John 1:1 - Jesus is the Father or he's not the one true God?

[Rich R]

IF someone thinks I am a billionaire and calls me a billionaire, that's what makes me a billionaire?! Oh my.



Good, since it makes no sense.

I think a big part of the problem with John 20:20 is that it is often read with a modern Western mindset, not realizing that when Jesus walked this earth the word "god" had an entirely different meaning to those people. We think of the word "god" and the only thing that comes to mind is the god Yahweh. The Ancient Near East understood it to mean anybody with power and authority. But even today, it's not hard to see that. Strong's Concordance:

G2316 θεός theos (the-os') n.
1. (properly, in Greek) a god or deity. a supernatural, powerful entity (real or imagined).
2. (by Hebraism, especially with G3588) God, the Supreme Being, the Creator, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Yahweh by name.
3. (figuratively) a supreme magistrate (in the land).

I think it fair to say Jesus had some power and authority, so Thomas' remark is no surprise, but it certainly doesn't mean he thought Jesus was actually God, i.e., Yahweh. The Jews were expecting someone from the line of David, a human. Humans make other humans. Mary is not the mother of God!

 

[RLT63]

I think a big part of the problem with John 20:20 is that it is often read with a modern Western mindset, not realizing that when Jesus walked this earth the word "god" had an entirely different meaning to those people. We think of the word "god" and the only thing that comes to mind is the god Yahweh. The Ancient Near East understood it to mean anybody with power and authority. But even today, it's not hard to see that. Strong's Concordance:

G2316 θεός theos (the-os') n.
1. (properly, in Greek) a god or deity. a supernatural, powerful entity (real or imagined).
2. (by Hebraism, especially with G3588) God, the Supreme Being, the Creator, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Yahweh by name.
3. (figuratively) a supreme magistrate (in the land).

I think it fair to say Jesus had some power and authority, so Thomas' remark is no surprise, but it certainly doesn't mean he thought Jesus was actually God, i.e., Yahweh. The Jews were expecting someone from the line of David, a human. Humans make other humans. Mary is not the mother of God!

Of course. He was just speaking figuratively. I wonder why the translators didn't let us know that.

 

[Wrangler]

The Ancient Near East understood it to mean anybody with power and authority

Jesus made clear this is what he meant by calling himself the son of god.

I Honestly don’t know why trinitarians cannot see it. I guess their idolatry blinds them. What was the Messiah saying when he referred to, below? Certainly not that he was the one true God.


1 When all the other gods
have come together,
the Lord God judges them
and says:
2 “How long will you
keep judging unfairly
and favoring evil people?
3 Be fair to the poor
and to orphans.
Defend the helpless
and everyone in need.
4 Rescue the weak and homeless
from the powerful hands
of heartless people.

5 “None of you know
or understand a thing.
You live in darkness,
while the foundations
of the earth tremble.

6 “I, the Most High God, say
that all of you are gods
and also my own children.
Ps 82:1-6

 

[PinSeeker]

IF someone thinks I am a billionaire and calls me a billionaire, that's what makes me a billionaire?!

Oh, I see, so in addition to your supposing that Thomas broke the first and fourth Commandments (to have no other gods before Him and taking the name of God in vain, respectively), now you're also supposing him to have broken the ninth Commandment (bearing false witness).

On top of and infinitely more egregious than that, you're supposing Jesus, Who was of course without sin and rebuked many for sinning in various ways throughout His public ministry... and after, as we see with Paul in Acts 9... and also forgave sins, remained silent and accepted Thomas's acknowledgment of Him as God (at the very least) or, more damningly, praised Thomas for breaking three of the ten commandments, which He said were His.

To that last point, God commanded/exhorted His people numerous times in the Old Testament, to "love/fear Him and keep His commandments"...

• Exodus 16:28
• Exodus 20:6
• Leviticus 22:31
• Deuteronomy 5:10
• Deuteronomy 5:29
• 1 Kings 3:14
• 1 Kings 6:12
• 1 Kings 9:4
• 1 Kings 9:6
• 1 Kings 11:38
• 2 Kings 17:13
• 1 Chronicles 28:7
• 1 Chronicles 29:19
• 2 Chronicles 7:17
• Nehemiah 1:9
• Psalm 89:31
• Proverbs 3:1
• Proverbs 4:4
• Proverbs 7:1
• Proverbs 7:2)

...and Jesus ~ in the very same way and very purposefully ~ invoked this very same command/exhortation and applied it to and of Himself (and John purposefully documents it, as the fact that Jesus is God is the central theme and purpose of his gospel ("so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name"; John 20:30-31):

• in John 14:15 ("If you love me, you will keep My commandments...")
• in John 14:21 ("Whoever has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me...")
• and in John 15:10 ("If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love...")

