Thomas... My Lord and my God

[mikesw]

Quit your whining and stick with the scripture.

In Zechariah 1:13,14 the angel of the LORD isn't claiming to be YHWH anymore. Rather, YHWH is speaking to the angel of the LORD and vice versa. Know why? Because the angel was never claiming to be YHWH in the first place. Speaking YHWH's message is not equal to being YHWH.

you love comparing apples to oranges. that is an error. It fails as an argument
Edited: you make the mistake of seeing one verse cancel out another. The task in scripture is dominantly making the most accommodating sense of such scriptures instead of using the one you like to deny the one you dislike

 

[Peterlag]

It's a huge problem to believe the same doctrine the Catholics do...

The supposed “dual nature” of Christ is never stated in the Bible and contradicts the Bible and the laws of nature that God set up. Nothing can be 100% of two different things. Jesus cannot be 100% God and 100% man, and that is not a “mystery” but it's a contradiction and a talk of nonsense. A fatal flaw in the “dual nature” theory is that both natures in Jesus would have had to have known about each other. The Jesus God nature would have known about his human nature, and (according to what the Trinitarians teach) his human nature knew he was God, which explains why Trinitarians say Jesus taught that he was God. The book of Hebrews is wrong when it says Jesus was “made like his brothers in every respect” if Jesus knew he was God (Hebrews 2:17). Jesus was not made like other humans in every way if Jesus was 100% God and 100% human at the same time. In fact, he would have been very different from other humans in many respects.

For example, in his God nature he would not have been tempted by anything (James 1:13), and his human part would not have been tempted either since his human nature had access to that same knowledge and assurance. It is written he was tempted in every way like we all are (Hebrews 4:15). Furthermore, God does not have the problems, uncertainty, and anxieties that humans do, and Jesus would not have had those either if he knew he was God. Also, Luke 2:52 says Jesus grew in wisdom, but his human part would have had access to his God part, which would have given him infinite and inherent wisdom. Hebrews says Jesus “learned obedience” by the things that he suffered, but again, the human part of Jesus would have accessed the God part of him and he would not have needed to learn anything.

Kenotic Trinitarians claim that Jesus put off or limited His God nature, but that theology only developed to try to reconcile some of the verses about what Christ experienced on the earth. The idea that God can limit what He knows or experiences as God is not taught or explained in Scripture, and Kenotic Trinitarianism has been rejected by orthodox Trinitarians for exactly that reason. The very simple way to explain the “difficult verses” that Kenotic Trinitarians are trying to explain about Christ’s human experiences is to realize that Jesus was a fully human being, and not both God and man at the same time. Some assert we have to take the Trinity “by faith” but that is not biblical either.

 

[mikesw]

It's a huge problem to believe the same doctrine the Catholics do...

The supposed “dual nature” of Christ is never stated in the Bible and contradicts the Bible and the laws of nature that God set up. Nothing can be 100% of two different things. Jesus cannot be 100% God and 100% man, and that is not a “mystery” but it's a contradiction and a talk of nonsense. A fatal flaw in the “dual nature” theory is that both natures in Jesus would have had to have known about each other. The Jesus God nature would have known about his human nature, and (according to what the Trinitarians teach) his human nature knew he was God, which explains why Trinitarians say Jesus taught that he was God. The book of Hebrews is wrong when it says Jesus was “made like his brothers in every respect” if Jesus knew he was God (Hebrews 2:17). Jesus was not made like other humans in every way if Jesus was 100% God and 100% human at the same time. In fact, he would have been very different from other humans in many respects.

For example, in his God nature he would not have been tempted by anything (James 1:13), and his human part would not have been tempted either since his human nature had access to that same knowledge and assurance. It is written he was tempted in every way like we all are (Hebrews 4:15). Furthermore, God does not have the problems, uncertainty, and anxieties that humans do, and Jesus would not have had those either if he knew he was God. Also, Luke 2:52 says Jesus grew in wisdom, but his human part would have had access to his God part, which would have given him infinite and inherent wisdom. Hebrews says Jesus “learned obedience” by the things that he suffered, but again, the human part of Jesus would have accessed the God part of him and he would not have needed to learn anything.

Kenotic Trinitarians claim that Jesus put off or limited His God nature, but that theology only developed to try to reconcile some of the verses about what Christ experienced on the earth. The idea that God can limit what He knows or experiences as God is not taught or explained in Scripture, and Kenotic Trinitarianism has been rejected by orthodox Trinitarians for exactly that reason. The very simple way to explain the “difficult verses” that Kenotic Trinitarians are trying to explain about Christ’s human experiences is to realize that Jesus was a fully human being, and not both God and man at the same time. Some assert we have to take the Trinity “by faith” but that is not biblical either.

If that had any bearing on anything, it is only in the unitarians imagination.

The greater problem would be the unitarians holding beliefs like the JWs. Go figure.

 

[Peterlag]

If that had any bearing on anything, it is only in the unitarians imagination.

The greater problem would be the unitarians holding beliefs like the JWs. Go figure.

I could be classified as an unitarian and yet I have no such beliefs similar with the JW folks.

