The Problem with 2 Peter 1:1

[GEN2REV]

LOL....I assure you someone will win one day....you can count on it.

Someone already has.

They just never knew you.

 

[DavidB]

Thanks David,

I never suggested that Matthew 29:19 indicated that they are coequal, coeternal and coexistent. I simply responded to your assertion that 2 Peter 1:1 is often used to support the trinity. I simply pointed out that Matthew 28:19 was the go to in support of the Trinity. But since you brought up a new subject to discuss I will address it.

coequal: resembling each other in every respect
coeternal: equally or jointly eternal
coexistent: existing or occurring at the same period of time

Since they resemble each other, they are jointly eternal and they exist at the same period of time (which is eternity) it seems they are coequal, coeternal and coexistent.

I agree that Matthew 28:19 is often used to offer proof of the trinity. My point was that while the verse mentions the three, it says nothing to support the trinity which says that the three are coequal, coeternal and coexistent. So I don’t see why it is a “go to” verse.
Have a great day.

 

[DavidB]

I would encourage you to... think and pray on it. These things are spiritually discerned, as Paul says:

"...these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit Who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual." (1 Corinthians 2:10-13, emphasis added)​

We can go deeper on this if you want, but I would challenge your statement that we can't take these things literally (as well as your "figure of speech" assertions). What is not literal in the physical sense can most certainly be literal in the spiritual sense... :)

God bless.

[/QUOTE]
It appears to me that Rich has thought and prayed a lot about the subject. It was his comments on 2 Peter 1:1. on another thread that motivated me to start this one.

 

[Marymog]

I agree that Matthew 28:19 is often used to offer proof of the trinity. My point was that while the verse mentions the three, it says nothing to support the trinity which says that the three are coequal, coeternal and coexistent. So I don’t see why it is a “go to” verse.
Have a great day.

Thanks. That makes sense.

It's the go to vs because it separates the 3 by saying "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,". Three in one = Trinity!

 

[PinSeeker]

Please tell us how we misapply Revelation 7.....to make assertions without explaining why, makes your claim rather empty.

Well, I'm sure you've had that discussion many times, as have I with Jehovah's Witnesses such as yourself. Plus it's getting into a subject different from what we were discussing, and I didn't care to launch into that on top of what we were discussing (which I think you would be appreciative of, but no matter).

So do you believe that God’s “elect” and the “uncountable multitude” have the same destiny? What is the purpose of the two groups?

Yes, because they are the same group. Which, yes, I know, Jehovah's Witnesses suppose differently. The purpose of the one group is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. And they ~ it (that group) ~ will. :)

They had the potential to be, but because they could never obey the laws of their God, they lost their place. Going back to Eden, we discover that continuing life and blessings from God were always conditional. Obedience was all God ever asked of his intelligent creation...both humans and angels.

Jesus condemned his nation as disobedient, and exposed their hypocrisy....
Matthew 21:42-45....
“Jesus said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘A stone which the builders rejected, This has become the chief cornerstone; This came about from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes’? 43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruit. 44 And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and on whomever it falls, it will crush him.” When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them. (NASB)

This indicates that the kingdom was taken away from the fleshly Jews and given to those who accepted Jesus as their Lord and savior. These were initially taken from the Jewish nation to whom Jesus preached exclusively. After Jesus’ death however, Gentiles also began to be gathered as was promised to Abraham, that “all the nations” would be “blessed” by the one coming in his family lineage, because of his obedience to his God. (Genesis 22:17-18)

Well, Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. It wasn't because of his obedience, but because of his trust ~ his faith ~ in God, which Hebrews 13 is very clear on. And regarding God's kingdom in Matthew 21, it was never really theirs (those who it would be taken away from) in the first place. Enough on that.

I agree...”ugh” is a totally appropriate response to what God sees among those who claim his son as their “Lord”.

I hope this is sarcasm... My response of "ugh" was to your launching into the whole military aggression stuff and "marrying religion with politics" meme (which you actually hit on below) that you went into. It was really a total non sequitur, not to mention misguided.

Their disobedience will lead to his total rejection of them as those he “never knew”. (Matthew 7:21-23)

No, but their lack of faith.

What I posted was in response to what that means in real terms when you marry religion with politics.....a very unholy union....but one that Christendom embraces.

Good grief. Interest in and even participation in the governance of one's country is not equivalent to "marrying religion with politics." Enough said on that. My goodness. Paul tells us to be good citizens. You and I have the good fortune to be citizens of a nation that governs itself, a representative republic. Again, that's a whole 'nother subject. Enough said.