The mountain of Biblical evidence is insurmountable.

So with that in view, you stand in the same position as those who, at various times during Jesus's public ministry wanted to stone Him for blasphemy according to God's own Law ("Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him."; Leviticus 24:16) in John 8:58-59 ("Jesus said to them... '...before Abraham was, I AM'... (s)o they picked up stones to throw at Him") and John 10:31-33 ("The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him... 'It is not for a good work that we are going to stone You but for blasphemy, because You, being a man, make yourself God.'”). They were obviously terribly and egregiously mistaken in thinking He was not God, and so are you.

Wow. Just... wow. But hey ~ and not to make it sound like some trivial little thing, but ~ this is what "Jesus is not God" folks do, and it keeps building on itself. Lies beget lies. Indeed, one will reap what he/she sows. I'm going to change my closing, just for you, to the following, and, although I surely cannot make it happen, I truly mean it in all love, grace, and humility:

God's mercy and compassion to you, Wrangler.

 

[Wrangler]

Oh, I see, so in addition to your supposing that Thomas broke the first and fourth Commandments (to have no other gods before Him and taking the name of God in vain, respectively

STOP right there Flasher!

I am not supposing Thomas did any such thing! An exclamatory statement is not a narrative statement of fact. Not sure what part of this you do not grasp.

Regarding taking the name of God in vain, that has to do with legal proceedings. On top of that, god's name is not "God."

Regarding violating the 1C, that is EXACTLY what trinitarianism does.

 

[PinSeeker]

STOP right there, Flasher!

LOL! That's up to you, sir. I do wholeheartedly agree that this should stop, though... :)

"Flasher..." LOL!

I am not supposing Thomas did any such thing! An exclamatory statement is not a narrative statement of fact.

By calling it an exclamatory statement, you are doing exactly all that I said with regard to Thomas and Jesus both.

Not sure what part of this you do not grasp.

There is no "grasping" to it; it is what it is.

Regarding violating the 1C, that is EXACTLY what trinitarianism does.

Absolutely not. Neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit are "before" the Father in any sense, but with Him, in Him (and He in them), and sent by Him (just as Scripture says).

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Wrangler]

Neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit are "before" the Father in any sense, but with Him, in Him (and He in them), and sent by Him (just as Scripture says).

This is the EXACT opposite of what Scripture says in the 1C.

 

[Wrangler]

when Jesus walked this earth the word "god" had an entirely different meaning to those people.

Another part of our cultures pervered notion of equality is the inequality between Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Jesus was given all authority in heaven and Earth. What authority does this leave the Holy Spirit with? None. All. Not equal.

 

[Rich R]

Of course. He was just speaking figuratively. I wonder why the translators didn't let us know that.

I think it was their bias. They did whatever they could to promulgate the trinity.

 

[Rich R]

Jesus made clear this is what he meant by calling himself the son of god.

I Honestly don’t know why trinitarians cannot see it. I guess their idolatry blinds them. What was the Messiah saying when he referred to, below? Certainly not that he was the one true God.


1 When all the other gods
have come together,
the Lord God judges them
and says:
2 “How long will you
keep judging unfairly
and favoring evil people?
3 Be fair to the poor
and to orphans.
Defend the helpless
and everyone in need.
4 Rescue the weak and homeless
from the powerful hands
of heartless people.

5 “None of you know
or understand a thing.
You live in darkness,
while the foundations
of the earth tremble.

6 “I, the Most High God, say
that all of you are gods
and also my own children.
Ps 82:1-6

All we have to do is get rid of Psalm 28, at least verse 6, and we can still have a trinity. No reason to let one little verse get in the way of 2,000 years of tradition. :)

 

[RLT63]

I think it was their bias. They did whatever they could to promulgate the trinity.

Too bad we don't have a version of the Bible that's a reliable translation out of all the choices? Seems unlikely to me

 

[Rich R]

Another part of our cultures pervered notion of equality is the inequality between Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Jesus was given all authority in heaven and Earth. What authority does this leave the Holy Spirit with? None. All. Not equal.

