Data on John 1:1

[Free]

This is all the data I could find on John 1:1. Enjoy...

“In the beginning.” There are elements of John 1:1 and other phrases in the introduction of John that remind us of God’s original creation while referring to the work of restoration done by Jesus Christ in the new administration and the new creation. Genesis 1 refers to God’s original creation; John 1 refers to the Restoration, not the original creation.


Genesis 1. THE CREATION

John 1. THE RESTORATION

• In the beginning—the plan
• All things were made in accordance with the plan
• In the plan was light and life
• The darkness could not understand or overcome it
• The plan became flesh and lived in a tent among us, and we gazed at its glory.

"In the beginning," in John 1:1a, refers to the beginning of all creation. The context clearly indicates that. John is telling us who the Son is; that is the whole point of his prologue which sets up our understanding of Jesus for the rest of his gospel.

Since I don't know Greek, I must lean on other sources.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ESV)

Looking at the first clause, "In the beginning" is clearly a reference to Gen 1:1. John’s readers would have expected “God” next, but instead see “was the Word.” It is significant that God created by speaking and here John says that the Word was in the beginning “with God” yet also, in some way, “was God.” He then states in verse 3 that the Word was involved in the creation of all that came into being. The word "was" is the Greek, en, which is a form of eimi (I Am), and speaks of continuous action in the past; that is, absolute preexistence before any creation. What that means is that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence, and hence, there was never a time when he did not exist. The very same applies to the Father, who has absolute preexistence.

In the second clause, "and the Word was with God," it is the Greek pros that is translated as "with." But it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It is in the accusative and expresses “direction towards,” as in relationship and communion, implying intimacy. It is important to note here that in the Greek the article is present, so it literally reads, "the Word was with [the] God." So, God is a reference to someone other than the Word, at a minimum it is a reference to the Father.

When it comes to the last clause, "the Word was God," it is significant that "God" doesn't have the article in the Greek, as it did in the preceding clause. If the article had been present then "Word" and "God" become interchangeable— they would be one and the same—which is the error of Modalism/Oneness theology. But this whole passage is about the logos, who the logos is, not who God is, so John purposely doesn't use the article to avoid equating the two words. Therefore, it can only have a qualitative meaning, that is, that the Word was divine in nature, or deity. However, since there is only one God, it is rightly translated as "the Word was God."

As part of the context we must also consider verses 2, 3, 10, and 14:

Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. (ESV)

We see a repeat of verse 1 with the use of en, pros, and God with the article, reaffirming the timeless preexistence of the Word who was in active, close communion with the Father.

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

Simple, straightforward logic tells us that since "all things were made through" the Word, and that "without him was not any thing made that was made," it necessarily follows that the Word is not something that was made (see also 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:16-17). That is, there never was a time when the Word did not exist, which clearly affirms what was said in the two preceding verses.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. (ESV)

Here we see that "the world was made through him," which clearly is speaking of the Son, who became Jesus. This can only mean that he was in existence when the creation began and is, therefore, eternal. Otherwise, it's a false claim on the part of John and undermines the inspiration of what he wrote.

John then makes it clear in verse 14 that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." That is, the Word, not the Father, entered into time--Greek for "become" is egeneto (same as "made" in verse 3)--and took on human flesh. This is precisely what Paul is speaking of and expands on in Phil 2:5-8.

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

This is pretty self-explanatory.

The Son was involved in creation, and so was the Holy Spirit, but the Father is the originator. There is very much a reason why Gen 1 says that God created by speaking and why John 1:1 says that the divine logos was in the beginning "with God." As Vern S. Poythress says:

"Logos in the Greek has a range of meaning, including reason, law, word, speaking, declaration. The meaning "reason" explains why the study of reasoning came to be called logic. The meanings related to communication and discourse are mot pertinent to understanding the word logos in John 1:1. In John 1:1 the phrase "In the beginning" alludes to Genesis 1:1. And John 1:3 explicitly says that "all things were made through him," alluding to God's work of creation in Genesis 1.
. . .
John 1:1-3, by reflecting back on Genesis 1, indicates that the particular speeches of God in Genesis 1 have an organic relation to a deeper reality in God himself. The particular speeches derive from the One who is uniquely the Word, who is the eternal speech of God. God has an eternal speaking, namely, the Word who was with God and who was God. Then he has also a particular speaking in acts of creation in Genesis 1. This particular speaking harmonizes with and expresses his eternal speaking."

