Why Trinitarians And Non-Trinitarians Have Different Beliefs?

[Free]

Have you received any replies?
Your post does not signify whether or not you are Trinitarian.
It does seem to me, however, that you do acknowledge the Trinity
but correctly admit that you (or anyone) cannot really understand it.
To be a Trinitarian you must believe that:
That there are 3 PERSONS in God.
Each Person is separate.
Each Person has the divine nature of God.
Each Person always existed as or in God.

I think that's it unless Free would like to add anything.

If you believe the above, you can say you're a trinitarian.
(as any Christian should be able to).

Nothing I can add to that.

 

[Free]

Based on the definition you suplied being the definition of "only" and not the definition of "Son".

I have clearly stated that I'm defining monogenes, which is translated as "unique," "only," "one and only," and "only begotten." I'm struggling to understand why you can't understand that.

 

[GodsGrace]

No.

Yes, but my son would not be me. My son would be an entirely different person. Furthermore, God isn't a human, but Jesus is a human.

The 2nd Person of the Trinity is not the Father.
He's the Son.
If you think Jesus is only a human, then you don't believe in the hypostatic union.

Let me ask you this...
Do you think you could be a Christian and yet make up your own doctrine?
Don't you think Christian doctrine has already been created by the Apostles and those that came after them?

I agree with that, but the Bible can be misunderstood.

Is it possible that since Thomas did not say "You are God" that Thomas was just exclaiming at the fact Jesus was resurrected with holes in his hand and a hole in his side? That's how people talk when they see something amazing or incredible, even today. OMG is a pretty common phrase.


In my view, that doesn't follow. There would need to be a mention of the Trinity in the Bible first before I would consider that as a possibility. Rather than just looking at one possible option and disregarding all other possibilities, I would consider other possible options like the one I mentioned above. Or perhaps Thomas was praying to the Father? It's also telling that Jesus didn't praise him for his answer, actually he said Thomas wasn't blessed for his doubting attitude. Thomas seems like a doubter, a bit carnal and unspiritual to me. Peter had the answer from heaven and it turns out Jesus never explicitly said he is God. Seems if I had to make a choice I would go with Jesus isn't God.

Is THIS a mention of the Trinity?:
Matthew 28:19
19Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Jesus mentioned 3 names, 3 distinct Person that make up the Trinity, each given the same authority.

Here's an image of the Trinity:

 

[Consecrated Life]

Have you received any replies?
Your post does not signify whether or not you are Trinitarian.
It does seem to me, however, that you do acknowledge the Trinity
but correctly admit that you (or anyone) cannot really understand it.
To be a Trinitarian you must believe that:
That there are 3 PERSONS in God.
Each Person is separate.
Each Person has the divine nature of God.
Each Person always existed as or in God.

I think that's it unless Free would like to add anything.

If you believe the above, you can say you're a trinitarian.
(as any Christian should be able to).

Thank You .
After thinking on it a little more I do need to revise my original statement concerning what we will eventually know concerning the triune relationship.
I do think we will have a greatly expanded understanding of it in heaven based on what Jesus has said.

Jhn 14:20
At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

However the one thing involved I believe we will never be fully privy too in God's heaven are the intimate details of the Spiritual transaction that took place on our behalf between the Father and the Son on Calvary at the moment that darkness covered the entire earth and no human eye was allowed to look upon it .
Certainly we are acutely aware of what was accomplished for our sakes along with the how, why .what & where of it , but the intimate details of the Spiritual transaction that took place at that moment between Father & Son will forever be hidden from us, just as it was blanketed in darkness to the eyes of the entire world.
It is between the Father and the Son alone, for eternity.

Kind Regards

 

[Free]

The logos could be understood as things God knows, i.e., His thoughts, words, reasoning, etc. These are things in the mind of God. The way the logos is God or godly is that the Word is the mind of God.

And, yet, John says that the Logos was in intimate relationship with God and was God in nature. Those are not attributes of inanimate things or abstractions. It follows that the Logos must have personhood.

Only God's spirit knows the mind of God (1 Corinthians 2:11) so the question for me is does the Son know everything the Father knows? If not, then that's enough for me to know the Son is not the Word of God.

Matt 24:36 is one of many examples of Jesus not knowing what God knows.

That doesn't mean that Jesus isn't God. Phil 2:5-8 is key in understanding the Incarnation.

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

Everything must be taken together that speaks of Christ and the nature of God. We must not go about taking a verse here and a verse there and expect to get the correct picture. There are numerous verses throughout the Bible that need to be taken into account.

And, there are two errors we must avoid. First, we must not take those verses which clearly speak of the humanity of Christ and making them trump those that clearly speak of his deity. Second, we must not do the opposite and do away with his humanity.

All of the versions/translations I have seen for John 1:30 say Jesus is a man.

30This is He of whom I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because He was before me.’

My point was that a man being God doesn't make sense in this context.

Jesus is truly man, but that doesn't mean he isn't also truly God. From man's perspective, Jesus is a man. It is possible that John the Baptist didn't realize that Jesus was also God. It took the disciples a long time to understand certain things about Jesus.