You never explained what you meant by “saltiness”. You often speak in vague terms which leave your readers unsure of exactly what you mean. Please explain.....

Again, a whole 'nother subject. Briefly, we have to think metaphorically about salt regarding Christian saltiness. Two points:

1. I'll just say that that there’s much more to salt than just flavoring. Christian "saltiness" is not just ~ it is, but it is not only ~ bringing flavor to this lifeless world. That can mean a lot of different things. And I'll just leave that there.

2. Christian saltiness is not just being nice to other people; Christian saltiness can sometimes be... unpleasant. Not violent, but... hopefully you know what I mean. To this I'll just say that natural salt has incredible abilities. It can stop and inhibit the growth of harmful mold and bacteria, and it has been used for centuries as a means to preserve, cure, and save food. So Christians are are called to be people who inhibit the growth of sin and darkness in the world. That's enough, too, I think.

We could talk for days about Christian saltiness.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

It appears to me that Rich has thought and prayed a lot about the subject.

Sure. Probably so. Didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Aunty Jane]

It's the go to vs because it separates the 3 by saying "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,". Three in one = Trinity!

Or three separate and distinct entities....there is nothing to say that these three are one entity. That is an assumption created by the concept of the trinity, which has been deeply ingrained in Christendom’s teachings, but non-existent in the first century. The Jews had no such concept, (Deuteronomy 6:4) and all of the first Christians were Jewish. The scriptures used by Jesus and his apostles were Jewish scripture, devoid of any mention of a triune god. The pagan nations however were full of them.

Those who followed the Lord Jesus were baptized in his name.
After Jesus’ death Peter told the Jews what they had done.....many were cut to the heart...
“Peter said to them “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the pardoning of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

When Jesus gave his disciples his final instructions....
“And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (NASB)
Having said that “all authority” had been “given” to him, proves that he was not God.....does one part of God need to give the other equal part of himself, “authority”?

To do anything “in the name of” someone or something, indicates that that the “name” has some authority over a person. To baptize “in the name of Father, son and holy spirit ”, indicates that all three have authority over the person submitting to baptism.....thereby acknowledging the important role that each has contributed to the journey that culminates in the believer being saved.

 

[EloyCraft]

Three person's one name?

 

[Rich R]

I would encourage you to... think and pray on it. These things are spiritually discerned, as Paul says:

"...these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit Who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual." (1 Corinthians 2:10-13, emphasis added)​

We can go deeper on this if you want, but I would challenge your statement that we can't take these things literally (as well as your "figure of speech" assertions).

As a matter of fact, I don't see anything in 1 Corinthians 2:10-13 that can't be taken in a literal sense. What I don't see as literal is that a man and a woman are actually one flesh. I don't think everything is a figure of speech, just those parts that fit the definition of a figure of speech. If you Google "figures of speech" you'll find they all say pretty much:

"figure of speech, any intentional deviation from literal statement or common usage that emphasizes, clarifies, or embellishes both written and spoken language"
​

Since normal word usage means that two people are actually two people, it would require a figure of speech to say, "I and my Father are one." What did Jesus want to communicate to us by that statement, indeed, what did he want to emphasize? He wanted to communicate just how close he followed his Father's will. Jesus chose God's will over his own will several times. The very fact they had different, often opposite, wills ought to speak volumes to anyone wanting to understand the relationship between God and Jesus.

John 5:30,

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
​

There is simply no reason not to take this statement as literal. All it says is that Jesus obeyed his Father all the time. No need to look for figures of speech there since all the words conform to the common, normal usage of words.

What is not literal in the physical sense can most certainly be literal in the spiritual sense... :)

I'm not so sure about that. If that's the case then we might expect nothing to make sense to our God given minds and brains.

 

[EloyCraft]

and my Father are one." What did Jesus want to communicate to us by that statement, indeed, what did he want to emphasize? He wanted to communicate just how close he followed his Father's will. Jesus chose God's will over his own will several times. The very fact they had different, often opposite, wills ought to speak volumes to anyone wanting to understand the relationship between God and Jesus.

God Incarnate experienced existential limitations. If the Father were incarnated He would be indistinguishable from Jesus. On earth we choose good at every moment as presented. With the limitations of a body one may not have the information to judge the good or know all the choices for the good sought. That isn't the case with God in heaven.
God doesn't choose good like He did during His earthly life, that is doing His Father's will, because God is good.

The oneness of the community of divine persons is intrinsic to life that always was. They are distinct only to themselves. To us they are identical. The unity of life without beginning or end is unfathomable.
The Trinity could not be apprehended by the intellect nor is it knowable by human reason alone. We know because God revealed Himself to us.
One must not let their mind think mysteries of faith are impossible or the door to knowing remains closed.