Good point. You're right, the poor Holy Ghost hardly gets any press time. He doesn't even have a throne in the new Jerusalem!

Regarding all authority, there is actually one exception:

1 Cor 15:27,

For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.​

That's gotta be hard to explain. How can one part of God put all things under the feet of another part while making Himself the one exception? But it gets even more complicated for the trinitarians.

1 Cor 15:28,

And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.​

In the new creation one part of God will be subject to another part of God! So it looks like Jesus is going to get the short end of the stick along with the Holy Ghost. Who we gonna call? The Ghostbusters! :)

 

[Rich R]

Too bad we don't have a version of the Bible that's a reliable translation out of all the choices? Seems unlikely to me

Check out this little known translation of the NT: Matthew 1, REV Bible and Commentary

The folks who did it are not trinitarian. There is also an excellent commentary that goes along with it.

 

[PinSeeker]

I think a big part of the problem with John 20:20 is that it is often read with a modern Western mindset...

No, it's quite deeper than that... :)

...not realizing that when Jesus walked this earth the word "god" had an entirely different meaning to those people.

Well, not really. There were just different ideas about who the one/many true God/Gods was/were. Like the writer of Ecclesiastes says, there is nothing new under the sun.

We think of the word "god" and the only thing that comes to mind is the god Yahweh.

In the past as well as the present, we who believe in the One True God know there is God and there are many false gods, both in the sense of persons and things. Even the Bible (God) acknowledges that, calling Jesus the King of kings and Lord of lords ~ the True God over all false gods. And, in addition, by nature, we want and need a true God, and we even make ourselves out to be God. This was true in all times in the past since the fall of Adam and Eve and continues to this very day, and will continue until Jesus returns.

The Ancient Near East understood it to mean anybody with power and authority. But even today, it's not hard to see that. Strong's Concordance:

G2316 θεός theos (the-os') n.
1. (properly, in Greek) a god or deity. a supernatural, powerful entity (real or imagined).
2. (by Hebraism, especially with G3588) God, the Supreme Being, the Creator, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Yahweh by name.
3. (figuratively) a supreme magistrate (in the land).

You sell it way, way, short, Rich. You do see the words 'deity,' 'supernatural,' and 'supreme, in those definitions, do you not? I agree that it is not hard, though. Although... it is impossible without God Himself ("with man this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible").

I think it fair to say Jesus had some power and authority...

Yes, that's very fair... LOL!

...Thomas' remark is no surprise, but it certainly doesn't mean he thought Jesus was actually God, i.e., Yahweh.

All that I said to Wrangler in post 924 above regarding Thomas and Jesus applies to you, Rich. Inadvertent though it may be. All of it.

The Jews were expecting someone from the line of David, a human.

Right, and expecting Him to be God's Christ, and thus God. They just missed it.

Humans make other humans.

Well, they beget them. God knits everyone ~ individually, of course ~ in their mother's wombs.

Mary is not the mother of God!

Well, she's the mother of Jesus, by the Holy Spirit, Who came upon Mary, which tells us that Jesus was always (and will always be) fully of God ~ the Son of God (so He always was and is eternal and with the Father and the Holy Spirit and thus had no "mother"). The fact that He was born of a woman and thus also fully of Man ~ the Son of Man (so Mary was the man Jesus's mother) ~ is what qualifies Him uniquely as the Mediator between man and the Father.

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

 

[PinSeeker]

PinSeeker: Neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit are "before" the Father in any sense, but with Him, in Him (and He in them), and sent by Him (just as Scripture says).

This is the EXACT opposite of what Scripture says in the 1C.

Ah, then Jesus was lying throughout John 14... or John misquoted Him... which, in either case, in view of the fact that all Scripture is breathed out by the Father and into men directly by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16-17) makes the Father and the Holy Spirit out to be a liars and therefore breakers of the ninth commandment. To invoke Jesus's famous statement to Peter, get behind me, Satan.

Grace and peace to you, Wrangler. And mercy and compassion.

 

[RLT63]

Check out this little known translation of the NT: Matthew 1, REV Bible and Commentary

The folks who did it are not trinitarian. There is also an excellent commentary that goes along with it.

No bias here of course
New Unitarian Bible Translation: Revised English Version (REV)

It is our assertion that there are theological issues that we understand more correctly than most translators, and thus our translation will reflect that theology.