Seems in this case, as far as I can tell, Jesus being a begotten Son refers to his beginning point.

But what about all the times he claimed that he had existed prior to being born as a man?

Joh 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
…
Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son
Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
…
Joh 6:62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
Joh 12:44 And Jesus cried out and said, “Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me.
Joh 12:45 And whoever sees me sees him who sent me.
Joh 12:46 I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness.

Joh 16:27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”
Joh 16:29 His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!
Joh 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”

Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
Joh 17:4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.
Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

The above are only Jesus's words. Note that that is all consistent with what John says in John 1:1-2. There is much more in the NT that supports not only the Son's existence prior to the Incarnation, but eternal preexistence.

Then there is a severe contradiction with Exodus 3 where God said He is the I AM and referred to Himself as YHWH being the name He would be remembered forever. The simplest solution that makes sense for me to remove the contradiction is that Jesus isn't himself God. It would seem the "I am" verse of John 8:58 works better with Jesus being [the man] prophesied about.

Exodus 3
14God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”

15God also told Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD,[YHWH] the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered in every generation.

It only appears as a contradiction because you're begging the question. There is no verse in the entire Bible which clearly or directly states that God is only person (unitarian; an absolute unity). The door is actually left open for God to be a compound unity.

Jesus didn't say he was correct, but rather responded with criticism regarding his doubting attitude and not being blessed for requiring material proof of his resurrection.

If Jesus isn't also truly God, then not correcting Thomas and accepting the claim would have been blasphemy.

Just was worshipped as the "son of God" in all contexts.

I agree that Jesus was worshiped as the Son of God, because that is a title that indicates his deity. His followers came to realize that there was much more to Jesus than mere humanity, and so worshiped him.

Jesus accepts worship in context of being the son of God, but not as God. Worship, or a bowing down, to people of high rank and status is a thing in Biblical culture. It doesn't mean someone has become your God. God the Father never sanctioned nor commanded Christians to worship Jesus, but Jesus directed worship to God the Father (John 4:23,24)


Any worship of Jesus in heaven and/or earth is just in context of respect as Lord of the church, but the glory goes to God the Father only.

Philippians 2
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

There is nothing to suggest that worshiping Jesus was just out of respect. Peter didn't accept worship because that would have been blasphemous, and the same with the angel(s). That Jesus brings glory to the Father doesn't mean that he is not also God. There is no reason that being human and pointing to the Father precludes Jesus from also being God.

 

[GodsGrace]

Thank You .
After thinking on it a little more I do need to revise my original statement concerning what we will eventually know concerning the triune relationship.
I do think we will have a greatly expanded understanding of it in heaven based on what Jesus has said.

Jhn 14:20
At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

However the one thing involved I believe we will never be fully privy too in God's heaven are the intimate details of the Spiritual transaction that took place on our behalf between the Father and the Son on Calvary at the moment that darkness covered the entire earth and no human eye was allowed to look upon it .
Certainly we are acutely aware of what was accomplished for our sakes along with the how, why .what & where of it , but the intimate details of the Spiritual transaction that took place at that moment between Father & Son will forever be hidden from us, just as it was blanketed in darkness to the eyes of the entire world.
It is between the Father and the Son alone, for eternity.

Kind Regards

It's said that when we get to heaven we'll understand everything about God.
I'm sure we'll be more acutely aware of God's salvation plan.

But I do agree with you that we'll never know what transpired between Father and Son.

The greatness of God is fearful at times .
How could we ever understand anything about such a being.

 

[Runningman]

The 2nd Person of the Trinity is not the Father.
He's the Son.
If you think Jesus is only a human, then you don't believe in the hypostatic union.

I do think Jesus is only a human.

The prophecies concerning him said he would be a human born from the seed of a woman. (Genesis 3:15, Isaiah 7:14,15)

When he was born he was a human and as he aged he grew and matured like normal humans do. (Luke 2:52)

He did not receive the Holy Spirit until after his water baptism. (Matt 3:16)

He didn't begin performing miracles until after he received the Holy Spirit. (John 2:1-11)

He died a man (John 19:30)
Was resurrected as a man (Luke 24:39)
And was taken to heaven as a man (Acts 1:2)
They continued calling him a man decades after his ascension to heaven (1 Tim 2:5,6)
Paul called Jesus a "man of heaven" or a "heavenly man" (1 Cor 15:49)

So if he isn't a man like the Bible says, what happened to his body as he was raptured to heaven?

Let me ask you this...
Do you think you could be a Christian and yet make up your own doctrine?

I don't believe a Christian should invent their own doctrines.

Don't you think Christian doctrine has already been created by the Apostles and those that came after them?

I agree. I believe in sola scriptura.

Is THIS a mention of the Trinity?:
Matthew 28:19
19Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Jesus mentioned 3 names, 3 distinct Person that make up the Trinity, each given the same authority.

Is this a mention of the Trinity doctrine? No, it doesn't mention or describe the Trinity there.

Can you please clarify your belief regarding the Trinity? I prefer to reference what the Athanasian creed says so if we refer to what the Trinity is then we have a standard to go by.

