why I don't trust trinitarians interpretations

[dadof10]

2 Corinthians 4:4
In their case, the god/THEOS of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God.

The word "theos" doesn't mean "God as in the Creator." Here is a clear-cut instance where your assumption is 100% wrong.

“Doesn’t mean†EVER??? 100% wrong???

I never said there are NO instances of the word “Theos†being used for false “godsâ€Â, nor that it can ONLY refer to the Creator. But I AM saying that in Jn. 20:28 the word means the Creator God of Judaism, the eternal Logos, Yahweh, “Jehovahâ€Â. I agree with Thayer’s and other scholars that the word “Theos†in this verse means God. I could paste 1300+ verses where the word "Theos" means the Creator God. Would that make you "100% wrong" 1300 times? Because you find a verse that uses the word Theos referring to a false god doesn't mean Thomas uses the word in this context.

Are you seriously saying that when Thomas sees the risen Lord and he exclaims "MY Lord and MY GOD" he is referring to a false lord and god??? Certainly this can't be your position.

So the notion that Thomas means “the god of this world†is wrong. Besides, you debunk this view yourself below by saying “It is just as possible that he was addressing God in heaven, NOT Jesus.†Well which is it? Is he addressing the True God, or does he mean “god of this world†in John 20:28?

Are you just throwing stuff up against the wall to see what will stick? It’s obvious you are not doing any kind of proper exegesis.

The facts are that Thomas fell at Jesus' feet and said "My Lord and my God." You ASSUME that he was talking to Jesus. It is just as possible that he was addressing God in heaven, NOT Jesus.

"Just as possible"??? Hardly. Not possible at all because Scripture tells us who Thomas was addressing:

Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" This is the RSV.

The KJV says: And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

He was obviously talking to, “answeringâ€Â, Jesus, not breaking into prayer.

Jesus then says TO THOMAS “Have you believed because you have seen ME?†This is a personal conversation between Jesus and Thomas. To claim that Jesus talked to Thomas, Thomas IGNORED JESUS’ WORDS, and said a prayer, then Jesus addressed Thomas again, is simply ludicrous.

BTW, no mention of Thomas “falling at Jesus’ feet†in Scripture, although it is a pious thought, and appropriate, since Jesus is God.

Also, read John 20 for another fact:
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!†But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.â€Â

What he doubted was that Jesus had risen. Thomas doubted the resurrection until he saw Jesus, then he believed that Jesus had been raised.

Of course he doubted the resurrection, until he saw Jesus. Yet his is reaction was not to say “hey, you’re alive†or “how did this happenâ€Â. He didn’t EVEN MENTION THE RESURRECTION, only that Jesus is his “Lord†and “Godâ€Â.

He didn’t respond by mentioning the resurrection at all, he went beyond it to the heart of Christianity. If he didn’t mention it, why do you ASSUME he was referring to it?

You could see these facts if you didn’t come into Scripture with an a’ priori view of the nature of God.

To say that Jesus was talking about His being God is to take this resurrection account out of context

How so?

 

[shad]

2 Corinthians 4:4
In their case, the god/THEOS of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God.

The word "theos" doesn't mean "God as in the Creator." Here is a clear-cut instance where your assumption is 100% wrong.

“Doesn’t mean†EVER??? 100% wrong???

I never said there are NO instances of the word “Theos†being used for false “godsâ€Â

Well, the way you worded your post, you made it seem like "theos" means only one thing. That is wrong. It means one of MANY things.

nor that it can ONLY refer to the Creator. But I AM saying that in Jn. 20:28 the word means the Creator God of Judaism, the eternal Logos, Yahweh, “Jehovahâ€Â.

No, you are ASSUMING that the word means "Jehovah, Yahweh" and the like. All that is said in the Bible is "theos".

I agree with Thayer’s and other scholars that the word “Theos†in this verse means God.

I agree.
However, only trinitiarians say that it also means "Almighty God."

 

[dadof10]

I agree with Thayer’s and other scholars that the word “Theos†in this verse means God.

I agree.
However, only trinitiarians say that it also means "Almighty God."

You agree that Theos in John 20:28 means the Creator of the universe, Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Issac. and Jacob, the eternal Logos, or are we going to start playing nuanced word games?