 

[tigger 2]

John 20:28 is a statement by Thomas who had refused to believe that Jesus had been resurrected. His statement is a phrase without subject or verb and if subject and verb are to be supplied by the translator, it could read “you are My Lord and My God.” It is more likely, however, that it would be translated more like “My Lord and my God be praised.” This would mean that the phrase was meant as a doxology to the Father. Doxologies and other commonly used phrases frequently have words missing in the Greek text.

Many trinitarians say, instead, that this phrase by Thomas was an ADDRESS to Jesus. If true, this would mean that Thomas was naming Jesus by these words. However, it is rare that a person is addressed and not spoken to further. For example, “Then they said to him, ‘Lord, always give us this bread.’” (John 6:34).

However, there is actual proof that John did not intend this as an ADDRESS to Jesus.

You see, whenever John, and the other NT writers, used “Lord” as a noun of address, they used the form of the word known as a vocative. This means that if John understood Thomas’ words as an address to Jesus, he would write the word kurie. There are 33 uses of kurie in the Gospel of John alone. Here are a few of them: John 9:38; 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37; 14:5. (Compare these with an actual identification of the lord: “it is the lord [kurios],” John 21:7). Whereas when the NT writers intended it as a subject (“The Lord then answered him..." - Luke 13:15) they used the nominative form of the word (Kurios). Kurios is the form used at John 20:28.

So, the probability is that this incomplete phrase is a doxology to the Father.

Furthermore, if John had, somehow, understood Thomas’ statement as some trinitarians insist, he certainly would have provided some follow-up clarification and emphasis in his own comments.

Surely John would have shown Thomas prostrating himself before “God” and worshiping him (but he doesn’t!). So how does John summarize this incident?

“But these were written that you may believe [Believe what? That Jesus is God? Here, then, is where it should have been written if John really believed such a thing:] that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” - John 20:31, RSV. (Be sure to compare 1 John 5:5.)

Or, as the trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985, states in a footnote for this scripture:

“This whole Gospel is written to show the truth of Jesus’ Messiahship and to present him as the Son of God, so that the readers may believe in him.”

Obviously, neither Jesus’ response, nor Thomas’ responses (before and after his statement at John 20:28), nor John’s summation of the event at 20:31 recognizes Thomas’ statement to mean that Jesus is the only true God!

See my study of this scripture here:

Examining the Trinity: MYGOD

 

[RLT63]

John 20:28 is a statement by Thomas who had refused to believe that Jesus had been resurrected. His statement is a phrase without subject or verb and if subject and verb are to be supplied by the translator, it could read “you are My Lord and My God.” It is more likely, however, that it would be translated more like “My Lord and my God be praised.” This would mean that the phrase was meant as a doxology to the Father. Doxologies and other commonly used phrases frequently have words missing in the Greek text.

Many trinitarians say, instead, that this phrase by Thomas was an ADDRESS to Jesus. If true, this would mean that Thomas was naming Jesus by these words. However, it is rare that a person is addressed and not spoken to further. For example, “Then they said to him, ‘Lord, always give us this bread.’” (John 6:34).

However, there is actual proof that John did not intend this as an ADDRESS to Jesus.

You see, whenever John, and the other NT writers, used “Lord” as a noun of address, they used the form of the word known as a vocative. This means that if John understood Thomas’ words as an address to Jesus, he would write the word kurie. There are 33 uses of kurie in the Gospel of John alone. Here are a few of them: John 9:38; 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37; 14:5. (Compare these with an actual identification of the lord: “it is the lord [kurios],” John 21:7). Whereas when the NT writers intended it as a subject (“The Lord then answered him..." - Luke 13:15) they used the nominative form of the word (Kurios). Kurios is the form used at John 20:28.

So, the probability is that this incomplete phrase is a doxology to the Father.

Furthermore, if John had, somehow, understood Thomas’ statement as some trinitarians insist, he certainly would have provided some follow-up clarification and emphasis in his own comments.

Surely John would have shown Thomas prostrating himself before “God” and worshiping him (but he doesn’t!). So how does John summarize this incident?

“But these were written that you may believe [Believe what? That Jesus is God? Here, then, is where it should have been written if John really believed such a thing:] that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” - John 20:31, RSV. (Be sure to compare 1 John 5:5.)

