Thomas... My Lord and my God

[Peterlag]

The words “HOLY SPIRIT” in the Bible...

are primarily used in two very different ways: One way is to refer to God Himself and the other is referring to God’s nature that He gives to people. God is holy and is spirit and therefore “the Holy Spirit” with a capital “H” and a capital “S” is one of the many “names” or designations for God. God gives His holy spirit nature to people as a gift and when HOLY SPIRIT is used that way it should be translated as the “holy spirit” with a lowercase “h” and a lowercase “s.”

There are many descriptions, titles, and names for God in the Bible and I would like to add God’s proper name is “Yahweh” which occurs more than 6,000 times in the Hebrew Old Testament and is generally translated as “LORD.” But God is also referred to as Elohim, Adonai, El Shaddai, the Ancient of Days, the Holy One of Israel, Father, Shield, and by many more designations. Furthermore, God is holy (Leviticus 11:44), which is why He was called “the Holy One” (the Hebrew text uses the singular adjective “holy” to designate “the Holy One." He is also spirit (John 4:24).

It makes perfect sense since God is holy and God is spirit that “Holy” and “Spirit” are sometimes combined and used as one of the many designations for God. Thus, the Hebrew or Greek words for the "HOLY SPIRIT" should be brought into English as the "Holy Spirit”when the subject of a verse is God. None of the dozens of descriptions,titles, or names of God are believed to be a separate, co-equal “Person”in a triune God except for the “HOLY SPIRIT” and there is no solid biblical reason to make the "Holy Spirit” into a separate “Person.”

 

[Doug Brents]

The Apostles speak nothing in parables since Christians now have the spirit of Christ born within and can understand spiritual matters.

The Apostles did speak in parables, and in guarded language that is frequently difficult to understand without the Spirit's guidance.

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

"It seems"? Why would it seem so? Is it because your faulty humanistic mind wants it to seem so? Scripture makes it clear that the wisest of the wise to man is foolishness to God. You want to trust on your own wisdom? Go ahead, knock yourself out.

and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach.

What is necessary for salvation is trust in who God says that He is. And as has been demonstrated to you many times by many people, Scripture is very clear that Jesus is God in the flesh. Dispute of this fact demonstrates a lack of trust in who and what God says He is.

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.

The OT Scriptures were given to the Jewish people. But the NT Scriptures were given to all of mankind. Spiritually, there is no division between people groups anymore.

Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity.

The doctrine of the trinity is not present in the OT Scriptures given to the Jewish people before Christ. So it is reasonable that they never understood the trinity before Christ.

 

[Peterlag]

The Apostles did speak in parables, and in guarded language that is frequently difficult to understand without the Spirit's guidance.

"It seems"? Why would it seem so? Is it because your faulty humanistic mind wants it to seem so? Scripture makes it clear that the wisest of the wise to man is foolishness to God. You want to trust on your own wisdom? Go ahead, knock yourself out.

What is necessary for salvation is trust in who God says that He is. And as has been demonstrated to you many times by many people, Scripture is very clear that Jesus is God in the flesh. Dispute of this fact demonstrates a lack of trust in who and what God says He is.

The OT Scriptures were given to the Jewish people. But the NT Scriptures were given to all of mankind. Spiritually, there is no division between people groups anymore.

The doctrine of the trinity is not present in the OT Scriptures given to the Jewish people before Christ. So it is reasonable that they never understood the trinity before Christ.

Give me one verse where the Apostles spoke in parables. You can't have it both ways. You say it's difficult to understand in part because of the parables. Then you say it's clearly spoken everywhere. Go ahead see if you can come up with one verse where the Apostles spoke in parables.

 

[Doug Brents]

Give me one verse where the Apostles spoke in parables. You can't have it both ways. You say it's difficult to understand in part because of the parables. Then you say it's clearly spoken everywhere. Go ahead see if you can come up with one verse where the Apostles spoke in parables.

1 Tim 5:17-18
Heb 6:7-8
Heb 9:8-10
James 3:3-6
Yes, these are very short, and not the involved stories that Jesus told, but they are still symbolic representations of Spiritual truths that keep parts of those truths hidden from those who are not lead by the Spirit.

 

[Peterlag]

1 Tim 5:17-18
Heb 6:7-8
Heb 9:8-10
James 3:3-6
Yes, these are very short, and not the involved stories that Jesus told, but they are still symbolic representations of Spiritual truths that keep parts of those truths hidden from those who are not lead by the Spirit.

