Unique, Not Only-Begotten

[Randy]

How can anyone say they have a guarantee to the afterlife, and still be right? It is a conceit.

By the good deposit.

You should really consider translation tags, even acronymic one would help. It actually their sin remaine. They were blind because they knew they were doing wrong.

I don't believe original sin, if it should be called that, is inherited.

I believe in the weakness of the flesh and all will sin but not that people are born sinful. We overcome that weakness by the Spirit of Christ in us.

Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

 

[Runningman]

Neither do I. The bible doesn't contradict itself, you do.

We’ll see.

Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” (Jn. 20:28)

Thomas wasn’t referring to Jesus as his God. The only God Jesus spoke of is the Father which is also Jesus’ God. John 17:3 says the only true God is the Father. In Matt 23:9 Jesus while on Earth said to call no one on earth your father, but that the Father is in heaven. Jesus denied being the true God as sola scripture testifies.

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. (Phil. 2:5-8)

Philippians 2:5 says “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,”

After that Paul told the Philippians what the mind of Christ is. The mind of Christ isn’t Jesus believing that he was God.

But to the Son He (God) says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever .... "... Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You..."“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth." (Heb. 1:8, 1:9, 1:10)

Hebrews 1:10 begins with the conjunction "And," indicating a continuation or addition to the previous statement. The previous statement in Hebrews 1:9 is about God anointing someone above their companions with the oil of joy. The one who was anointed has a God. The "O Lord" in Hebrews 1:10 refers back to the previously mentioned God which would be the Father. Therefore "O Lord" is a direct reference to God, specifically to the God who laid the foundations of the earth and created the heavens.

The one who created the heavens and earth is the Sovereign Lord and Creator as Acts 4:23-31 says. Jesus is God's servant.

You deserve it

Luke 6
29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also.

for your false dichotomy,

What is the false dichotomy you feel I used?

and for claiming Sola Scriptura

Quoting scripture is sola scriptura.

and yet denying the deity of Jesus.

Jesus denied being God.

Jesus is both God AND man,

Not according to sola scriptura.

all God's authority in heaven and on earth has been given to him.

Jesus needed to be given authority. God does not need to be given authority.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

God cannot be flesh; it would limit him.

Yes, to a certain place at a certain time that fulfilled his prophecy.

 

[Runningman]

There are other words in Greek that imply good, but thayer quotes a Latin document to this as explained by Plato, Crat., p. 412 c. [others besides; cf. Donaldson, New Crat. § 323]: "perfectus,... qui habet in se ac facit omnia quae habere et facere debet pro notione nominis, officio ac lege". Do you know Latin?

Okay thank you. No I don’t know much Latin.

 

[Randy]

We’ll see.


Thomas wasn’t referring to Jesus as his God. The only God Jesus spoke of is the Father which is also Jesus’ God. John 17:3 says the only true God is the Father. In Matt 23:9 Jesus while on Earth said to call no one on earth your father, but that the Father is in heaven. Jesus denied being the true God as sola scripture testifies.

While I agree Thomas wasn't making a theological statement in regard to the nature of the Son the truthful accounting as in what took place was captured. "My Lord and My God" was what He did state so that was the accounting testified to.

Jesus needed to be given authority. God does not need to be given authority.

I ask why the need? Hebrews 1:6
Because He has always been the Son. The Fathers nature was gifted to that Son who is stated before ALL things. Col 1:19
And that given nature in Him created. Just as in the Son of Man the Father living in Him doing His work. The Fathers works as Jesus stated HE performed testify to that oneness. God spoke to us BY His Son. God created BY His Son.
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

It should be God from true God as the Father is the only true God and Jesus is the only like to like begotten Son of the Father. Such a being would be a Son who has the very nature of the Father. As in God. It probably wouldn't read well if stated in the beginning was God and He was with God and He was God. So Jesus was addressed as the Word of life or Word even though we have His testimony that it was the Father living in Him doing His work. It gives clarity to the one John is testifying about, Jesus our Lord as opposed to God our Father.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Thomas wasn’t referring to Jesus as his God.