Here's an image of the Trinity:


View attachment 15670

Thank you, but that image or diagram of the Trinity isn't explained in Matt 28:19 or elsewhere in the Bible as far as I have seen.

 

[Runningman]

And, yet, John says that the Logos was in intimate relationship with God and was God in nature. Those are not attributes of inanimate things or abstractions. It follows that the Logos must have personhood.

Can persons in God's thoughts have personhood? Therefore God's thoughts have personhood.

For example, before Jeremiah was born God knew him in His thoughts. That's an intimate relationship with Jeremiah in the logos of God. It's the same with Jesus.

Jer. 1
5“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I set you apart
and appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

That doesn't mean that Jesus isn't God. Phil 2:5-8 is key in understanding the Incarnation.

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

I don't know about that because in Phil. 2:5 Paul is telling them to have the same mind as Jesus. What follows from there is Jesus being in the "form" (defined as the outward appearance) of God. I take that to mean Jesus was an imitator of God. Godly, righteous, holy - something that all Christians should be doing.

Also, if Jesus is God then wouldn't make much sense to say "God did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." It would only really be rational if the one not counting equality with God a thing to be grasped is themselves not God, i.e., God does not need to grasp at equality with Himself.

Everything must be taken together that speaks of Christ and the nature of God. We must not go about taking a verse here and a verse there and expect to get the correct picture. There are numerous verses throughout the Bible that need to be taken into account.

And, there are two errors we must avoid. First, we must not take those verses which clearly speak of the humanity of Christ and making them trump those that clearly speak of his deity. Second, we must not do the opposite and do away with his humanity.

I agree. Which verse(s) speak of Jesus' deity though?

Jesus is truly man, but that doesn't mean he isn't also truly God. From man's perspective, Jesus is a man. It is possible that John the Baptist didn't realize that Jesus was also God. It took the disciples a long time to understand certain things about Jesus.

Well, Jesus said there is none greater than John the Baptist. John and Jesus were both born of women so if Jesus is God and John knew that then why did Jesus say John is the greatest? Is John greater than God? I don't think that's what Jesus meant. This wouldn't be a problem if Jesus is not God though.

Matt 11
11Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet even the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

But what about all the times he claimed that he had existed prior to being born as a man?

Joh 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
…
Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son
Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
…
Joh 6:62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
Joh 12:44 And Jesus cried out and said, “Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me.
Joh 12:45 And whoever sees me sees him who sent me.
Joh 12:46 I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness.

Joh 16:27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”
Joh 16:29 His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!
Joh 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”

Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
Joh 17:4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.
Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

The above are only Jesus's words. Note that that is all consistent with what John says in John 1:1-2. There is much more in the NT that supports not only the Son's existence prior to the Incarnation, but eternal preexistence.

Seems to be that Jesus existed in the mind of God only. For example, you quoted John 17:5 "Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." This glory that Jesus is referring to is the crucifixion and the resurrection, but he wasn't literally crucified or resurrected before the world existed.

It only appears as a contradiction because you're begging the question. There is no verse in the entire Bible which clearly or directly states that God is only person (unitarian; an absolute unity). The door is actually left open for God to be a compound unity.

But is it possible that John 17:3, 1 Cor 8:6, Eph. 4:6, etc refer to a Unitarian God known as the Father?

If Jesus isn't also truly God, then not correcting Thomas and accepting the claim would have been blasphemy.

Well, Thomas didn't say "You are God" so it begs the question what Thomas' intention was. I don't see Jesus neither confirming or denying what Thomas said as being implicit of accepting deity. Jesus often didn't directly refute or acknowledge things people would say.

I agree that Jesus was worshiped as the Son of God, because that is a title that indicates his deity. His followers came to realize that there was much more to Jesus than mere humanity, and so worshiped him.

I don't think it means deity though. It would need to be shown this this is without exception. I believe Jesus had a point in which he became the firstborn Son of God and it was at the resurrection.

Rom. 1
4and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

On the other hand, others who are resurrected are also sons of God.

Luke 20
36In fact, they can no longer die, because they are like the angels. And since they are sons of the resurrection, they are sons of God.

There is nothing to suggest that worshiping Jesus was just out of respect. Peter didn't accept worship because that would have been blasphemous, and the same with the angel(s). That Jesus brings glory to the Father doesn't mean that he is not also God. There is no reason that being human and pointing to the Father precludes Jesus from also being God.

Bowing down to or worshipping someone isn't always in the context of them being God.

Gen. 18
2And Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he ran from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.

And there's many other examples. Therefore bowing to Jesus or worshipping him in context of the Son of God isn't a way to demonstrate his deity.

 

[Hopeful 2]

I said you're correct.
I hope you believe that Jesus IS the Word incarnate...
john 1

There was no Jesus before the Word took on flesh.

 

[Hopeful 2]

I have clearly stated that I'm defining monogenes, which is translated as "unique," "only," "one and only," and "only begotten." I'm struggling to understand why you can't understand that.