Where's the parable? Give the elders honor and they are worthy of a reward. Where's the symbolic representation?

1 Timothy 5:17-19
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

 

[Doug Brents]

Where's the parable? Give the elders honor and they are worthy of a reward. Where's the symbolic representation?

1 Timothy 5:17-19
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

highlighted above

 

[Peterlag]

 

[Peterlag]

highlighted above

It's not a parable. It's a quote from...

Deuteronomy 25:4
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

Where's the parable? Give the elders honor and they are worthy of a reward. Where's the symbolic representation?

1 Timothy 5:17-19
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

 

[mikesw]

View attachment 2068

So was the view taken by the Sadducees and Pharisees, except that the latter were killing Jesus for saying he is God.

 

[Doug Brents]

It's not a parable. It's a quote from...

Deuteronomy 25:4
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

Where's the parable? Give the elders honor and they are worthy of a reward. Where's the symbolic representation?

1 Timothy 5:17-19
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

Are you that dense? Do you not understand clear English/Greek?
That is indeed a quote of Moses, and it is turned into a metaphor for the elders who preach the Word and correct doctrine.
Just as the OT statement the God called the nation of Israel out of Egypt was noted as a prophecy about Jesus when He was called out of Egypt.

 

[Peterlag]

Are you that dense? Do you not understand clear English/Greek?
That is indeed a quote of Moses, and it is turned into a metaphor for the elders who preach the Word and correct doctrine.
Just as the OT statement the God called the nation of Israel out of Egypt was noted as a prophecy about Jesus when He was called out of Egypt.

It's not a parable or hard for any child to understand.

 

[Peterlag]

There is not one verse that says Jesus is God the Son. Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. A teaching... a whole paragraph or chapter. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it. Trinitarians piece together statements that are scattered all over the Bible. They basically use bits and pieces of words and half verses along with their own human reasoning, imagination, speculation and assumptions as they pick one verse here, and another verse there, a hint here, and a clue there, and then they construct their "own God" which is the product of their own human thinking. This is why they cannot present one single biblical verse that clearly teaches that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

 

[Redemption]

There is not one verse that says Jesus is God the Son. Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. A teaching... a whole paragraph or chapter. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it.

John 8:58 ~ Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”

John 8:59 ~Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

Do you really think the Jews of biblical days were so stupid they did not know what they were doing or what they heard?

John 10:30 ~ “I and the Father are one.”

John 10:31~ The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.

John 10:32~ Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?”

John 10:33~The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”

Or is it only Christians of today that cannot understand what they read?

John 14:10-11
Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own. Instead, it is the Father dwelling in Me, performing His works. / Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me—or at least believe on account of the works themselves.

Aye: It does appear to be the latter. ( Christians of today that cannot understand what they read )


Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. A teaching... a whole paragraph or chapter. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it. Trinitarians piece together statements that are scattered all over the Bible. They basically use bits and pieces of words and half verses along with their own human reasoning, imagination, speculation and assumptions as they pick one verse here, and another verse there, a hint here, and a clue there, and then they construct their "own God" which is the product of their own human thinking. This is why they cannot present one single biblical verse that clearly teaches that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]

Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. A teaching... a whole paragraph or chapter. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it. Trinitarians piece together statements that are scattered all over the Bible. They basically use bits and pieces of words and half verses along with their own human reasoning, imagination, speculation and assumptions as they pick one verse here, and another verse there, a hint here, and a clue there, and then they construct their "own God" which is the product of their own human thinking. This is why they cannot present one single biblical verse that clearly teaches that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

With lack of understanding is it any wonder that God hides things in the scriptures?

 

[Peterlag]

John 8:58 ~ Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”

John 8:59 ~Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

Do you really think the Jews of biblical days were so stupid they did not know what they were doing or what they heard?

John 10:30 ~ “I and the Father are one.”

John 10:31~ The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.

John 10:32~ Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?”

John 10:33~The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”

Or is it only Christians of today that cannot understand what they read?

John 14:10-11
Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own. Instead, it is the Father dwelling in Me, performing His works. / Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me—or at least believe on account of the works themselves.