It is very interesting and seems to be very purposeful that John 1:1 speaks of plurality within the one God, just as Gen 1:26-27 do so as well. John was not only very specific in his grammar, as I have pointed out, he was intentional in bringing Genesis 1 to bear on his description of who the Word is.

 

[Free]

The above list is not exhaustive, but it does show that logos has a very wide range of meanings. With all the ways logos can be translated, how can we decide which meaning of logos to choose for any one verse? How can it be determined what logos refers to in John 1:1? Any occurrence of logos has to be carefully studied in its context in order to get the proper meaning. We assert that the logos in John 1:1 cannot be Jesus. Please notice that “Jesus Christ” is not a lexical definition of logos. John 1:1 does not say, “In the beginning was Jesus.”

“The Word” is not synonymous with Jesus, or even “the Messiah.”

This is to state the obvious as well as miss the obvious. Jesus is the name given to the incarnate Son of God, but Logos refers to the Son of God in his preincarnate state. Note again that in John 1:10-11, John is clearly talking about Jesus:

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
Joh 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. (ESV)

Yet, he also states that "the world was made through him." This clearly shows that John considered the Logos a person, namely, the preincarnate Son. That is, he is simply calling the Son, ho Logos. Those are essentially synonymous.

The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God’s creative self-expression—His reason, purposes, and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God’s self-expression, or communication, of Himself. Thus the logos has been expressed through His creation (Rom. 1:19-20) and Psalm 19 tell us that the heavens declare the glory of God. The logos has also been made known through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture, which is the written “Word of God.” Most notably and finally, it has come into being through His Son (Heb. 1:1-2).

Whatever meaning one wants to attach to logos in John 1, it is clearly a "person" and God in nature. It is no accident that only John uses logos of the Son, not only here, but in Rev.:

Rev 19:11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself.
Rev 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. (ESV)

 

[Free]

Well, since Trinitarians are in disagreement with each other, I am only going by what I’ve mostly heard. And most of what I heard is that the Angel, because he was called both LORD and God had to be someone other than just one person.
In order to for an “us” to apply, it must recognize more than one person. And since it is said that man was made in the image of “us” it requires that more than one person is involved in the creation of man.
Now, the “us” can refer to multiple persons who are the one God, or to persons who are considered to be the one God but not actually the one God who is actually one person. That person being the Father only.

So, you were and are just committing the fallacy of equivocation, then, with saying that "Most Trinitarian and JW’s believe Jesus was the Angel of the Lord in the OT." JWs believe that Jesus literally preexisted as the archangel Micheal, and so they might believe that in his preincarnate state he was "the Angel of the LORD." His name Michael and position as archangel simply refer to "his heavenly role," including post-ascension.

https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel-jesus/

Trinitarians who believe that "Jesus" (properly the Son) was the Angel of the LORD, it isn't because he was literally an angel, but that was just a title as God's messenger. It couldn't actually be Jesus, since Jesus is the name of the incarnate Son.

 

[Free]

As we said above, although the wording of the Greek text of John 1:1 certainly favors the translation “and what God was, the Word was” over the translation “the Word was God” the context and scope of Scripture must be the final arbiter.

Which is to essentially say the same thing. John is showing us who the Word is, not who God is. To say that "what God was, the Word was," is to ascribe deity or divinity to the Word, but since only God is deity, it is proper to say "the Word was God."

In this case, we have help from the verse itself in the phrase “the Word was with God.” The Word (logos) cannot both be “with” God and “be” God. That is nonsensical.

This is just poor reasoning that is fallaciously begging the question by first assuming that the Word is not a distinct person from the Father. It ignores the rest of the context of John's prologue, the rest of John's gospel, and the rest of the NT.

The Word can indeed be both with God and God if the Word is a divine person that is true deity, of the same substance as the one God, yet distinct from the Father. There is no contradiction there.

It is similar to us being able to discern that Jesus Christ is not God from reading 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Colossians 1:15, which say that Jesus is the image of God. One cannot be both the image of the object and the object itself.