 

[Marymog]

Or three separate and distinct entities....there is nothing to say that these three are one entity. That is an assumption created by the concept of the trinity, which has been deeply ingrained in Christendom’s teachings, but non-existent in the first century. The Jews had no such concept, (Deuteronomy 6:4) and all of the first Christians were Jewish. The scriptures used by Jesus and his apostles were Jewish scripture, devoid of any mention of a triune god. The pagan nations however were full of them.

Thanks Aunty,

The Jews had no concept of the trinity because Jesus had not been revealed yet as the Messiah. They only knew God and the spirit. The spirit, along with God of course, was referenced many times in the OT. You can't have a "trinity" with only two beings; there has to be three to make a trinity. The word trinity is derived from the Latin word trinitas, which came from the Platonic term trias meaning three.

You are right in that they are 3 separate and distinct entities but 1 can not make/enforce something without the other 2 NOR can the 2 out vote the 1. They are always in agreement and are of one mind....so in that regard they are 3 are 1!

Mary

 

[ChristisGod]

2 Peter 1:1 is often used to support the trinity.
“Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:”

Here is the problem.

Granville Sharp made a rule in 1798. Sharp's Rule says, in effect, that when two or more words (nouns) in the original Greek NT text are joined by the word "and," they all refer to the same person if the word "the" comes before the first noun and not before the other nouns.

Many respected NT experts and translators have rejected Sharp's Rule. For example: G. B. Winer; J. H. Moulton; C. F. D. Moule; Dr. James Moffatt (see Titus 2:13; and 1 Tim. 5:21); Dr. William Barclay (2 Thess. 1:12); and Roman Catholic scholar Karl Rahner (2 Peter 1:1).

Notice these translations of 2 Peter 1:1.
KJV - “through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"
ASV - "in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ"
RSV footnote - “of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ”
Weymouth - “through the righteousness of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ."
NWT “through the righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ”

The most frequently used “Sharp’s Rule” verse is Titus 2:13. These translations also reject the made up rule and do not support the trinity.
KJV - “of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Moffatt - "of the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus,"
NABRE - "of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ,"
NLV - "of our great God and the One Who saves, Christ Jesus."
RSV footnote - “of the great God and our Savior”
CJB - "of our great God and the appearing of our Deliverer, Yeshua the Messiah."
GNV - "of that mighty God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ."
Phillips - "of the Great God and of Jesus Christ our saviour.
Coverdale - “of ye greate God and of oure Sauioure Iesu Christ.”
Wycliffe - “of the greet God, and of oure sauyour Jhesu Crist;”
Tyndale - “ye myghty god and of oure savioure Iesu Christ.”
Mace- “of the supreme God, and of our saviour Jesus Christ,”
Noyes - “of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ;”
Riverside - “of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus,”
NWT - "of the great God and of our Savior, Jesus Christ,"

2 Peter 1:1
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:11
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:1
our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

2 Peter 1:11
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

We have a second person possessive pronoun "Our" modifying two different improper nouns (God and Savior) joined by "and" (Kia) to identify a proper noun (Jesus) [Granville/Sharp's]. Therefore, by basic grammar, we are identifying Jesus as God and Savior. We don't even have to know the Greek to see that Jesus is being called both God and Savior/ Lord and Savior in Peters 2nd Epistle. 2 Peter 2:20 and 2 Peter 3:18 also have the same Greek construction as 1:1 and 1:11.

But for those interested in the Greek here is the comparison of 1:1 and 1:11.

τοῦ is the same.
ἡμῶν is the same.
καὶ is the same.
Σωτῆρος is the same.
Ἰησοῦ is the same.
Χριστοῦ· is the same.

And all in the same order.

The only difference is the noun "Θεοῦ" in v.1, while "Κυρίου" is in v.11.

So if he wants to deny that Jesus is "God" ("theou") in v.1, then he has to deny that Jesus is "Lord" ("kuriou") in v.11. Otherwise he's being inconsistent and dishonest with the text. To say otherwise is proof positive one has an agenda when reading scripture and using eisegesis rather than exegesis of the biblical text in question.

hope this helps !!!

 

[tigger 2]

Some scriptures can be rendered in more than one way. The use of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 is an example. 2 Peter 1:1 has the same problems as found in Titus 2:13 and may honestly be rendered "Simon Peter, a bondservant and Apostle of Jesus Christ: To those to whom there has been allotted the same precious faith as that which is ours through the righteousness of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ." (Weymouth NT)

Sometimes, though, translators are unable to find a way to render a passage in the way they really want to. 2 Peter 1:2 is just one of them for most trinitarian translators.