Yes he was, you're just denying, you're thinking his exclamation is something like OMG, nothing could be further from the truth. Thomas was not taking the Lord's name in vain.

Philippians 2:5 says “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,”

After that Paul told the Philippians what the mind of Christ is. The mind of Christ isn’t Jesus believing that he was God.

That mind is a mind of humility, which seems to be totally foreign to you.

Hebrews 1:10 begins with the conjunction "And," indicating a continuation or addition to the previous statement.

If you believe that, then all of these are exaltation of Jesus the Son at the beginning of 1:8, in 1:9 God is directly calling the Son God whom he anointed. God wasn't anointing a random servant, God was anointing Jesus whom he called God. In 1:8 God was addressing Jesus the Son, and since it's a continuation, in 1:10 God was addressing Jesus the son as well, thank you for acknowledging Jesus's deity.

Luke 6
29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also.

That's not how Jesus responded:

when He had said these things, one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, “Do You answer the high priest like that?” Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why do you strike Me?” (Jn.18:22-23)

What is the false dichotomy you feel I used?

Jesus must be either God or man, when it's clear as day that He's both.

Not according to sola scriptura.

Quoting scripture is sola scriptura.

Go read the OP and educate yourself. Quote whatever you want, the result is the same:

"Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
For the hearts of this people have grown dull."

Jesus denied being God.

He didn't, you do. "Before Abraham was, I AM."

Jesus needed to be given authority. God does not need to be given authority.

Who are you to tell God what to do? You're being insolent.

 

[GodsGrace]

Carry_Your_Name
Runningman

Please do not make personal remarks.
Please reply only to the topic.
Thanks.

 

[7thMoon]

According to Thayer, "excelling in any respect, distinguished, good." This is the translation of the Latin. Sounds like perfect or ideal to me.

 

[Runningman]

While I agree Thomas wasn't making a theological statement in regard to the nature of the Son the truthful accounting as in what took place was captured. "My Lord and My God" was what He did state so that was the accounting testified to.

It would have to be assumed that is what Thomas meant as it isn't explicit or supported by something Jesus had previously said.

I ask why the need? Hebrews 1:6
Because He has always been the Son. The Fathers nature was gifted to that Son who is stated before ALL things. Col 1:19
And that given nature in Him created. Just as in the Son of Man the Father living in Him doing His work. The Fathers works as Jesus stated HE performed testify to that oneness. God spoke to us BY His Son. God created BY His Son.
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Colossians 1:15-20 it just says Christ is the "image" of the invisible God. That doesn't mean Jesus is God. God is invisible, Jesus isn't invisible. The Father is called God in dozens of places and Jesus isn't.

It gives clarity to the one John is testifying about, Jesus our Lord as opposed to God our Father.

Why not just accept the only God is the Father since that's what the Bible says?

 

[Runningman]

Yes he was, you're just denying, you're thinking his exclamation is something like OMG

Why not though?

That mind is a mind of humility, which seems to be totally foreign to you.

If you believe that, then all of these are exaltation of Jesus the Son at the beginning of 1:8, in 1:9 God is directly calling the Son God whom he anointed. God wasn't anointing a random servant, God was anointing Jesus whom he called God. In 1:8 God was addressing Jesus the Son, and since it's a continuation, in 1:10 God was addressing Jesus the son as well, thank you for acknowledging Jesus's deity.

It's wordy enough that it doesn't have to be interpreted the way you do. I take into account the broader context to inform how to understand something.

That's not how Jesus responded:

when He had said these things, one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, “Do You answer the high priest like that?” Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why do you strike Me?” (Jn.18:22-23)

Hey, you're the one who said I deserved a backhanded comment. Just own it.

Jesus must be either God or man, when it's clear as day that He's both.

Numbers 23:19 says God isn't a man. Can you explain that please?

Go read the OP and educate yourself. Quote whatever you want, the result is the same:

It's certainly provocative since it denies that Jesus is the begotten son of God.