Because your post said monogenes meant Son.
"From your post #40...
"The Greek word used of the Son is monogenes, and means "unique," "only," "one and only.""

 

[Free]

Because your post said monogenes meant Son.
"From your post #40...
"The Greek word used of the Son is monogenes, and means "unique," "only," "one and only.""

Do you think that context is important, whether it is in regards to the Bible, the news, or in conversation?

 

[Hopeful 2]

Do you think that context is important, whether it is in regards to the Bible, the news, or in conversation?

Wondering's definition of begotten started this..."Begotten means something unique.."
I don't agree.

 

[Free]

Can persons in God's thoughts have personhood? Therefore God's thoughts have personhood.

That is a large assumption. Can you provide any biblical proof or sound reasoning? I don't see how thoughts can have personhood; they're thoughts, not persons.

That's an intimate relationship with Jeremiah in the logos of God. It's the same with Jesus.

It absolutely is not. John is speaking of the nature of God and the Logos. The Logos is God in nature; Jeremiah is not. Interpersonal relationships happen between two or more persons, not between one person and their thoughts.

For example, before Jeremiah was born God knew him in His thoughts.
Jer. 1
5“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I set you apart
and appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

That does not mean "persons in God's thoughts have personhood." God is saying that he knew he would appoint him as a prophet.

I don't know about that because in Phil. 2:5 Paul is telling them to have the same mind as Jesus.

Exactly. Why? Because Jesus is the ultimate example of humility. There simply cannot be a greater example of humility than God becoming a man.

What follows from there is Jesus being in the "form" (defined as the outward appearance) of God. I take that to mean Jesus was an imitator of God. Godly, righteous, holy - something that all Christians should be doing.

"Form" is not the outward appearance, nor can it mean the other things you say. Otherwise, what does it mean that he took "the form of servant" and was "found in human form"? From what you said, it would follow that he was an imitator of man--sinful and unholy. Being "in the form of God" and "being found in human form"

As to "form" (μορφή; morphe), here is what M. R. Vincent says in his Word Studies in the New Testament:

"Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character. Thus it is distinguished from σχῆμα fashion, comprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable. Μορφή form is identified with the essence of a person or thing: σχῆμα fashion is an accident which may change without affecting the form. For the manner in which this difference is developed in the kindred verbs, see on Matt. 17:2.

As applied here to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself. We have no word which can convey this meaning, nor is it possible for us to formulate the reality. Form inevitably carries with it to us the idea of shape. It is conceivable that the essential personality of God may express itself in a mode apprehensible by the perception of pure spiritual intelligences; but the mode itself is neither apprehensible nor conceivable by human minds.

This mode of expression, this setting of the divine essence, is not identical with the essence itself, but is identified with it, as its natural and appropriate expression, answering to it in every particular. It is the perfect expression of a perfect essence. It is not something imposed from without, but something which proceeds from the very depth of the perfect being, and into which that being perfectly unfolds, as light from fire. To say, then, that Christ was in the form of God, is to say that He existed as essentially one with God. The expression of deity through human nature (ver. 7) thus has its background in the expression of deity as deity in the eternal ages of God's being. Whatever the mode of this expression, it marked the being of Christ in the eternity before creation. As the form of God was identified with the being of God, so Christ, being in the form of God, was identified with the being, nature, and personality of God." (M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, p. 878).

Also, as Kenneth Wuest's Word Studies in the Greek New Testaments states:

"Thus the Greek word for "form" refers to that outward expression which a person gives of his inmost nature. This expression is not assumed from the outside, but proceeds directly from within. To illustrate: "I went to a tennis match yesterday. The winning player's form was excellent." We mean by that, that the outward expression he gave of his inward ability to play tennis, was excellent. The expression in this case took the form of the rhythmic, graceful, swift, and coordinated movements of his body and its members.

Our Lord was in the form of God. The word "God" is without the definite article in the Greek text, and therefore refers to the divine essence. Thus, our Lord's outward expression of His inmost being was as to its nature the expression of the divine essence of Deity. Since that outward expression which this word "form" speaks of, comes from and is truly representative of the inward being, it follows that our Lord as to His nature is the possessor of the divine essence of Deity, and being that, it also necessarily follows that He is absolute Deity Himself, a co-participant with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit in that divine essence which constitutes God, God.

The time at which the apostle says our Lord gave expression to His essential nature, that of Deity, was previous to His coming to earth to become incarnate as the man Christ Jesus. But Paul, by the use of the Greek word translated "being," informs his Greek readers that our Lord's possession of the divine essence did not cease to be a fact when He came to earth to assume human form. The Greek word is not the simple verb of being, but a word that speaks of an antecedent condition protracted into the present. That is, our Lord gave expression to the essence of Deity which He possesses, not only before He became Man, but also after becoming man, for He was doing so at the time this Philippian epistle was being written." (vol. 2, pp. 62-63)

Also, according to Eerdmans The Expositor's Greek Testament:

"He means, of course, in the strictest sense that the pre-existing Christ was Divine. For μ. [μορφή] always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it." (vol 3, p. 436)

He chose to not appear in his glorious state, so as not to exploit his divine nature for his own ends.