2 Peter 1:2 (parallel usage to that found in 2 Peter 1:1):

“Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,” - KJV. The same meaning is found in AMP, ASV, AT, BRG, CSB, Darby, DRA, EHV, GNV, GNT, HCSB, ISV, JUB, KJ21, LEB, MEV, Mounce, NAB, NASB, NCB, NET, NIV, NKJV, NMB, NRSV, NTE, REB, RGT, RSV, TLV, VOICE, WEB, YLT.

We might also compare the translations of 2 Tim. 4:1 by ASV, AMP, CEB, ESV, GNV, GNT, NAB, NASB, NIV, NMB, NRSV, RSV, TLB.

See the study Examining the Trinity: SHARP'S Rule

 

[PinSeeker]

Some scriptures can be rendered in more than one way.

Absolutely, they can. But some are better than others, and a select few are heretical. But God does, by the ongoing work of His Holy Spirit, protect the integrity of His Word, and it does remain as inerrant and infallible as it ever was (as if it was less than inerrant or infallible at any point). It is what it is. Again, the grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God endures forever (Isaiah, Peter).

Sometimes, though, translators are unable to find a way to render a passage in the way they really want to.

Well, it's not really about "wanting to," because it is what it is. But translators are fallible, though, and sometimes they don't do as good a job as they could have. But still, the Spirit protects the integrity of the Word.

However... LOL! The Watchtower Society certainly did, along about 1830... :) Well. It's not a laughing matter. At all.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Thanks Aunty,

The Jews had no concept of the trinity because Jesus had not been revealed yet as the Messiah. They only knew God and the spirit. The spirit, along with God of course, was referenced many times in the OT. You can't have a "trinity" with only two beings; there has to be three to make a trinity. The word trinity is derived from the Latin word trinitas, which came from the Platonic term trias meaning three.

The only problem with that assertion is that God’s spirit was never seen as a person or a deity in OT.....it emanated from their deity, but was not of itself a personage. That came later when the church had fused Jesus and his Father and then added the Holy Spirit to make up their trinity god.

Numbers 11:16-17 indicates that the spirit of God was the exercise of his power, giving humans the ability to do things that they could not accomplish on their own. Even Jesus needed the Holy Spirit to perform miracles. It was bestowed on him at his baptism. He in turn gave then the ability to perform miracles by the mention of his name.

When Moses was finding the the Israelites difficult to deal with on his own.....
“...the Lord said to Moses, “Bring me seventy men from among the elders of Israel whom you know to be elders and leaders of the people. Bring them to the tent of meeting, and have them stand there with yourself. I will come down and speak to you there. I will take some of the Spirit that is upon you and put it upon them. They will carry the burden of the people with you, so that you do not have to carry it alone.” (NCB)

If the Holy Spirit was a person, how would that make sense? How can you take some of a person and divide it up equally among 70 men? However if the Holy Spirit was the exercise of God’s power, the means that he uses to accomplish his will, then that to me makes more sense.

In “church” records there is no mention of a trinity until the end of the second century. How is that possible if it was believed by the Jewish disciples of Jesus? No Jew would have accepted that their Messiah was God incarnate....that would have been blasphemy. Jesus never claimed to be God...not once. All he ever said was that he was “the son of God”. How does being God’s son make him God?

You are right in that they are 3 separate and distinct entities but 1 can not make/enforce something without the other 2 NOR can the 2 out vote the 1. They are always in agreement and are of one mind....so in that regard they are 3 are 1!

The unity of purpose is clearly stated between God and his son, but the mention of the Holy Spirit, when speaking of Yahweh and Jesus, is more often than not, missing. Why is this equal part of God not mentioned?

John 17:1-5....in prayer to his Father Jesus’ words tell us what leads to eternal life....
“After saying this, Jesus raised his eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, so that your Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to all those you have given him. And eternal life is this: to know you, the only true God, and the one you have sent, Jesus Christ. “I have glorified you on earth by completing the work that you entrusted to me. So now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” (NCB)

I do not see any equality expressed here.....the Son is deferring to his Father as the one who will glorify his son, restoring him to his glorious position in heaven as he had before he came to the earth.
No mention is made of the Holy Spirit at all.