He didn't, you do. "Before Abraham was, I AM."

In Exodus 3:14,15 the I AM is YHWH. In Acts 3:13, Jesus is His servant. Not the same person.

I would offer you that John 8:58 isn't a reference to deity.

Who are you to tell God what to do? You're being insolent.

??

What did I tell God to do?

 

[Randy]

It would have to be assumed that is what Thomas meant as it isn't explicit or supported by something Jesus had previously said.

I gave my take. The accounting was what Thomas stated nothing less nothing more.

Colossians 1:15-20 it just says Christ is the "image" of the invisible God. That doesn't mean Jesus is God. God is invisible, Jesus isn't invisible. The Father is called God in dozens of places and Jesus isn't.

It just says Jesus is the image of the invisible God are you kidding?The Son-singular context
Supremacy, (preemience) in all things
The creation
The church
The resurrection
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullnessdwell in him,.

Hebrews 1 That same Son (singular) contrasted to the angels of God.

Why not just accept the only God is the Father since that's what the Bible says?

One God the Father; One Lord Jesus Christ
It should be clear to all that the Son has the Fathers nature not His own.

 

[Free]

No, he called Jesus his lord, and YHWH his God. What you say is totally disputable.

No. One has to add YHWH into the text to get that understanding. Thomas is directly addressing only Jesus. I realize that you and others desperately don’t want Jesus to be God, but if we are to be faithful to the biblical witness and so put our faith in the Christ of the Bible, then the only position on the matter is that Jesus is both truly the one God, as the Father is, and truly man but that he isn’t the Father.

Thomas was less blessed, because he doubted. I did not say he was unblessed.

That is what I’ve said, so why are you disputing this?

 

[Runningman]

I gave my take. The accounting was what Thomas stated nothing less nothing more.

Me too.

It just says Jesus is the image of the invisible God are you kidding?The Son-singular context
Supremacy, (preemience) in all things
The creation
The church
The resurrection
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullnessdwell in him,.

The context is regarding the church. It's not literally "all things" or literally "everything."

Ephesians 1
22And God put everything under His feet and made Him head over everything for the church, 23which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

One God the Father; One Lord Jesus Christ
It should be clear to all that the Son has the Fathers nature not His own.

Jesus is only Lord to those who obey him. The context is about the church. God is the creator. I hope that helps.

 

[Runningman]

No. One has to add YHWH into the text to get that understanding. Thomas is directly addressing only Jesus. I realize that you and others desperately don’t want Jesus to be God, but if we are to be faithful to the biblical witness and so put our faith in the Christ of the Bible, then the only position on the matter is that Jesus is both truly the one God, as the Father is, and truly man but that he isn’t the Father.


That is what I’ve said, so why are you disputing this?

There isn't a way to exegete Thomas' words. Either Thomas didn't mean explicitly what you seem to think he said or he was a lone wolf. No one echoed Thomas' words, not even Jesus. We should be followers of Jesus who said that his God is the Father.

John 20
17“Do not cling to Me,” Jesus said, “for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and tell My brothers, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.’ ”

 

[Free]

There isn't a way to exegete Thomas' words.

Yes, there most certainly is and many have done so. The text clearly says that Thomas "said to him," which refers only to Jesus. There simply is no question that Thomas called Jesus his Lord and his God.

Either Thomas didn't mean explicitly what you seem to think he said or he was a lone wolf. No one echoed Thomas' words, not even Jesus.

Thomas meant exactly what he said--it isn't even a matter of what I "seem to think he said;" the Greek is clear--and he wasn't a lone wolf. One has to ignore many things Jesus said to think that he never explicitly or implicitly claimed to be God, equal to the Father. One also has to ignore many things the writers of the NT state. And that is the ongoing issue.

As I have stated more than once, Jesus not only does not rebuke Thomas for his words, he acknowledges Thomas's faith based on those words. So, even if Thomas was a lone wolf, that would make Jesus a blasphemer if he wasn't actually God.