And this fits the context:

Php 2:3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.
Php 2:4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

Note what Paul has done here. First, Paul tells his readers to "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves," and "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." Then, he gives the supreme example, which is that of Christ, "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men," "And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

In other words, Jesus did "nothing from selfish ambition or conceit" and looked "not only to his own interests." It would have been easy for him to use his equality with God to his own advantage, but that would have been selfish ambition and looking to his own interests. Instead, he empties "himself, by taking the form of a servant," and humbles "himself by becoming obedient to the point of death." In this way, he has "in humility count[ed] others more significant than [himself]," and looked "to the interests of others."

He humbled himself in his incarnate state, becoming dependent on and subject to the Father, for the purpose of the salvation of humans and redemption of creation.

 

[Free]

Here are some further points to consider about Phil 2:5-8:

1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1--"the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The NIV has a clearer rendering of what is meant in verse 6: "being in very nature God." The Expositor's Greek Testament and M. R. Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament) agree. That Paul is referring to the divinity of Christ is without question.
2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, he did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]." The meaning is that anything to do with the appearance of his glory as God had to be let go of in order for the completion of his humiliation, which was necessary for man's salvation. Again, the NIV brings out the meaning a bit better: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
3. He, being Jesus, emptied himself. Firstly then, it was he who did the emptying. And, secondly, he emptied himself of something. That is, there was an emptying of himself that occurred by taking on of the human form. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind. Whatever Paul means here, and we must always be careful to not say more or less than what the Bible says, Jesus, as God Incarnate, still maintains his full deity in becoming truly and fully human.
4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant," "being born in the likeness of men"--this is what John 1:14 is speaking of. Paul is contrasting Jesus's "being born in the likeness of men" with being in the "form of God."
5. Being found in "appearance as a man" (NIV)--as opposed to his having been in "the form of God"--he "humbled himself by becoming obedient." We know that he was truly human, so why would Paul suddenly say that Jesus was "found in appearance as a man"? Would that not imply that he existed previously, supporting verse 6, and indicate he wasn't a man before?

The whole point of this passage is to show the humility of Christ, which we are to have (verses 1-5). There is no greater example of humility that could be conceived than that of God (the Son) coming to earth and taking on the form of one of his creatures.

Also, if Jesus is God then wouldn't make much sense to say "God did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." It would only really be rational if the one not counting equality with God a thing to be grasped is themselves not God, i.e.,

What is meant is that his equality with God was not something to be held on to. The updated NIV captures the thought best:

Php 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; (NIV)

As I stated above, Jesus clearly was "in the form of God," but emptied himself of something by taking on the form of a servant, a man. Hence he became reliant on the Father and the Spirit for his ministry.

God does not need to grasp at equality with Himself.

That is begging the question. You're assuming that God is one person. The whole point of the Trinity is that God is three persons; each truly and fully God, but distinct one from the other.

I agree. Which verse(s) speak of Jesus' deity though?

Too many to list. The explicit ones include John 1:1-3, 14, 18; John 8:24, 58; Rom 10:9-13; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16-17; Phil 2:5-8; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:10-13. Some that imply it are: every use of the title Son of God; every claim that God is Jesus's Father; titles used of God that are also used by Jesus in Revelation; the acts of Jesus in his ministry that are acts of Yahweh in the OT. There are more than most people realize.

I'll have to get to the rest later.

 

[Free]

Wondering's definition of begotten started this..."Begotten means something unique.."
I don't agree.

I know, but I showed that she was right, especially when monogenes is applied to the Son.

 

[Free]

Well, Jesus said there is none greater than John the Baptist. John and Jesus were both born of women so if Jesus is God and John knew that then why did Jesus say John is the greatest? Is John greater than God? I don't think that's what Jesus meant. This wouldn't be a problem if Jesus is not God though.

Matt 11
11Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet even the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Do you believe John sinned? What about Jesus?

Seems to be that Jesus existed in the mind of God only. For example, you quoted John 17:5 "Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." This glory that Jesus is referring to is the crucifixion and the resurrection, but he wasn't literally crucified or resurrected before the world existed.

A plain reading of the text cannot lead us to believe that "Jesus is referring to the crucifixion and the resurrection." That has to be read into the text since there is nothing at all to indicate such. Jesus is clearly saying that he actually possessed the glory of the Father prior to creation. That is fully supported by John 1:1-2, 14 and Phil 2:5-8, among others.

But is it possible that John 17:3, 1 Cor 8:6, Eph. 4:6, etc refer to a Unitarian God known as the Father?

In John 17:3, first notice that eternal life is based on knowing both the Father and the Son. In other words, there is no salvation by knowing the Father only. Second, one has to presume unitarianism and disregard the idea that "God" can refer to the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, or the godhead as a whole, in order to use this verse to claim that Jesus isn't God. That assertion is circular. We see Jesus, the God-man who is living in submission to the Father (difference in function, not nature), praying to another divine person. We should fully expect that he would refer to the Father as "the only true God," to agree with the truth of monotheism; but that doesn't preclude himself from also being God. Third, we come again to the immediate context of verse 5, in which Jesus claims to have possessed the glory of the Father prior to creation.