Aye: It does appear to be the latter. ( Christians of today that cannot understand what they read )


Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. A teaching... a whole paragraph or chapter. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it. Trinitarians piece together statements that are scattered all over the Bible. They basically use bits and pieces of words and half verses along with their own human reasoning, imagination, speculation and assumptions as they pick one verse here, and another verse there, a hint here, and a clue there, and then they construct their "own God" which is the product of their own human thinking. This is why they cannot present one single biblical verse that clearly teaches that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

With lack of understanding is it any wonder that God hides things in the scriptures?
[/QUOTE]

None of your quoted verses above hold any water. For example here's John 10:33 that you mentioned...

John 10:33
Had the translators rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did inverse 34 and 35, then it would read, "...you, a man, claim to be a god." In the next two verses, John 10:34 and 35, the exact same word (theos, without the article) is translated as "god" and not "God." In Acts12:22, Herod is called theos without the article, so the translators translate it "god." The same is true in Acts 28:6, when Paul had been bitten by a viper and the people expected him to die. When he did not die, "...they changed their minds and said he was a god." Since theos has no article, and since it is clear from the context that the reference is not about the true God, theos is translated "a god." It is a general principle that theos without the article should be "a god," or "divine." Since there is no evidence that Jesus was teaching that he was God anywhere in the context, and since the Pharisees would have never believed that this man was somehow Yahweh, it makes no sense that they would be saying that he said he was "God." Now since Jesus was clearly teaching that he was sent by God and was doing God's work. Thus, it makes perfect sense that the Pharisees would say he was claiming to be "a god" or "divine."

 

[Fred]

With lack of understanding is it any wonder that God hides things in the scriptures?

None of your quoted verses above hold any water. For example here's John 10:33 that you mentioned...

John 10:33
Had the translators rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did inverse 34 and 35, then it would read, "...you, a man, claim to be a god." In the next two verses, John 10:34 and 35, the exact same word (theos, without the article) is translated as "god" and not "God." In Acts12:22, Herod is called theos without the article, so the translators translate it "god." The same is true in Acts 28:6, when Paul had been bitten by a viper and the people expected him to die. When he did not die, "...they changed their minds and said he was a god." Since theos has no article, and since it is clear from the context that the reference is not about the true God, theos is translated "a god." It is a general principle that theos without the article should be "a god," or "divine." Since there is no evidence that Jesus was teaching that he was God anywhere in the context, and since the Pharisees would have never believed that this man was somehow Yahweh, it makes no sense that they would be saying that he said he was "God." Now since Jesus was clearly teaching that he was sent by God and was doing God's work. Thus, it makes perfect sense that the Pharisees would say he was claiming to be "a god" or "divine."
[/QUOTE]


Then why want to stone Jesus if others can be called "god"?

 

[Peterlag]

None of your quoted verses above hold any water. For example here's John 10:33 that you mentioned...

John 10:33
Had the translators rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did inverse 34 and 35, then it would read, "...you, a man, claim to be a god." In the next two verses, John 10:34 and 35, the exact same word (theos, without the article) is translated as "god" and not "God." In Acts12:22, Herod is called theos without the article, so the translators translate it "god." The same is true in Acts 28:6, when Paul had been bitten by a viper and the people expected him to die. When he did not die, "...they changed their minds and said he was a god." Since theos has no article, and since it is clear from the context that the reference is not about the true God, theos is translated "a god." It is a general principle that theos without the article should be "a god," or "divine." Since there is no evidence that Jesus was teaching that he was God anywhere in the context, and since the Pharisees would have never believed that this man was somehow Yahweh, it makes no sense that they would be saying that he said he was "God." Now since Jesus was clearly teaching that he was sent by God and was doing God's work. Thus, it makes perfect sense that the Pharisees would say he was claiming to be "a god" or "divine."

Then why want to stone Jesus if others can be called "god"?
[/QUOTE]

Jesus had not been claiming to be God in the flesh and this is why the Jews never asked him at his trial if he was God in the flesh, but instead they asked him about what he had been claiming to be, which was the Messiah. Mark 14:61-62 records the High Priest asking “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said "I am.” The High Priest tore his garments and said he deserved to be put to death when Jesus stated he was the Messiah. So we see that the Jews correctly assessed that Jesus had been claiming to be the Christ, and that Jesus indeed said he was the Christ, and also that the Jews thought his claim was worthy of the death penalty.

 

[Fred]

Then why want to stone Jesus if others can be called "god"?