Again, fallaciously begging the question. That one would argue to Col. 1:15 to say that "Jesus Christ is not God," is to completely ignore the two verses that follow:

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

Verses 16 and 17 are in complete agreement with John 1:1-3, 10, 1 Cor. 8:6, and Heb. 1:2, 10-12. The logical argument Paul makes here is identical to that of John 1:3 and 1 Cor. 8:6. If, by the Son, "all things were created," then it necessarily follows that the Son cannot be something that was created. Put another way, if the Son was created, then it is logically impossible that "by him all things were created." There is simply no way around this.

One cannot be both created and the means of creation of everything that has been created.

 

[Peterlag7]

Which is to essentially say the same thing. John is showing us who the Word is, not who God is. To say that "what God was, the Word was," is to ascribe deity or divinity to the Word, but since only God is deity, it is proper to say "the Word was God."


This is just poor reasoning that is fallaciously begging the question by first assuming that the Word is not a distinct person from the Father. It ignores the rest of the context of John's prologue, the rest of John's gospel, and the rest of the NT.

The Word can indeed be both with God and God if the Word is a divine person that is true deity, of the same substance as the one God, yet distinct from the Father. There is no contradiction there.


Again, fallaciously begging the question. That one would argue to Col. 1:15 to say that "Jesus Christ is not God," is to completely ignore the two verses that follow:

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

Verses 16 and 17 are in complete agreement with John 1:1-3, 10, 1 Cor. 8:6, and Heb. 1:2, 10-12. The logical argument Paul makes here is identical to that of John 1:3 and 1 Cor. 8:6. If, by the Son, "all things were created," then it necessarily follows that the Son cannot be something that was created. Put another way, if the Son was created, then it is logically impossible that "by him all things were created." There is simply no way around this.

One cannot be both created and the means of creation of everything that has been created.

The all things created in Colossians 1:16 are not planets, stars, and oceans that God created. What the Lord created is listed right there in the verse. They are thrones, dominions, and authorities that he will need to govern his new administration after he returns.

 

[Peterlag7]

So much relevant context left out. Jesus being God's representative does not preclude him from also being God.


Thomas's declaration, said to Jesus was, "the Lord of me and the God of me." There is nothing to indicate that he saw the Father in Jesus and that is what he meant. That goes against a plain reading of the verse and the context. It is a clear indication that he and the disciples believed Jesus has had a divine nature.

John's gospel, from beginning to end, can only be properly understood in the light of the true deity (and humanity) of Jesus.

“My Lord and my God.” A very likely way to understand John 20:28 is 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.

 

[tigger II]

“My Lord and my God.” A very likely way to understand John 20:28 is 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.

............................................................
Thomas' statement is not an address to anyone. It is a statement of praise for Jesus' resurrection. Words of praise often were not complete statements. Its probable meaning is "My Lord and my God be praised!" We know this by all the evidence presented in the "My God" link below. You will find that Thomas' statement cannot be an address (vocative) to anyone.
We also have John's statement immediately after this:

"Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in His name." - NASB.​

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/mygod.html

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2016/04/all-uses-of-vocative-noun-of-address.html

 

[Free]

The all things created in Colossians 1:16 are not planets, stars, and oceans that God created. What the Lord created is listed right there in the verse. They are thrones, dominions, and authorities that he will need to govern his new administration after he returns.

That is a very selective reading:

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

First, you seem to think that "all things" doesn't actually mean "all things." Second, you seem to want to limit it only to things on earth. However, even if "all things" doesn't actually mean all things but only all "thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities," that still means he created all angels, which still shows that he preexisted.

But, again, this is the very same line of reasoning we see elsewhere:

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

Two logical conclusions follow:

First, if you want the verse to say that "one God, the Father" precludes Jesus from being God, then it necessarily follows that "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from being Lord.

Second, and more importantly as far as Col. 1:16-17 is concerned, if "of whom are all things" speaks of the Father's absolute existence and his nature as God, then it necessarily follows that "by whom are all things" speaks of the Son's absolute existence and nature as God. We cannot say that in relation to the Father "all things" means absolutely everything that has come into existence but that it means something different in relation to the Son.