We should be followers of Jesus who said that his God is the Father.

John 20
17“Do not cling to Me,” Jesus said, “for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and tell My brothers, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.’ ”

From the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary:

"I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God — words of incomparable glory! Jesus had called God habitually His Father, and on one occasion, in His darkest moment, His God. But both are here united, expressing that full-orbed relationship which embraces in its vast sweep at once Himself and His redeemed. Yet, note well, He says not, Our Father and our God. All the deepest of the Church fathers were wont to call attention to this, as expressly designed to distinguish between what God is to Him and to us - His Father essentially, ours not so: our God essentially, His not so: His God only in connection with us: our God only in connection with Him."

It is a statement by the incarnate Son that he was returning to the place he had prior to his incarnation (John 1:1-3; 6:38, 62; 8:23-24; 16:28; 17:5, 24; Phil 2:5-8; etc.)

We must understand the entire context and not ignore John's prologue, Jesus's claims to have preexisted with the Father and his claim to be the I Am, Thomas's clear confession, etc. And those are from John's gospel alone; there are still all the other NT passages.

There are two equal but opposite errors when it comes to understanding Jesus and his relationship to the Father. One is to take every verse that speaks of Jesus's humanity and use them to trump those which speak clearly of his deity. The other is to take every verse that speaks clearly of Jesus's deity and use them to trump those which speak clearly of his humanity.

You, and every other denier of the deity of Jesus, continually do the former; Gnostics do the latter. But that is only how one forces one's bias and preconceived ideas into the texts and is not good biblical exegesis. Trinitarians, however, do what should be done by taking it all into account and making sense of all of it.

 

[7thMoon]

No. One has to add YHWH into the text to get that understanding.

I disagree 100 percent. He is trying to make a sentence. The objects are both nominatives.

That is what I’ve said, so why are you disputing this?

I am not disputing it. I have to make position clear.

 

[Free]

I disagree 100 percent. He is trying to make a sentence. The objects are both nominatives.

Then why didn't he "make a sentence"? The text says "Answered Thomas and said to him the Lord of me and the God of me." And that was after Jesus repeated Thomas's very words back to him, although Jesus obviously had not been present when Thomas said them. Thomas is speaking one and only one person, Jesus. To suggest he was "trying to make a sentence," as though he was trying to address both the Son and the Father, is reading that into the text. It is completely unwarranted.

 

[Runningman]

Yes, there most certainly is and many have done so. The text clearly says that Thomas "said to him," which refers only to Jesus. There simply is no question that Thomas called Jesus his Lord and his God.

What Thomas said isn't explicit enough to mean he was referring to Jesus as his God, i.e., Thomas didn't say "You are my God." This is easy to test. If someone looked at you and said, "My lord and my God!" Would you think they were attempting to deify you? I think most people would interpret that as an exclamation or perhaps even a prayer to God. I certainly wouldn't think someone was calling me God. Since Jesus is a man who never claimed to be God, then it follows that isn't how Jesus would have interpretted Thomas' words.

Thomas meant exactly what he said--it isn't even a matter of what I "seem to think he said;" the Greek is clear--and he wasn't a lone wolf. One has to ignore many things Jesus said to think that he never explicitly or implicitly claimed to be God, equal to the Father. One also has to ignore many things the writers of the NT state. And that is the ongoing issue.

Seems that the context favors the interpretation that since Jesus was resurrected and had holes in his body, when Thomas finally saw him, he was shocked and, for lack of words, simply said "My lord and my God." The context isn't about Jesus being God.

As I have stated more than once, Jesus not only does not rebuke Thomas for his words, he acknowledges Thomas's faith based on those words.

Jesus rebuked Thomas by saying that only those who believe without seeing are the blessed ones. That's a criticism of Thomas' doubting heart. It is widely known, even among secular folk, that Thomas is a doubter.

So, even if Thomas was a lone wolf, that would make Jesus a blasphemer if he wasn't actually God.