 

[TomL]

Quit your whining and stick with the scripture.

In Zechariah 1:13,14 the angel of the LORD isn't claiming to be YHWH anymore. Rather, YHWH is speaking to the angel of the LORD and vice versa. Know why? Because the angel was never claiming to be YHWH in the first place. Speaking YHWH's message is not equal to being YHWH.

Exodus 3:2–15 (KJV 1900) — 2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. 4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. 5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. 6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God. 7 And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; 8 And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites. 9 Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto me: and I have also seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them. 10 Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt. 11 And Moses said unto God, Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt? 12 And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain. 13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

The Messenger (angel) of Yahweh claimed to be/is called God, the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, Elohim, Yahweh

 

[mikesw]

I could be classified as an unitarian and yet I have no such beliefs similar with the JW folks.

certainly by your units of measure, yours are certainly close enough.

 

[Peterlag]

certainly by your units of measure, yours are certainly close enough.

I'm told the JW's do not believe in the trinity. If that is the case. Then it's the only biblical concept we share. On the other hand, the Catholics believe in the same trinity as you and this should be a huge red flag to any normal reasonable human.

 

[mikesw]

It's a huge problem to believe the same doctrine the Catholics do...

The supposed “dual nature” of Christ is never stated in the Bible and contradicts the Bible and the laws of nature that God set up. Nothing can be 100% of two different things. Jesus cannot be 100% God and 100% man, and that is not a “mystery” but it's a contradiction and a talk of nonsense. A fatal flaw in the “dual nature” theory is that both natures in Jesus would have had to have known about each other. The Jesus God nature would have known about his human nature, and (according to what the Trinitarians teach) his human nature knew he was God, which explains why Trinitarians say Jesus taught that he was God. The book of Hebrews is wrong when it says Jesus was “made like his brothers in every respect” if Jesus knew he was God (Hebrews 2:17). Jesus was not made like other humans in every way if Jesus was 100% God and 100% human at the same time. In fact, he would have been very different from other humans in many respects.

A pretty serious mistake on your part is that the only significance of Jesus being "made like his brothers in every respect" is if Jesus begins as something distinct from his brothers and thus of his divinity, as shown in Hebrews 1. There would be no reason to share this point otherwise.

 

[mikesw]

I'm told the JW's do not believe in the trinity. If that is the case. Then it's the only biblical concept we share. On the other hand, the Catholics believe in the same trinity as you and this should be a huge red flag to any normal reasonable human.

Their beliefs do not make the Triune God wrong. They can confirm lots of true things, but that never makes those things untrue.

 

[TomL]

It's a huge problem to believe the same doctrine the Catholics do...

The supposed “dual nature” of Christ is never stated in the Bible and contradicts the Bible and the laws of nature that God set up.

Colossians 2:9 (NASB95) — 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Philippians 2:6 (NASB95) — 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Christ’s divine nature is a profound theological reality affirmed across multiple scholarly perspectives. The phrase “being in very nature God” implies a deep harmony between Christ’s appearance and essential nature, with “every outward sign and symbol, every privilege of deity” belonging to Him because He is God1.

Philippians 2:6 provides a decisive affirmation of Christ’s pre-incarnate divine existence. While He lived on earth as a man and subjected Himself to human conditions, He was “not by nature a man” but fundamentally God. His human life was a voluntary act—He “would have naturally lived as became God” but instead chose to empty Himself2. Critically, Christ’s divine essence was not temporary: He was “the essence of God” before His incarnation, during His earthly ministry, after His ascension, and remains so today3. The Church has consistently affirmed Christ’s true deity and eternal existence, with scriptural evidence including Jesus’ own statements like “Before Abraham was, I am” and prophetic declarations such as Isaiah calling Him the “everlasting Father”4.

1. 1
   Lawrence Richards, New Testament Life and Times (Cook Communications Ministries, 1994), 489.
2. 2
   Roy B. Zuck, ed., Vital Christology Issues: Examining Contemporary and Classic Concerns (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Resources, 1997), 15.
3. 3
   Robert A. Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues (Iowa Falls, IA: World Pub., 1996), 336–337.
4. 4
   H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1940–1952), 2:170–171.

 

[Peterlag]

Colossians 2:9 (NASB95) — 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Philippians 2:6 (NASB95) — 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Christ’s divine nature is a profound theological reality affirmed across multiple scholarly perspectives. The phrase “being in very nature God” implies a deep harmony between Christ’s appearance and essential nature, with “every outward sign and symbol, every privilege of deity” belonging to Him because He is God1.

Philippians 2:6 provides a decisive affirmation of Christ’s pre-incarnate divine existence. While He lived on earth as a man and subjected Himself to human conditions, He was “not by nature a man” but fundamentally God. His human life was a voluntary act—He “would have naturally lived as became God” but instead chose to empty Himself2. Critically, Christ’s divine essence was not temporary: He was “the essence of God” before His incarnation, during His earthly ministry, after His ascension, and remains so today3. The Church has consistently affirmed Christ’s true deity and eternal existence, with scriptural evidence including Jesus’ own statements like “Before Abraham was, I am” and prophetic declarations such as Isaiah calling Him the “everlasting Father”4.