It is also the exact same argument that John uses in John 1:3:

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

First, there is a very simple flow of logic here. If "all things were made through" the Word, and "without him was not any thing made that was made," then if necessarily follows that the Word cannot be something that was ever made, or that entire verse is false. This is in complete agreement with Col 1:16. Both are exhaustive assertions--not one thing came into being without the Word (Christ). The only logical conclusion is that the Word has always existed.

Second, "were made," is the Greek egeneto and refers to "coming into existence." This is an action in time. John is contrasting that with en, "was," in 1:1. It is important to note that en is used only of the Word in the first 13 verses of John 1 and egeneto of everything else and not the Word. This is significant because in verse 14 we see egeneto used of the Word--"And the Word became flesh."

And, just to be sure we know of whom John is speaking:

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
...
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (ESV)

This is clearly speaking of Jesus, as the Son of God. John begins with telling us about the Logos that was in the beginning when the beginning began, that it was in close personal relationship with God and was God in nature. He then says that without the Logos not a single created thing came into being without it.

He then finishes with a succinct summation of who the Son of God is as he spoke of in the first 17 verses:

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

And we also see in other passages that Jesus, or rather the Son, was involved in creation:

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
..
Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says . . .
...
Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” (ESV)

We know that verses 10-12 are quoted from Psalm 102:25-27 and are attributed to Yahweh. Why do you think the inspired writer of Hebrews would write that the Father says those words of the Son? Those are all the more important when we look at the next chapter:

Heb 2:10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. (ESV)

That is speaking of God. And, once again, notice the use of "through whom" in speaking of the Son, in 1:2, and then "for whom and by whom" in 2:10, which is speaking of God. Heb 1:10-12 is essentially saying that creation was "by" the Son, as it is an OT passage about YHWH creating, but the Father is applying it to the Son, saying he did it.

So, simple, sound logic leads to the only conclusion that Jesus, or rather the Son, is also God in nature, being of the same substance as the Father. Yet, he clearly is distinct from the Father and is not a separate God, as both are mentioned as being involved in creation, albeit in different roles.

To sum:

1. John says that the creation of everything that has come into existence was "through" the Son, the Word.
2. Paul says that the creation of everything that has come into existence was "from" the Father.
3. Paul says that the creation of everything that has come into existence was "by," "through," and "for" the Son.
4. Paul says that we exist "for" the Father.
5. Paul says that we exist "through" the Son.
6. The writer of Hebrews says that the creation of everything that has come into existence was "through" and "by" (1:10-12) the Son.
7. The writer of Hebrews says that the creation of everything that has come into existence was "for" and "by" God.

The same language is very clearly used of both the Son and the Father, with the Father being the originator and the Son being the agent. Again, there is only one logical conclusion--one God, distinct persons, same substance.

 

[Free]

“My Lord and my God.” A very likely way to understand John 20:28 is 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.

That is, again, fallaciously begging the question. Jesus most certainly claimed to be God and there is nothing to suggest that Thomas was speaking to the Father also, but only to Jesus.

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.

First, that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God in no way whatsoever precludes him from also being God in nature. Second, don't pit scripture against scripture as though it's a numbers game; take it all into account and make sense of all of it. Different things are said in different places, but things that appear to contradict don't necessarily contradict and one doesn't necessarily cancel the other out or overrule its plain meaning.

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.

There is evidence that they believed him to be God in the flesh, yet not the Father. Clearly John thought Jesus was God in human flesh, given what he wrote in his prologue. He then continues with this throughout his gospel, the culmination of which was Thomas's exclamation that Jesus was the Lord of him and the God of him.

The claim to be the "Son of God" is an implicit claim to deity, as the Jews knew and twice wanted to kill Jesus for blasphemy (John 5:17-18; 10:30-33). Jesus was worshipped on several occasions and claimed to be from heaven and to have existed prior to creation with the Father. He also claimed to have absolute existence, not merely preexistence (John 8:58).

There was absolutely nothing about "birthing a new theology in a moment of surprise," as it was a culmination of being with Jesus for three years and not only seeing him do amazing things, but also make claims about himself.