In 1 Cor 8:6, God cannot be unitarian. Firstly, as some scholars believe, it looks like Paul is expanding on the Shema to include both the Father and the Son in the one God and Lord. Note the similarities in structure:

Deu 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (ESV)

1Cor 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)

Second, if we take "one God, the Father" to exclude Jesus from being God, then we must also take "one Lord, Jesus Christ" to exclude the Father from being Lord. But clearly that latter cannot be true, since God is said to be Lord of lords in 1 Tim 6:15. Third, if "from whom are all things" speaks of the eternal nature and deity of the Father, then it follows that "through whom are all things" speaks of the eternal nature and deity of Jesus. Notice that this is exactly what John 1:3 and Col 1:15-16 state. In John 1:3 is the Logos and in 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:15-16 it is clearly said to be Jesus. Hence, we can logically conclude that the Logos is the preincarnate Son, which John 1:1-18 alone shows.

Similar reasoning applies to Eph 4:6.

Well, Thomas didn't say "You are God" so it begs the question what Thomas' intention was. I don't see Jesus neither confirming or denying what Thomas said as being implicit of accepting deity. Jesus often didn't directly refute or acknowledge things people would say.

For Thomas to say "My Lord and my God," is exactly the same as saying "You are God." He was a monotheist, like all Jews (and Christians) so there was only one God. Thomas sees the risen Christ, who then shows that he knows what Thomas said despite not having been visibly present, and his reaction is to call Jesus his Lord and his God. It can only mean what it plainly states.

While Jesus may not often have directly refuted or acknowledge things people would say, to not deny this would have been blasphemous.

I don't think it means deity though. It would need to be shown this this is without exception. I believe Jesus had a point in which he became the firstborn Son of God and it was at the resurrection.

Rom. 1
4and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

On the other hand, others who are resurrected are also sons of God.

Luke 20
36In fact, they can no longer die, because they are like the angels. And since they are sons of the resurrection, they are sons of God.

Jesus was uniquely the Son of God:

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.
...
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)

Everyone else is a son (or daughter) of God by adoption only:

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (ESV)

Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
Rom 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”
Rom 8:16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
Rom 8:17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
...
Rom 8:23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (ESV)

 

[Free]

Bowing down to or worshipping someone isn't always in the context of them being God.

Gen. 18
2And Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he ran from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.

And there's many other examples. Therefore bowing to Jesus or worshipping him in context of the Son of God isn't a way to demonstrate his deity.

First, we have to consider that Jesus is the one and only Son of God. Second, the title Son of God is a reference to his deity. Third, we should look at all the instances where he is worshiped and note the contexts:

Mat 2:2 saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” (ESV)

Mat 14:25 And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea.
Mat 14:26 But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” and they cried out in fear.
Mat 14:27 But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.”
Mat 14:28 And Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.”
Mat 14:29 He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus.
Mat 14:30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, “Lord, save me.”
Mat 14:31 Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?”
Mat 14:32 And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.
Mat 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (ESV)

(Note that the reason for their worship is Jesus's walking on the sea and stilling of the wind, and that they state that he truly is the Son of God.)

Mat 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. (ESV)

(The context here is his first appearance after his resurrection. Compare that with Thomas's response to his first encounter with the resurrected Christ.)

Mat 28:17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. (ESV)

Luk 24:51 While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.
Luk 24:52 And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, (ESV)

(Two more post-resurrection contexts.)

Joh 9:38 He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him. (ESV)

(This is the response of someone whom Jesus had just healed.)

Notice that in all these instances, the contexts are Jesus's birth, miracles he performed, and his resurrection. In other words, there is something supernatural in each of the contexts. This is not the same as simple bowing as one does before any other man.

And, again, we must contrast that with what happened with Peter and the angel(s) in Revelation:

Act 10:25 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him.
Act 10:26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.” (ESV)

Rev 19:9 And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.”
Rev 19:10 Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. (ESV)

Rev 22:8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me,
Rev 22:9 but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.” (ESV)

If Jesus is just a man, why does he accept worship and Peter does not, precisely because he is a man? Why would the angel(s) tell John not to worship them and to worship God, yet Jesus does not, on several occasions?

 

[Hopeful 2]

I know, but I showed that she was right, especially when monogenes is applied to the Son.

As long as you know...

 

[Runningman]

That is a large assumption. Can you provide any biblical proof or sound reasoning? I don't see how thoughts can have personhood; they're thoughts, not persons.

The idea is either God literally knew Jeremiah or He literally didn't. There isn't a middle ground here. If God doesn't literally know those He foreknows, but still speaks as though they have personhood then in the logos they exist. That's the only example of Jesus pre-existing.

Where if Jesus said to have spoken or did anything before his birth?

It absolutely is not. John is speaking of the nature of God and the Logos. The Logos is God in nature; Jeremiah is not. Interpersonal relationships happen between two or more persons, not between one person and their thoughts.

Then can you prove Jesus is God in nature and explain the instances where he is not God in nature?