According to scripture Jesus never sinned so Jesus being a blasphemer isn't a Biblical concept. Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

From the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary:

"I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God — words of incomparable glory! Jesus had called God habitually His Father, and on one occasion, in His darkest moment, His God. But both are here united, expressing that full-orbed relationship which embraces in its vast sweep at once Himself and His redeemed. Yet, note well, He says not, Our Father and our God. All the deepest of the Church fathers were wont to call attention to this, as expressly designed to distinguish between what God is to Him and to us - His Father essentially, ours not so: our God essentially, His not so: His God only in connection with us: our God only in connection with Him."

It is a statement by the incarnate Son that he was returning to the place he had prior to his incarnation (John 1:1-3; 6:38, 62; 8:23-24; 16:28; 17:5, 24; Phil 2:5-8; etc.)

Thanks for sharing that persons' opinion, but I prefer Jesus' words about his Father and God are also our Father and God.

We must understand the entire context and not ignore John's prologue, Jesus's claims to have preexisted with the Father and his claim to be the I Am, Thomas's clear confession, etc. And those are from John's gospel alone; there are still all the other NT passages.

Jesus said the Father is his God. John 17:3 says the Father is the only true God. I am a Christian so I have the same God as Jesus.

There are two equal but opposite errors when it comes to understanding Jesus and his relationship to the Father. One is to take every verse that speaks of Jesus's humanity and use them to trump those which speak clearly of his deity. The other is to take every verse that speaks clearly of Jesus's deity and use them to trump those which speak clearly of his humanity.

The verses that allegedly speak of Jesus' deity are not explicit. What is an example of Jesus being God?

Trinitarians, however, do what should be done by taking it all into account and making sense of all of it.

I see that Trinitarianism relies on tradition, assumption, and projection to superimpose their beliefs over the Bible, but when compared to what the Bible explicitly says, it fails completely to match up.

 

[GodsGrace]

What Thomas said isn't explicit enough to mean he was referring to Jesus as his God, i.e., Thomas didn't say "You are my God." This is easy to test. If someone looked at you and said, "My lord and my God!" Would you think they were attempting to deify you? I think most people would interpret that as an exclamation or perhaps even a prayer to God. I certainly wouldn't think someone was calling me God. Since Jesus is a man who never claimed to be God, then it follows that isn't how Jesus would have interpretted Thomas' words.

Seems that the context favors the interpretation that since Jesus was resurrected and had holes in his body, when Thomas finally saw him, he was shocked and, for lack of words, simply said "My lord and my God." The context isn't about Jesus being God.

Jesus rebuked Thomas by saying that only those who believe without seeing are the blessed ones. That's a criticism of Thomas' doubting heart. It is widely known, even among secular folk, that Thomas is a doubter.


According to scripture Jesus never sinned so Jesus being a blasphemer isn't a Biblical concept. Not sure how you came to that conclusion.


Thanks for sharing that persons' opinion, but I prefer Jesus' words about his Father and God are also our Father and God.

Jesus said the Father is his God. John 17:3 says the Father is the only true God. I am a Christian so I have the same God as Jesus.

The verses that allegedly speak of Jesus' deity are not explicit. What is an example of Jesus being God?


I see that Trinitarianism relies on tradition, assumption, and projection to superimpose their beliefs over the Bible, but when compared to what the Bible explicitly says, it fails completely to match up.

TRinitarians rely on the bible.
Please reply only to the topic at hand.

 

[7thMoon]

Then why didn't he "make a sentence"? The text says "Answered Thomas and said to him the Lord of me and the God of me." And that was after Jesus repeated Thomas's very words back to him, although Jesus obviously had not been present when Thomas said them. Thomas is speaking one and only one person, Jesus. To suggest he was "trying to make a sentence," as though he was trying to address both the Son and the Father, is reading that into the text. It is completely unwarranted.

Actually four nominatives in the phrase ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου, plus two possessives and one και. If there was one entity, the kai would be unnecessary. You are reading into the text, sir.