1. 1
   Lawrence Richards, New Testament Life and Times (Cook Communications Ministries, 1994), 489.
2. 2
   Roy B. Zuck, ed., Vital Christology Issues: Examining Contemporary and Classic Concerns (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Resources, 1997), 15.
3. 3
   Robert A. Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues (Iowa Falls, IA: World Pub., 1996), 336–337.
4. 4
   H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1940–1952), 2:170–171.

There's nothing in the book of Philippians that says Jesus emptied himself of his Godhood. Nothing.

What did Jesus empty himself from?

What the Scriptures say he was... the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, thus, royal blood. He humbled himself from what he was and took on the role of a servant.

After saying that Christ was in the form of God, Philippians 2:6 goes on to say that Christ “considered being equal with God not something to be grasped at.” If Jesus were God, then it would make no sense at all to say that he did not “grasp” at equality with God because no one grasps at equality with himself. Some Trinitarians say, “Well, he was not grasping for equality with the Father.” That is not what the verse says. It says Christ did not grasp at equality with God, which makes the verse nonsense if he were God.

The Greek word morphē does not refer to the essential nature of Christ in that context. If the point of the verse is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say that? If Jesus is God, say that, don’t say he has the “essential nature of God.” Of course God has the “essential nature” of God, so why would anyone make that point? This verse does not say “Jesus being God” but rather “being in the form of God.” Paul is reminding the Philippians that Jesus represented the Father in every possible way.

From the Septuagint and their other writings, the Jews were familiar with morphē referring to the outward appearance, including the form of men and idols. To the Greeks, it also referred to the outward appearance, including the changing outward appearance of their gods and the form of statues. The only other New Testament use of morphē outside Philippians is in Mark, and there it refers to the outward appearance. Also, the words related to morphē clearly refer to an outward manifestation or appearance. The word morphē refers to an outward appearance or manifestation. Jesus Christ was in the outward appearance of God, so much so that he said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Christ always did the Father’s will, and perfectly represented his Father in every way.

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

And basically that's all trinitarians have. And I mean 100 percent of what they have. They have nothing else.

 

[Peterlag]

A pretty serious mistake on your part is that the only significance of Jesus being "made like his brothers in every respect" is if Jesus begins as something distinct from his brothers and thus of his divinity, as shown in Hebrews 1. There would be no reason to share this point otherwise.

I never make any serious mistakes concerning the trinity. Not even little ones.

 

[Runningman]

you love comparing apples to oranges. that is an error. It fails as an argument
Edited: you make the mistake of seeing one verse cancel out another. The task in scripture is dominantly making the most accommodating sense of such scriptures instead of using the one you like to deny the one you dislike

Correct, apples and oranges between God and angels. Glad you seem to know the difference now.

 

[Peterlag]

Looking at the book of Acts, we find that Paul's ministry was consistently focused on this:

Acts 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.

Acts 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

Acts 26:22-23 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: 23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Acts 28:31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

NOT ONCE did Luke record that Paul taught "Jesus is God".

 

[mikesw]

Looking at the book of Acts, we find that Paul's ministry was consistently focused on this:

Acts 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.

Acts 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

Acts 26:22-23 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: 23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Acts 28:31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

NOT ONCE did Luke record that Paul taught "Jesus is God".

Great. You want to use mention of Paul by Luke to deny the deity of Christ evident in John 1? That is pretty weak.

 

[Peterlag]

Great. You want to use mention of Paul by Luke to deny the deity of Christ evident in John 1? That is pretty weak.

Always attacking the person but never what is posted.

 

[mikesw]

Always attacking the person but never what is posted.

i am rejecting your debate failures. That hardly is personal unless you take your ignorance personally.

 

[Peterlag]

i am rejecting your debate failures. That hardly is personal unless you take your ignorance personally.

You can't win on the issues, so you mock me with little slights each and every time. You say nothing about what is posted. You respond with...

1.) A pretty serious mistake on your part.

2.) Or... You missed what you just quoted.

3.) Or... That is clumsy of you.

4.) Or... I understand how much of scripture is beyond you.

But almost always nothing about what is posted like the following...

Looking at the book of Acts, we find that Paul's ministry was consistently focused on this:

Acts 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.

Acts 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

Acts 26:22-23 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: 23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Acts 28:31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

NOT ONCE did Luke record that Paul taught "Jesus is God".

 

[mikesw]

You can't win on the issues, so you mock me with little slights each and every time. You say nothing about what is posted. You respond with...

1.) A pretty serious mistake on your part.

2.) Or... You missed what you just quoted.

3.) Or... That is clumsy of you.

4.) Or... I understand how much of scripture is beyond you.

But almost always nothing about what is posted like the following...

Looking at the book of Acts, we find that Paul's ministry was consistently focused on this:

Acts 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.

Acts 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

Acts 26:22-23 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: 23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Acts 28:31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

NOT ONCE did Luke record that Paul taught "Jesus is God".

you said nothing worthwhile. what should I answer with? hahaha