 

[Free]

............................................................
Thomas' statement is not an address to anyone. It is a statement of praise for Jesus' resurrection. Words of praise often were not complete statements. Its probable meaning is "My Lord and my God be praised!" We know this by all the evidence presented in the "My God" link below. You will find that Thomas' statement cannot be an address (vocative) to anyone.
We also have John's statement immediately after this:

"Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in His name." - NASB.​

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/mygod.html

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2016/04/all-uses-of-vocative-noun-of-address.html

It is clearly a statement to Jesus. The Greek is:

Answered Thomas and said to him, the Lord of me and the God of me.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/20.htm

 

[Peterlag7]

That is, again, fallaciously begging the question. Jesus most certainly claimed to be God and there is nothing to suggest that Thomas was speaking to the Father also, but only to Jesus.


First, that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God in no way whatsoever precludes him from also being God in nature. Second, don't pit scripture against scripture as though it's a numbers game; take it all into account and make sense of all of it. Different things are said in different places, but things that appear to contradict don't necessarily contradict and one doesn't necessarily cancel the other out or overrule its plain meaning.


There is evidence that they believed him to be God in the flesh, yet not the Father. Clearly John thought Jesus was God in human flesh, given what he wrote in his prologue. He then continues with this throughout his gospel, the culmination of which was Thomas's exclamation that Jesus was the Lord of him and the God of him.

The claim to be the "Son of God" is an implicit claim to deity, as the Jews knew and twice wanted to kill Jesus for blasphemy (John 5:17-18; 10:30-33). Jesus was worshipped on several occasions and claimed to be from heaven and to have existed prior to creation with the Father. He also claimed to have absolute existence, not merely preexistence (John 8:58).

There was absolutely nothing about "birthing a new theology in a moment of surprise," as it was a culmination of being with Jesus for three years and not only seeing him do amazing things, but also make claims about himself.

The Jews would not have considered Jesus a threat, but insane if he had walked around saying he was God. But it was a threat for Jesus to claim to be the Messiah of God and also walk around doing miracles. 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.

 

[Peterlag7]

That is a very selective reading:

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

First, you seem to think that "all things" doesn't actually mean "all things." Second, you seem to want to limit it only to things on earth. However, even if "all things" doesn't actually mean all things but only all "thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities," that still means he created all angels, which still shows that he preexisted.

But, again, this is the very same line of reasoning we see elsewhere:

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

Two logical conclusions follow:

First, if you want the verse to say that "one God, the Father" precludes Jesus from being God, then it necessarily follows that "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from being Lord.

Second, and more importantly as far as Col. 1:16-17 is concerned, if "of whom are all things" speaks of the Father's absolute existence and his nature as God, then it necessarily follows that "by whom are all things" speaks of the Son's absolute existence and nature as God. We cannot say that in relation to the Father "all things" means absolutely everything that has come into existence but that it means something different in relation to the Son.

It is also the exact same argument that John uses in John 1:3:

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

First, there is a very simple flow of logic here. If "all things were made through" the Word, and "without him was not any thing made that was made," then if necessarily follows that the Word cannot be something that was ever made, or that entire verse is false. This is in complete agreement with Col 1:16. Both are exhaustive assertions--not one thing came into being without the Word (Christ). The only logical conclusion is that the Word has always existed.

Second, "were made," is the Greek egeneto and refers to "coming into existence." This is an action in time. John is contrasting that with en, "was," in 1:1. It is important to note that en is used only of the Word in the first 13 verses of John 1 and egeneto of everything else and not the Word. This is significant because in verse 14 we see egeneto used of the Word--"And the Word became flesh."

And, just to be sure we know of whom John is speaking:

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
...
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (ESV)

This is clearly speaking of Jesus, as the Son of God. John begins with telling us about the Logos that was in the beginning when the beginning began, that it was in close personal relationship with God and was God in nature. He then says that without the Logos not a single created thing came into being without it.