That does not mean "persons in God's thoughts have personhood." God is saying that he knew he would appoint him as a prophet.

Jeremiah 1
5“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you...

Exactly. Why? Because Jesus is the ultimate example of humility. There simply cannot be a greater example of humility than God becoming a man.

The only God mentioned in the passage is the Father.

Phil 2
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

"Form" is not the outward appearance, nor can it mean the other things you say. Otherwise, what does it mean that he took "the form of servant" and was "found in human form"? From what you said, it would follow that he was an imitator of man--sinful and unholy. Being "in the form of God" and "being found in human form"

Form in Phil 2:6 means the outward appearance. It refers to what one visually sees with their eyeballs. See also Mark 16:12 where Jesus looked visually different. God Himself is invisible, Jesus is not invisible, hence he

G3444. morphé
Strong's Concordance
morphé: form, shape
Original Word: μορφή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: morphé
Phonetic Spelling: (mor-fay')
Definition: form, shape
Usage: form, shape, outward appearance.

As to "form" (μορφή; morphe), here is what M. R. Vincent says in his Word Studies in the New Testament:

"Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character. Thus it is distinguished from σχῆμα fashion, comprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable. Μορφή form is identified with the essence of a person or thing: σχῆμα fashion is an accident which may change without affecting the form. For the manner in which this difference is developed in the kindred verbs, see on Matt. 17:2.

As applied here to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself. We have no word which can convey this meaning, nor is it possible for us to formulate the reality. Form inevitably carries with it to us the idea of shape. It is conceivable that the essential personality of God may express itself in a mode apprehensible by the perception of pure spiritual intelligences; but the mode itself is neither apprehensible nor conceivable by human minds.

This mode of expression, this setting of the divine essence, is not identical with the essence itself, but is identified with it, as its natural and appropriate expression, answering to it in every particular. It is the perfect expression of a perfect essence. It is not something imposed from without, but something which proceeds from the very depth of the perfect being, and into which that being perfectly unfolds, as light from fire. To say, then, that Christ was in the form of God, is to say that He existed as essentially one with God. The expression of deity through human nature (ver. 7) thus has its background in the expression of deity as deity in the eternal ages of God's being. Whatever the mode of this expression, it marked the being of Christ in the eternity before creation. As the form of God was identified with the being of God, so Christ, being in the form of God, was identified with the being, nature, and personality of God." (M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, p. 878).

Also, as Kenneth Wuest's Word Studies in the Greek New Testaments states:

"Thus the Greek word for "form" refers to that outward expression which a person gives of his inmost nature. This expression is not assumed from the outside, but proceeds directly from within. To illustrate: "I went to a tennis match yesterday. The winning player's form was excellent." We mean by that, that the outward expression he gave of his inward ability to play tennis, was excellent. The expression in this case took the form of the rhythmic, graceful, swift, and coordinated movements of his body and its members.

Our Lord was in the form of God. The word "God" is without the definite article in the Greek text, and therefore refers to the divine essence. Thus, our Lord's outward expression of His inmost being was as to its nature the expression of the divine essence of Deity. Since that outward expression which this word "form" speaks of, comes from and is truly representative of the inward being, it follows that our Lord as to His nature is the possessor of the divine essence of Deity, and being that, it also necessarily follows that He is absolute Deity Himself, a co-participant with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit in that divine essence which constitutes God, God.

The time at which the apostle says our Lord gave expression to His essential nature, that of Deity, was previous to His coming to earth to become incarnate as the man Christ Jesus. But Paul, by the use of the Greek word translated "being," informs his Greek readers that our Lord's possession of the divine essence did not cease to be a fact when He came to earth to assume human form. The Greek word is not the simple verb of being, but a word that speaks of an antecedent condition protracted into the present. That is, our Lord gave expression to the essence of Deity which He possesses, not only before He became Man, but also after becoming man, for He was doing so at the time this Philippian epistle was being written." (vol. 2, pp. 62-63)

Also, according to Eerdmans The Expositor's Greek Testament:

"He means, of course, in the strictest sense that the pre-existing Christ was Divine. For μ. [μορφή] always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it." (vol 3, p. 436)

He chose to not appear in his glorious state, so as not to exploit his divine nature for his own ends.

And this fits the context:

Php 2:3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.
Php 2:4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

Note what Paul has done here. First, Paul tells his readers to "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves," and "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." Then, he gives the supreme example, which is that of Christ, "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men," "And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

In other words, Jesus did "nothing from selfish ambition or conceit" and looked "not only to his own interests." It would have been easy for him to use his equality with God to his own advantage, but that would have been selfish ambition and looking to his own interests. Instead, he empties "himself, by taking the form of a servant," and humbles "himself by becoming obedient to the point of death." In this way, he has "in humility count[ed] others more significant than [himself]," and looked "to the interests of others."

He humbled himself in his incarnate state, becoming dependent on and subject to the Father, for the purpose of the salvation of humans and redemption of creation.

The textbook definition of morphe refers to the outward appearance. It has nothing to do with the distinctive nature of the person, but literally it's their appearance.

