Peterlag
Active Member
Is somebody here in a fight?
Thomas... My Lord and my God
- Thread starter Peterlag
- Start date
Peterlag
Active Member
I don't see a fight. Is this not a Christian debate forum? Here's my OP Post that you are commenting on.Indeed
1 Timothy 6:4
he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions,
John 20:28 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. “My Lord and my God” can easily be understood that Thomas had realized the power of God working in Jesus, and in saying “my Lord and my God” he was pointing out that Jesus did reveal God in a unique and powerful way. In seeing the resurrected Jesus, Thomas clearly saw both the Lord Jesus, and the God who raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus always taught that he only did what God guided him to do, and said that if you had seen him you had seen the Father. In that light, there is good evidence that “doubting Thomas” was saying that in seeing Jesus he was also seeing the Father.
We have to remember that Thomas’ statement occurred in a moment of surprise and even perhaps shock. Only eight days earlier, Thomas had vehemently denied Jesus’ resurrection. Thomas could no longer deny that Jesus was alive and that God had raised him from the dead. Thomas, looking at the living Jesus, saw both Jesus and the God who raised him from the dead. When Thomas saw the resurrected Christ, he became immediately convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead. But did he suddenly have a revelation that Jesus was God? That would be totally outside of Thomas’ knowledge and belief. Jesus had never claimed to be God despite Trinitarian claims that he had.
In other places in the Bible where the apostles speak about the resurrection of Jesus, they do not declare “This proves Jesus is God!” Rather, they declare that God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead. The confession of the two disciples walking along the road to Emmaus demonstrated the thoughts of Jesus’ followers at the time. Speaking to the resurrected Christ, whom they mistook as just a traveler, they talked about Jesus. They said Jesus “was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and they crucified him." The disciples thought Jesus was the Messiah, a “Prophet” and the Son of God, but not God Himself.
Are we to believe that somehow Jesus taught the Trinity, something that went against everything the disciples were taught and believed, but there is no mention of Jesus ever teaching it anywhere, and yet the disciples somehow got that teaching? That seems too incredible to believe. There is no evidence from the gospel accounts that Jesus’ disciples believed him to be God, and Thomas upon seeing the resurrected Christ was not birthing a new theology in a moment of surprise.
I like how THE REV. R. J. CAMPBELL puts it.
‘Let us banish,’ he cries, ‘the thought of a lonely, isolated God, having no fellowships and no relationships within Himself: God is Father, Son, and Spirit.’ God contains within himself a companionship. ‘God,’‘is able to express Himself within Himself, as it were; He goes forth from Himself in the Eternal Son, to return to Himself in the Eternal Spirit.’ ‘Within the Being of God the eternal abysmal reality is the Father; the Eternal Word or Wisdom or Activity of God is the Son, the going-forth of creation; the Holy Spirit is the nexus between the Father and the Son.’ ‘these three are a society in unity, self-contained and self-sufficient.’ But besides this economy within the Godhead itself, we are to think of ‘the Deity locating Himself within human limitations,’ ‘surrendering omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, while retaining moral perfection and spiritual consciousness,’ and so presenting himself in the historical person of Jesus, the son of Mary.
.
‘Let us banish,’ he cries, ‘the thought of a lonely, isolated God, having no fellowships and no relationships within Himself: God is Father, Son, and Spirit.’ God contains within himself a companionship. ‘God,’‘is able to express Himself within Himself, as it were; He goes forth from Himself in the Eternal Son, to return to Himself in the Eternal Spirit.’ ‘Within the Being of God the eternal abysmal reality is the Father; the Eternal Word or Wisdom or Activity of God is the Son, the going-forth of creation; the Holy Spirit is the nexus between the Father and the Son.’ ‘these three are a society in unity, self-contained and self-sufficient.’ But besides this economy within the Godhead itself, we are to think of ‘the Deity locating Himself within human limitations,’ ‘surrendering omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, while retaining moral perfection and spiritual consciousness,’ and so presenting himself in the historical person of Jesus, the son of Mary.