 

[Anth]

I do not recall an OT prophet claiming to be one with the Father

Hi Fran,

We will take Jn 10:30 up when we are done with our Tertullian text. Although typically I start with Jn 10:30 - it will separate the wheat from the tares...

Best,
Anth

 

[shad]

I agree with Thayer’s and other scholars that the word “Theos†in this verse means God.

I agree.
However, only trinitiarians say that it also means "Almighty God."

You agree that Theos in John 20:28 means the Creator of the universe, Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Issac. and Jacob, the eternal Logos, or are we going to start playing nuanced word games?

Even in English, "God" means a dozen different things. Why do you insist that "theos" means "Jehovah" every time it refers to someone other than the devil?

 

[dadof10]

You agree that Theos in John 20:28 means the Creator of the universe, Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Issac. and Jacob, the eternal Logos, or are we going to start playing nuanced word games?

Even in English, "God" means a dozen different things. Why do you insist that "theos" means "Jehovah" every time it refers to someone other than the devil?

I don't. I INSIST it means the God of Israel, the Father, in John 20:28. According to Thayer's it can mean five different things: God (big G) 1320 times, god (small g) 13 times, godly 3 times, God-ward + 4214 twice and misc. five times. As you can see the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the time, it means God, as in God the Father, and more importantly to our discussion, it means God (large G) in John 20:28.

Why do you insist it be interpreted as god (small g), when all scholars disagree with you? Maybe taking a little prejudice into your Scripture reading?

If you doubt that, take a look at the context for yourself. Thomas is a JEW who addresses Jesus (as has already been established above) as "MY Lord and MY God". What do you think MY God means to a Jew? Right, the God of Israel, Yahweh, the Father, the eternal Logos. This interpretation is undeniable.

Winston Churchill was credited with quote. Someone asked him what he did when the facts change. He answered that when the facts change his opinion changes. He said this because he had CREDIBILITY. You should take heed, because the facts just changed for you.

 

[shad]

I don't. I INSIST it means the God of Israel, the Father, in John 20:28. According to Thayer's it can mean five different things: God (big G) 1320 times, god (small g) 13 times, godly 3 times, God-ward + 4214 twice and misc. five times. As you can see the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the time, it means God, as in God the Father, and more importantly to our discussion, it means God (large G) in John 20:28.

You still cannot find the Scripture saying that Jesus is God. You are rabbit tailing the argument. Pride can get you no where, dude.

 

[dadof10]

I don't. I INSIST it means the God of Israel, the Father, in John 20:28. According to Thayer's it can mean five different things: God (big G) 1320 times, god (small g) 13 times, godly 3 times, God-ward + 4214 twice and misc. five times. As you can see the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the time, it means God, as in God the Father, and more importantly to our discussion, it means God (large G) in John 20:28.

You still cannot find the Scripture saying that Jesus is God. You are rabbit tailing the argument. Pride can get you no where, dude.

:biglol John 20:28-29. Your "exegesis" has been thoroughly debunked and you don't have an answer for even ONE argument. I am simply following the plain words of Scripture instead of my own arrogant assumptions. How is that prideful?

Been nice talking with you, even with your extreme lack of credibility.

 

[shad]

The one gloating calls me arrogant...

You agree that Theos in John 20:28 means the Creator of the universe, Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Issac. and Jacob, the eternal Logos, or are we going to start playing nuanced word games?

Even in English, "God" means a dozen different things. Why do you insist that "theos" means "Jehovah" every time it refers to someone other than the devil?

I don't. I INSIST it means the God of Israel, the Father, in John 20:28. According to Thayer's it can mean five different things: God (big G) 1320 times, god (small g) 13 times, godly 3 times, God-ward + 4214 twice and misc. five times. As you can see the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the time, it means God, as in God the Father, and more importantly to our discussion, it means God (large G) in John 20:28.

And how many of those 1320 times are in reference to Jehovah? About all except TWO, the ones referring to Jesus.

You say "overwhelming majority", when those statistics are biased! The number of times it means "God" is dictated by trinitarians, and you are using that as your evidence that this verse is applying what is reserved for Jehovah to Jesus. That is circular reasoning and is not logical.

Why do you insist it be interpreted as god (small g), when all scholars disagree with you? Maybe taking a little prejudice into your Scripture reading?