To get the correct understanding of this, there is also Mark 16:12 where Jesus changed form. If you insist Jesus changed distinctive nature then the logical next step would be he ceased being God.

 

[Runningman]

Do you believe John sinned? What about Jesus?

I don't know about John, but John was born with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15). Jesus did not receive the Holy Spirit until after his water baptism (Matt 3:16). As far as Jesus sinning, no, but Jesus was tempted in every way that we are. On the other hand God can't be tempted.

Hebrews 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.

James 1:13
When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;

A plain reading of the text cannot lead us to believe that "Jesus is referring to the crucifixion and the resurrection." That has to be read into the text since there is nothing at all to indicate such. Jesus is clearly saying that he actually possessed the glory of the Father prior to creation. That is fully supported by John 1:1-2, 14 and Phil 2:5-8, among others.

It's referring to the crucifixion and the resurrection though it may not be intuitive from the plain text reading of John 17 and a bit of awareness of the rest of the book of John is necessary. Jesus had not yet been glorified though he was speaking of getting the glory God had given him before the world was created. We can look to John 7:39 to get an idea of what Jesus' glory is because the verse refers to the Spirit being given which didn't occur until after his resurrection.

John 7
39He was speaking about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were later to receive. For the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

John 20
22When He had said this, He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.

In John 17:3, first notice that eternal life is based on knowing both the Father and the Son. In other words, there is no salvation by knowing the Father only. Second, one has to presume unitarianism and disregard the idea that "God" can refer to the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, or the godhead as a whole, in order to use this verse to claim that Jesus isn't God. That assertion is circular. We see Jesus, the God-man who is living in submission to the Father (difference in function, not nature), praying to another divine person. We should fully expect that he would refer to the Father as "the only true God," to agree with the truth of monotheism; but that doesn't preclude himself from also being God. Third, we come again to the immediate context of verse 5, in which Jesus claims to have possessed the glory of the Father prior to creation.

Start with "Father... You are the only true God." That's the part that rules Jesus out from being God.

In 1 Cor 8:6, God cannot be unitarian. Firstly, as some scholars believe, it looks like Paul is expanding on the Shema to include both the Father and the Son in the one God and Lord. Note the similarities in structure:

According to Paul, God is Unitarian. There is only one God, the Father.

Deu 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (ESV)

1Cor 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)

Second, if we take "one God, the Father" to exclude Jesus from being God, then we must also take "one Lord, Jesus Christ" to exclude the Father from being Lord. But clearly that latter cannot be true, since God is said to be Lord of lords in 1 Tim 6:15. Third, if "from whom are all things" speaks of the eternal nature and deity of the Father, then it follows that "through whom are all things" speaks of the eternal nature and deity of Jesus. Notice that this is exactly what John 1:3 and Col 1:15-16 state. In John 1:3 is the Logos and in 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:15-16 it is clearly said to be Jesus. Hence, we can logically conclude that the Logos is the preincarnate Son, which John 1:1-18 alone shows.

There's no problem with Jesus being Lord (of the Church) but the head of Christ is God. Lord Jesus and LORD God are not the same person.

Colossians 1
18And He is the head of the body, the church...

1 Cor 11
3...the head of Christ is God.

Similar reasoning applies to Eph 4:6.


For Thomas to say "My Lord and my God," is exactly the same as saying "You are God." He was a monotheist, like all Jews (and Christians) so there was only one God. Thomas sees the risen Christ, who then shows that he knows what Thomas said despite not having been visibly present, and his reaction is to call Jesus his Lord and his God. It can only mean what it plainly states.

That's an assumption, but if we were to go with that as truth then there isn't a clear reason why Thomas would be referring to Jesus as God because Jesus spent no time at all telling them that he is God. Believing Jesus is God isn't something the disciples believed. Among many proofs, perhaps Acts 4 is a good example of Peter and John believing that Jesus is God's servant, but not the Sovereign Lord and Creator. In that case, Thomas is on an island alone in his words his believe Jesus is God in all of scripture.

Acts 4
24When the believers heard this, they lifted up their voices to God with one accord. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “You made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them.
27In fact, this is the very city where Herod and Pontius Pilate conspired with the Gentiles and the people of Israel against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed.
30as You stretch out Your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of Your holy servant Jesus.”

While Jesus may not often have directly refuted or acknowledge things people would say, to not deny this would have been blasphemous.

Jesus did deny being God so in that case Jesus must have rightly knew that Thomas wasn't referring to him as his God.

“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone” – Luke 18:19
“Why do you ask Me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good.” – Matthew 19:17

Jesus was uniquely the Son of God:

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.
...
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)

Everyone else is a son (or daughter) of God by adoption only:

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (ESV)

Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
Rom 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”
Rom 8:16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
Rom 8:17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
...
Rom 8:23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (ESV)

Are you sure being a son/daughter of God is by adoption? Paul went around teaching everyone we are God's offspring. Someone adopted by God wouldn't be God's offspring.

Acts 17
29Therefore, being offspring of God, we should not think that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by man’s skill and imagination.