.
Peterlag
Active Member
I cannot find one single biblical verse that clearly teaches that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. 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.
Doug Brents
Active Member
Your opinion does not match with what Scripture says.
The statements of the Apostles at the last supper have nothing to do with it. Their statements equate to "Not me". This is not related to what Jesus said when He said, "Before Abraham was, I AM!" Therefore, your argument here is nonsensical and irrelevant.
Jesus did not just exist figuratively. He existed in actuality. He was present with God, and He was God, when He made everything that exists. Just because He didn't exist physically doesn't mean He was not real, or an actual person. If Jesus didn't exist in reality just because He was not yet physical, then the Father, who has never had a physical body must not exist at all.
Your assertion that "I am" in Greek means something different than "I am" in Hebrew is you grasping at straws trying to save your failing argument. "Am" and "Be" are the same verb. The only difference is the tense and plurality of the verb (Am, Is, Was, Were, Be, Being, Been).
Greek:
Present:
εἰμί (eimi), εἶ (ei), ἐστί (esti), ἐσμέν (esmen), ἐστέ (este), εἰσί (eisi).
Future:
σομαι (esomai), ἔσῃ (ese), ἔσται (estai), ἐσόμεθα (esometha), ἔσεσθε (esesthe), ἔσονται (esontai).
Imperfect:
ἦν (ēn), ἦσθα (ēstha), ἦν (ēn), ἦμεν (ēmen), ἦτε (ēte), ἦσαν (ēsan).
Hebrew:
Past:
היה (hayah), היית (hayit), היתה (hayta), היינו (haynu), הייתם (hayitem), היו (hayu)
Future:
יהיה (yiheyeh), תהיה (tiheyeh), יהיה (yiheyeh), שנהיה (niheyeh), תהיו (tihiyu), יהיו (yihiyu)
Present:
The present tense of להיות is generally omitted. Instead, pronouns are used to indicate the subject, and the verb "to be" is implied
Exo 3:14
‘I AM
אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה (’eh·yeh)
Verb - Qal - Imperfect - first person common singular
Strong's 1961: To fall out, come to pass, become, be
has sent me
שְׁלָחַ֥נִי (šə·lā·ḥa·nî)
Verb - Qal - Perfect - third person masculine singular | first person common singular
Strong's 7971: To send away, for, out
John 8:58
I
ἐγὼ (egō)
Personal / Possessive Pronoun - Nominative 1st Person Singular
Strong's 1473: I, the first-person pronoun. A primary pronoun of the first person I.
am!”
εἰμί (eimi)
Verb - Present Indicative Active - 1st Person Singular
Strong's 1510: I am, exist. The first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist.
These statements are 100% connected. Jesus is making the statement that He is the one who was talking to Moses from the bush. His statement makes not sense grammatically otherwise. Before Abraham was (past tense), I Am (present tense). Jesus is saying, I existed then and I exist now, and I am the same person now as I was then. I exist, period.
Peterlag
Active Member
You should tell the truth and say you don't agree with me. But it's deceptive when you say I did not respond.
A child can understand that Jesus was saying he was the subject matter long before Abraham was born. There's nothing else there.
Doug Brents
Active Member
I have said that many times.
You don't respond. You repost the same nonsense over and over even after it has been shown to be in error.
There is a lot more there. If Jesus was the subject matter "long before Abraham was born", then His existence as a person (not as just a though process in God's mind) "long before Abraham was born" is confirmed. So your position is destroyed.
Peterlag
Active Member
Just because what I respond with is over your head. Does not mean I don't respond and respond often. Nothing I say about the trinity has ever been shown in error. The whole Bible is about Jesus Christ. Not Abraham. That's all Jesus was saying. That this thing is about him way before Abraham was born. Why you think Jesus was born before Abraham is just a trinity spin. Nothing more.
