trinitarianism with Christianity. You may as well be comparing Hinduism with Christianity when they are not related. Trinitarianism as well as other mythologies are not found in Scripture.

 

[mikesw]

You're in a different world. If they were right about Jesus claiming to be God then Jesus wouldn't have called it an accusation. It means they were wrong and that Jesus isn't God.

Indeed I'm in a different world ever since I came to know Jesus.
If I were you and thus trying to deny the divinity of Christ in the Godhead, I would avoid using John 10:22-39. You should just remove that from your scripture references and pretend it does not exist. Jesus keeps driving the concept of his divinity further. However, just as he is not explicit about being the Messiah, he also is letting the Jews acknowledge his claim of divinity in the Godhead. If you merely had a different view of the explanation of his pre-existence in divinity, you might have a better sense of scripture instead of your denying Christ.

 

[mikesw]

Christian doctrine is completely unrelated to the Trinity. You're conflating Trinitarianism with Christianity. You may as well be comparing Hinduism with Christianity when they are not related. Trinitarianism as well as other mythologies are not found in Scripture.

Wow. You have joined with Ehrman and other skeptics to call Christ Jesus a mythology.

Edited: If you had any strong argument for denying the divinity of Christ, I think it would have been convincing by now. Everything you have shared seems to be a contrived way of mere denial of scripture -- of clever reinterpretation away from the clearer meaning. You merely planted your stance from the verses about the humanity of Christ to build an interpretation to obscure the divinity passages.

 

[civic]

Christian doctrine is completely unrelated to the Trinity. You're conflating Trinitarianism with Christianity. You may as well be comparing Hinduism with Christianity when they are not related. Trinitarianism as well as other mythologies are not found in Scripture.

Wrong Christianity is the Trinity at its core. You have been misled, misinformed and misguided.