He then finishes with a succinct summation of who the Son of God is as he spoke of in the first 17 verses:

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

And we also see in other passages that Jesus, or rather the Son, was involved in creation:

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
..
Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says . . .
...
Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” (ESV)

We know that verses 10-12 are quoted from Psalm 102:25-27 and are attributed to Yahweh. Why do you think the inspired writer of Hebrews would write that the Father says those words of the Son? Those are all the more important when we look at the next chapter:

Heb 2:10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. (ESV)

That is speaking of God. And, once again, notice the use of "through whom" in speaking of the Son, in 1:2, and then "for whom and by whom" in 2:10, which is speaking of God. Heb 1:10-12 is essentially saying that creation was "by" the Son, as it is an OT passage about YHWH creating, but the Father is applying it to the Son, saying he did it.

So, simple, sound logic leads to the only conclusion that Jesus, or rather the Son, is also God in nature, being of the same substance as the Father. Yet, he clearly is distinct from the Father and is not a separate God, as both are mentioned as being involved in creation, albeit in different roles.

To sum:

1. John says that the creation of everything that has come into existence was "through" the Son, the Word.
2. Paul says that the creation of everything that has come into existence was "from" the Father.
3. Paul says that the creation of everything that has come into existence was "by," "through," and "for" the Son.
4. Paul says that we exist "for" the Father.
5. Paul says that we exist "through" the Son.
6. The writer of Hebrews says that the creation of everything that has come into existence was "through" and "by" (1:10-12) the Son.
7. The writer of Hebrews says that the creation of everything that has come into existence was "for" and "by" God.

The same language is very clearly used of both the Son and the Father, with the Father being the originator and the Son being the agent. Again, there is only one logical conclusion--one God, distinct persons, same substance.

Okay you want to talk about "all thing." Yes all things don't always mean all things. My wife asked me the other day if there were any cookies left. I told her our son ate all the cookies last night. That did not mean our little Johnny ate all the cookies in the world.

 

[Peterlag7]

............................................................
Thomas' statement is not an address to anyone. It is a statement of praise for Jesus' resurrection. Words of praise often were not complete statements. Its probable meaning is "My Lord and my God be praised!" We know this by all the evidence presented in the "My God" link below. You will find that Thomas' statement cannot be an address (vocative) to anyone.
We also have John's statement immediately after this:

"Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in His name." - NASB.​

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/mygod.html

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2016/04/all-uses-of-vocative-noun-of-address.html

I think we agree. Thomas is not a teaching on the trinity. In fact, there's no teaching on the trinity anywhere in the Bible. No whole paragraph or chapter teaching that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

 

[LeviR]

Two logical conclusions follow:

First, if you want the verse to say that "one God, the Father" precludes Jesus from being God, then it necessarily follows that "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from being Lord.

The idea of Jesus being called “one Lord” would most certainly be a problem if the Father alone is Lord.
As you suggest, “it necessarily follows that “one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from being Lord.”

But thanks to the scripture and the great wisdom and knowledge they contain, they answer this “problem” for us.
All that is needed is that one search the scripture for truth rather than have committed themselves to the doctrines of men.

When we refer to Jesus as Lord, it means that he has come in the name of his God and Father. This he said so himself right there in the scripture.
The scripture also declares that his God has made him to be Lord. Again, right there in the scripture.

So, when we refer to Jesus as Lord, we recognize that he comes in the name of his God, was made Lord by his God, and has all power and authority his God has given him. No other man can this be said of.

So, for us who rely on the scripture for truth rather than false teaching of men, we find just what we need right there in the scripture to defend the truth against all false doctrines of men.

 

[LeviR]

I think we agree. Thomas is not a teaching on the trinity. In fact, there's no teaching on the trinity anywhere in the Bible. No whole paragraph or chapter teaching that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

My message to people is simple. The scripture foresaw that after Jesus had ascended to heaven, and that he would be with them until the end of the age, leading and confirming the truth among them by the Spirit of truth given to inspired men so that the scripture could be completed, and the gospel proclaimed throughout the world, it would all end.

That age would end with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.
There would be no more apostles, prophets and inspired men to write the scriptures. The spirit of truth Jesus had sent among them to confirm the truth by miracles and God inspired men ended when that age ended.
Afterwards, as was the case during that age, men would come who would pervert the truth and lead many astray with their false doctrines.
Since it was a struggle to maintain the truth against these perverters of it during the age of miracles and inspired men, how much more so after they were gone. It would grow worse and worse like a cancer.
This cancer is truly malignant throughout the world of what is called Christianity.