Doug Brents
Active Member
No, Jesus was not born before Abraham. That is the point; He existed before Abraham, but He was not human at that time. Yes, the whole of the Bible points to Jesus, and the fact that He is God, He created everything that is, and He became a human in order to redeem mankind from sin.
Peterlag
Active Member
There is no verse that says God or a God-Man came to the earth to redeem mankind. Nor is there any reason listed in Scripture that says why God would have come to the Earth as a man. What you have is human reasoning, imagination, speculation and assumptions, but no Scripture as to why God would come to the Earth as a man.
Romans says a man (Adam) caused sin to enter into the world, and also that a man would have to redeem it from sin. Romans 5:15 says “For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” 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).
Peterlag
Active Member
People often say I'm wrong when I post the following because they say I looked it up in an Interlinear or Concordance and it shows the word is a "him" and not an "it." Those reference books show how the Bible translates words and not what the Greek actually means. The pronoun is an "it" when it refers to an inanimate noun like "word" because Greek has grammatical "gender" and the "Word" in John 1 is a thing so the Greek says it's an "it."
John 1:3 “Everything came to be through it.” The logos is an “it” not a “him.”
Translators have deliberately chosen to use “him” because they wanted to emphasize that the Word was the male person we know as Jesus. This was a theological choice, not a linguistic one.
"Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you” (Proverbs 4:6).
Is the Wisdom in Proverbs 4:6 a distinct divine person?
The "Word" is not literally a person for the same reason that "Wisdom" is not literally a person. Both are to be taken metaphorically.
Jesus is the personification of the Word because He speaks the words of God. To listen to Jesus equals listening to the Word of God.
John 1:3 “Everything came to be through it.” The logos is an “it” not a “him.”
Translators have deliberately chosen to use “him” because they wanted to emphasize that the Word was the male person we know as Jesus. This was a theological choice, not a linguistic one.
"Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you” (Proverbs 4:6).
Is the Wisdom in Proverbs 4:6 a distinct divine person?
The "Word" is not literally a person for the same reason that "Wisdom" is not literally a person. Both are to be taken metaphorically.
Jesus is the personification of the Word because He speaks the words of God. To listen to Jesus equals listening to the Word of God.
Doug Brents
Active Member
Luke 19:10
Matthew 20:28
Mark 10:45
Galatians 3:13
Galatians 4:5
1 Timothy 2:6
In order for Him to be our Kinsman Redeemer, He had to be our kinsman (Heb 2:11, Ruth).
Precisely. But ONLY God in the form of a man could be perfect and fulfill the OT Law in order to be the sacrificial lamb that takes away the sin of the world. Even if a finite human could be perfect, his death would only be sufficient to cover the sin of one other person. It takes an infinite God to cover the infinite sin of all mankind.
It is so crazy that Peterlag thinks he has proven every verse as wrong that shows aspects of the Triune God. Of course they like to say Jesus did not pre-exist, but we know that. The "I" of Jesus, however, did exist before Abraham. How can anyone make an argument against that?
Peterlag
Active Member
The first one you list does not say why God would come to the Earth as a man. The verse does not even mention God. You got nothing.
10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
Doug Brents
Active Member
The Son of Man is a title for Jesus, and Jesus is God. Further, God sent Jesus to Earth.
The nature of the Son of God was not changed, and He did not surrender His attributes in the incarnation. Jesus Christ did not cease to be God, but He veiled His Deity in human flesh. The Son of God did not take upon Himself all that we are, but He did share flesh and blood that through death He might save His people.
He who created all things and upholds all things condescended to become the “seed of Abraham,” “the seed of David,” and “the seed of the woman.” The eternal Son of God shared our nature but not our sin. He could not have atoned for our sins if He had shared our guilt. He could not have cleansed our hearts if He had Himself been unclean.
Priests of the Levitical system first offered sacrifices for their own sins and then for the sins of the people whom they represented, but the Son of God was the spotless Lamb who offered Himself. He who is all purity came to an impure people to make them pure. He who is absolute holiness came in a holy body that we might be partakers of His holiness.