Or, as the trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985, states in a footnote for this scripture:

“This whole Gospel is written to show the truth of Jesus’ Messiahship and to present him as the Son of God, so that the readers may believe in him.”

Obviously, neither Jesus’ response, nor Thomas’ responses (before and after his statement at John 20:28), nor John’s summation of the event at 20:31 recognizes Thomas’ statement to mean that Jesus is the only true God!

See my study of this scripture here:

Examining the Trinity: MYGOD

How can we ever understand any scripture without you to tell us what it really means?

 

[PinSeeker]

All we have to do is get rid of Psalm 28, at least verse 6, and we can still have a trinity.

Only if we ignore Psalm 28:1 ~"To you, O LORD, I call; my Rock, be not deaf to me, lest, if Rou be silent to me, I become like those who go down to the pit." Jesus is this Rock, as we see throughout the Bible:

• Isaiah 8:13-14 ~ "But the LORD of hosts, Him you shall honor as holy. Let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread. And He will become a Sanctuary and a Stone of offense and a Rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem."
• Matthew 16:15-18 ~ "(Jesus) said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father Who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this Rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
• Romans 9:32-33, directly referencing Isaiah 8:13-14, cited previously ~ "Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling Stone, as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."
• 1 Corinthians 1:23, directly referencing Isaiah 8:13-14, cited previously ~ "...but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles..."
• Ephesians 2:13-22, directly referencing Isaiah 8:13-14, cited previously ~ "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ... So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in Whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In Him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit."
• 1 Peter 2:4-8, directly referencing Isaiah 8:13-14, cited previously ~"As you come to Him, a living Stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: 'Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.' So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, 'The stone that the builders rejected has become the Cornerstone,' and 'A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.'”

No reason to let one little verse get in the way of 2,000 years of tradition. :)

I agree. :)

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

 

[PinSeeker]

John 20:28 is a statement by Thomas who had refused to believe that Jesus had been resurrected. His statement is a phrase without subject or verb and if subject and verb are to be supplied by the translator, it could read “you are My Lord and My God.” It is more likely, however, that it would be translated more like “My Lord and my God be praised.” This would mean that the phrase was meant as a doxology to the Father. Doxologies and other commonly used phrases frequently have words missing in the Greek text.

Many trinitarians say, instead, that this phrase by Thomas was an ADDRESS to Jesus. If true, this would mean that Thomas was naming Jesus by these words. However, it is rare that a person is addressed and not spoken to further. For example, “Then they said to him, ‘Lord, always give us this bread.’” (John 6:34).

However, there is actual proof that John did not intend this as an ADDRESS to Jesus.

You see, whenever John, and the other NT writers, used “Lord” as a noun of address, they used the form of the word known as a vocative. This means that if John understood Thomas’ words as an address to Jesus, he would write the word kurie. There are 33 uses of kurie in the Gospel of John alone. Here are a few of them: John 9:38; 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37; 14:5. (Compare these with an actual identification of the lord: “it is the lord [kurios],” John 21:7). Whereas when the NT writers intended it as a subject (“The Lord then answered him..." - Luke 13:15) they used the nominative form of the word (Kurios). Kurios is the form used at John 20:28.

So, the probability is that this incomplete phrase is a doxology to the Father.

Furthermore, if John had, somehow, understood Thomas’ statement as some trinitarians insist, he certainly would have provided some follow-up clarification and emphasis in his own comments.

Surely John would have shown Thomas prostrating himself before “God” and worshiping him (but he doesn’t!). So how does John summarize this incident?

“But these were written that you may believe [Believe what? That Jesus is God? Here, then, is where it should have been written if John really believed such a thing:] that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” - John 20:31, RSV. (Be sure to compare 1 John 5:5.)

Or, as the trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985, states in a footnote for this scripture:

“This whole Gospel is written to show the truth of Jesus’ Messiahship and to present him as the Son of God, so that the readers may believe in him.”

Obviously, neither Jesus’ response, nor Thomas’ responses (before and after his statement at John 20:28), nor John’s summation of the event at 20:31 recognizes Thomas’ statement to mean that Jesus is the only true God!

See my study of this scripture here:

Examining the Trinity: MYGOD

As to Rich, Tigger, so I say to you: All that I said to Wrangler in post 924 above regarding Thomas and Jesus applies to you, Tigger. Inadvertent though it may be. All of it.

Grace and peace to you.