"All scholars"?
You mean all the scholars that YOU accept as scholarly. And if a scholar disagrees with you on this point, they would NOT be a scholar in your eyes.

Circular reasoning rears its head again. The prejudice is yours, not mine. I will accept whatever makes sense, NOT whatever someone I like says.

If you doubt that, take a look at the context for yourself. Thomas is a JEW who addresses Jesus (as has already been established above) as "MY Lord and MY God". What do you think MY God means to a Jew? Right, the God of Israel, Yahweh, the Father, the eternal Logos. This interpretation is undeniable.

Fact 1: Jesus is referred to as "Lord" many, many times. So just because Thomas was addressing him as "kurios/lord" doesn't mean anything more than the fact that Jesus has been set up by His Father to be Ruler.
Fact 2: Jesus is referred to as "our/my God" only TWO times in the New Testament. Every other time, He is listed as separate and absolutely secondary and subservient to God. So why do you insist on arguing that the minority dictates an all-encompassing truth?

 

[dadof10]

And how many of those 1320 times are in reference to Jehovah? About all except TWO, the ones referring to Jesus.

Which verses are you referring to? Not Jn. 20:28, WHICH IS THE ONE WE ARE DISCUSSING. What's your point?

You say "overwhelming majority", when those statistics are biased! The number of times it means "God" is dictated by trinitarians, and you are using that as your evidence that this verse is applying what is reserved for Jehovah to Jesus. That is circular reasoning and is not logical.

Why are they Trinitarians? You assume they just are Trinitarians by birth (like you assume about me) and bend the facts to suit their preconceived biases, while the non-Trinitarians (like you) are open minded Scripture scholars who are just searching for the truth. I don't know them (and probably neither do you), but I assume they come to their Trinitarian viewpoint while searching for the Truth. I don't assume that because they disagree with me they are somehow devious or biased. That would be arrogant.

Do you know what circular reasoning is? It's not taking the word of Greek and Hebrew scholars and basing my study of Scripture on their work.

Can you name any scholars that consider Jn. 20:28 to be referring to "god' small g?

"All scholars"?
You mean all the scholars that YOU accept as scholarly. And if a scholar disagrees with you on this point, they would NOT be a scholar in your eyes. Circular reasoning rears its head again. The prejudice is yours, not mine. I will accept whatever makes sense, NOT whatever someone I like says.

First you know what motivates Trinitarian scholars, and now you know my motives??? Don't pretend to know me or put words in my mouth. I agree with Winston Churchill, if the Truth changes, so will my opinion. Can you say the same thing?

Fact 1: Jesus is referred to as "Lord" many, many times. So just because Thomas was addressing him as "kurios/lord" doesn't mean anything more than the fact that Jesus has been set up by His Father to be Ruler.

Except that's not the end of the sentence, is it?

Fact 2: Jesus is referred to as "our/my God" only TWO times in the New Testament. Every other time, He is listed as separate and absolutely secondary and subservient to God. So why do you insist on arguing that the minority dictates an all-encompassing truth?

Others here have showed you more than two verses, but that's not the point.

Are you saying there was a MISTAKE made in John? Are you saying that if there are only two verses that speak to a doctrine, those verses can be ignored? What difference does it make how many times Jesus is referred to as God, once is enough to TOTALLY BLOW YOUR MAN-MADE DOCTRINE OUT OF THE WATER. That He is NOT God is not left open to us. We must bend our intellect to His, not the other way around. Again, that would be arrogant.

How many verses would it take for you, (in the words of George Carlin) six?

This verse proves that Jesus considers Himself to be, in some mysterious way, the God of Israel. Thomas says "...MY GOD" and his concept of God was the God of Israel, and according to Scripture he was answering Jesus directly, not praying. What more do you need?

 

[kingdavid]

he who hath the Doctrine of Christ hath BOTH(NO TRINITY OR ONENESS HERE) the Father and the Son and they are not seperate from each other. Christ was in his Father(God) in the beginning and God was in Christ in the Flesh. it was BOTH of them in the self same person. God and Christ are One but not one like your finger one.

 

[Cornelius]

God and Christ are One but not one like your finger one.

Now that would be correct

 

[kingdavid]

God and Christ are One but not one like your finger one.

Now that would be correct

it was all coorect