He made of one blood all nations of men so that in the sin of one all sinned. He then came in flesh and blood that we might be washed from our sins in His blood. He who was in the form of God took upon Himself the form of a servant to cleanse us by His blood.
He who created all things and upholds all things condescended to become the “seed of Abraham,” “the seed of David,” and “the seed of the woman.” The eternal Son of God shared our nature but not our sin. He could not have atoned for our sins if He had shared our guilt. He could not have cleansed our hearts if He had Himself been unclean.
Priests of the Levitical system first offered sacrifices for their own sins and then for the sins of the people whom they represented, but the Son of God was the spotless Lamb who offered Himself. He who is all purity came to an impure people to make them pure. He who is absolute holiness came in a holy body that we might be partakers of His holiness.
He made of one blood all nations of men so that in the sin of one all sinned. He then came in flesh and blood that we might be washed from our sins in His blood. He who was in the form of God took upon Himself the form of a servant to cleanse us by His blood.
Peterlag
Active Member
What verse says the son of man means God? In fact, where does son of man mean God anywhere.
So there is no verse that says why God would come to the Earth as a man.
Runningman
Active Member
Quote any verse and watch all the Unitarians say amen! Adding your commentary and theology about a "Triune God" is where the debate happens.
Doug Brents
Active Member
Dan 7:13-14 says that the Son of Man will be given, "a kingdom,
So that all the peoples, nations, and populations of all languages
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed."
Jesus is the "Son of Man" in this passage, and because Jesus is God (John 1:1-3, 14), the Son of Man is God.
Peterlag
Active Member
Jesus is not God...
John 1:1 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. It seems difficult for people to understand that John 1:1 is introducing the Gospel of John, and not the Book of Genesis. The topic of John is God (the Father, the only God) at work in the ministry of the man Jesus of Nazareth, not the creation of rocks, trees and stars.
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."
If we understand that the logos is God's expression... His plan, purpose, reason and wisdom. Then it's 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.
A friend of mine put it this way... "The word "logos" (Word) denotes (I) "the expression of thought" as embodying a conception or idea. λόγος "logos" is something said (including the thought). So the word "logos" means an expression of thought. It makes perfect sense if we use this understanding everywhere the word "logos" is used. So in John 1:1 the Word is not Jesus, but rather it became flesh, which is God's expression of thought or plan that became flesh with the coming of Jesus Christ."
John 1:3 People often say I'm wrong when I post the following because they say I looked it up in an Interlinear or Concordance and it shows the word is a "him" and not an "it." Those reference books show how the Bible translates a word and not what the Greek actually means. The pronoun is an "it" when it refers to an inanimate noun like the "Word" because Greek has grammatical gender and the "Word" in John 1 is a thing so the Greek says it's an "it."
“Everything came to be through it.” The logos is an “it” not a “him.”
Translators have deliberately chosen to use “him” because they wanted to emphasize that the Word was the male person we know as Jesus. This was a theological choice, not a linguistic one.
"Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you” (Proverbs 4:6).
Is the Wisdom in Proverbs 4:6 a distinct divine person?
The "Word" is not literally a person for the same reason that "Wisdom" is not literally a person. Both are to be taken metaphorically.
Jesus is the personification of the Word because He speaks the words of God. To listen to Jesus equals listening to the Word of God.
John 1:14 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. The "Word" is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God and the Word became flesh as Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ was the Word in the flesh, which is shortened to the Word for ease of speaking. Scripture is also the Word in writing. Everyone agrees that the Word in writing had a beginning. So did the Word in the flesh. In fact, the Greek text of Matthew 1:18 says that very clearly: "Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was in this manner..." The modern Greek texts all read "beginning" in Matthew 1:18. Birth is considered an acceptable translation since the beginning of some things is birth, and so most translations read birth. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of Matthew 1:18 is the beginning of Jesus Christ. In the beginning God had a plan, a purpose, which became flesh when Jesus was conceived.
Similar threads