Jesus had not been claiming to be God in the flesh and this is why the Jews never asked him at his trial if he was God in the flesh, but instead they asked him about what he had been claiming to be, which was the Messiah. Mark 14:61-62 records the High Priest asking “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said "I am.” The High Priest tore his garments and said he deserved to be put to death when Jesus stated he was the Messiah. So we see that the Jews correctly assessed that Jesus had been claiming to be the Christ, and that Jesus indeed said he was the Christ, and also that the Jews thought his claim was worthy of the death penalty.
[/QUOTE]


Get back to John 10:33.
Why would they want to stone Jesus if He was simply claiming He was a god since others were referred to as such?

 

[Redemption]

With lack of understanding is it any wonder that God hides things in the scriptures?

None of your quoted verses above hold any water. For example here's John 10:33 that you mentioned...

John 10:33
Had the translators rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did inverse 34 and 35, then it would read, "...you, a man, claim to be a god." In the next two verses, John 10:34 and 35, the exact same word (theos, without the article) is translated as "god" and not "God."

Not in Christian translated bibles.

In Acts12:22, Herod is called theos without the article, so the translators translate it "god." The same is true in Acts 28:6, when Paul had been bitten by a viper and the people expected him to die. When he did not die, "...they changed their minds and said he was a god." Since theos has no article, and since it is clear from the context that the reference is not about the true God, theos is translated "a god." It is a general principle that theos without the article should be "a god," or "divine." Since there is no evidence that Jesus was teaching that he was God anywhere in the context, and since the Pharisees would have never believed that this man was somehow Yahweh, it makes no sense that they would be saying that he said he was "God." Now since Jesus was clearly teaching that he was sent by God and was doing God's work. Thus, it makes perfect sense that the Pharisees would say he was claiming to be "a god" or "divine."
[/QUOTE]

What are you not seeing?

John 10:33~The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”
And you have not addressed this as yet
John 14:10-11
Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own. Instead, it is the Father dwelling in Me, performing His works. / Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me—or at least believe on account of the works themselves.

As I said. you do not understand...

 

[Redemption]

Jesus had not been claiming to be God in the flesh and this is why the Jews never asked him at his trial if he was God in the flesh, but instead they asked him about what he had been claiming to be, which was the Messiah. Mark 14:61-62 records the High Priest asking “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said "I am.” The High Priest tore his garments and said he deserved to be put to death when Jesus stated he was the Messiah. So we see that the Jews correctly assessed that Jesus had been claiming to be the Christ, and that Jesus indeed said he was the Christ, and also that the Jews thought his claim was worthy of the death penalty.

Get back to John 10:33.
Why would they want to stone Jesus if He was simply claiming He was a god since others were referred to as such?
[/QUOTE]


Good catch.

 

[Peterlag]

None of your quoted verses above hold any water. For example here's John 10:33 that you mentioned...

John 10:33
Had the translators rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did inverse 34 and 35, then it would read, "...you, a man, claim to be a god." In the next two verses, John 10:34 and 35, the exact same word (theos, without the article) is translated as "god" and not "God."

Not in Christian translated bibles.

In Acts12:22, Herod is called theos without the article, so the translators translate it "god." The same is true in Acts 28:6, when Paul had been bitten by a viper and the people expected him to die. When he did not die, "...they changed their minds and said he was a god." Since theos has no article, and since it is clear from the context that the reference is not about the true God, theos is translated "a god." It is a general principle that theos without the article should be "a god," or "divine." Since there is no evidence that Jesus was teaching that he was God anywhere in the context, and since the Pharisees would have never believed that this man was somehow Yahweh, it makes no sense that they would be saying that he said he was "God." Now since Jesus was clearly teaching that he was sent by God and was doing God's work. Thus, it makes perfect sense that the Pharisees would say he was claiming to be "a god" or "divine."

What are you not seeing?

John 10:33~The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”
And you have not addressed this as yet
John 14:10-11
Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own. Instead, it is the Father dwelling in Me, performing His works. / Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me—or at least believe on account of the works themselves.

As I said. you do not understand...
[/QUOTE]

When Jesus says to the apostles “you in me, and I in you” (John 14:20), he is using the same wording that he used when he speaks of being “in” the Father. In fact, Jesus prayed in John 17:21 that people will believe so “that they also may be in us” (in the Father and Jesus). Are we all God's?