The apostles too never mentioned the Holy Spirit as part of God.
1 Corinthians 8:5-6...
Indeed, even though there are so-called gods in heaven and on earth—and there are in fact many gods and many lords— for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist.” (NCB)

I see no mention of a trinity at all....in fact just the opposite. With no direct statement as to there being a three in one “godhead”, all the church had was ambiguous verses into which it wove a pagan concept. Abrahamic religions have no trinity.....Abraham was as close to God as a mere mortal man could become, and yet he did not know such a God. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

I find no evidence of a trinity at all in the scriptures......nor do I see a need to accept that God had to send himself as a human to rescue his children. The ransom price was set...no more, no less....so for God to come to earth and offer his life was not only impossible (he is immortal and cannot die) but the overpayment would have been ridiculous! Like using 100 trillion cans of bug spray to kill one mosquito. All Jesus needed to be was 100% human to offer his life as an equivalent of Adam, to redeem us. If Jesus didn’t die, then the ransom is not paid and we are still doomed in our sins.

That is how the Bible instructs me.....

 

[amigo de christo]

Three person's one name?

And what did the glorious LORD JESUS tell them , I have given them YOUR NAME .
Let us ponder on the beauty of that one . The WORD is God , and if you have seen me phillip YE have seen the FATHER
so how say you then SHEW Us the Father . Tis a mystery indeed .
But the gospel of JOHN , in the beginning does a wonderous job of explaining it .
As well as the end of first john . All i can say is , LET THE GLORIOUS LORD BE PRAISED .
FOR IN JESUS CHRIST the lambs have all hope and salvation . Let all endure faithful unto the end . Having all hope , all affections
above on HIM .

 

[EloyCraft]

And what did the glorious LORD JESUS tell them , I have given them YOUR NAME .
Let us ponder on the beauty of that one .

Amen.

 

[Scott Downey]

Agreed. But so, even in the same verse, why does the New World Translation have a comma inserted between "Simon Peter" and "a slave and servant"? Why is that, AJ? :)

But to the point under discussion here, the English Standard Version (ESV) reads, "...by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ..."

Look. The insertion of the comma by some translations (in either case) is not heretical, but can be misunderstood (the wrong inference can be made). Even so, the Word of God is still the Word of God. The comma can only "change the meaning of the text" in the eye of the beholder, who may or may not be leaning on his/her own understanding, which, of course, God implores us through Solomon not to do. In any case, Jesus Christ is both God and Savior. To separate the two ~ 'God' from 'Savior' or vice-versa ~ would be to suggest (to my implication above) that Peter, earlier in the same verse, separates himself 'bond-servant' and 'apostle' of Jesus Christ and makes himself out to be two (or possibly three) different people, a ridiculous supposition.

Samuel, the writer of 1st and 2nd Kings, David, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Hosea, Luke, Paul, Peter, Jude... they all acknowledge God and Jesus to be Savior in various places:

2 Samuel 22:3 ~ "...my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge, my Savior..."

2 Kings 13:5 ~ "Therefore the LORD gave Israel a Savior..."

Psalm 17:7 ~ "Wondrously show your steadfast love, O Savior of those who seek refuge from their adversaries at your right hand."

Psalm 106:21 ~ "They forgot God, their Savior, who had done great things in Egypt,"

Isaiah 19:20 ~ "It will be a sign and a witness to the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt. When they cry to the LORD because of oppressors, He will send them a Savior and defender, and deliver them."

Isaiah 43:3 ~ "For I am the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior."

Isaiah 43:11 ~ "I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no Savior."

Isaiah 45:15 ~ "Truly, you are a God who hides himself, O God of Israel, the Savior."

Isaiah 45:21 ~ "Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides Me."

Isaiah 49:26 ~ "I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine. Then all flesh shall know that I am the LORD your Savior, and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.”

Isaiah 60:16 ~ "You shall suck the milk of nations; you shall nurse at the breast of kings; and you shall know that I, the LORD, am your Savior and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob."

Isaiah 63:8 ~ "For He (the LORD, from 63:7) said, 'Surely they are My people, children who will not deal falsely.' And He became their Savior."

Jeremiah 14:8 ~ "O you (LORD, from 14:7) hope of Israel, its Savior in time of trouble, why should you be like a stranger in the land, like a traveler who turns aside to tarry for a night?"

Hosea 13:4 ~ "But I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no Savior."

Luke 1:47 ~ "...and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior..." (Mary)

Luke 2:11 ~ "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (an angel of the Lord; this is also an acknowledgement of God as Lord).

John 4:42 ~ "They said to the woman, 'It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.'”

Acts 5:31 ~ "God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins."

Acts 13:23 ~ "Of this man's offspring God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, as He promised."

Ephesians 5:23 ~ "For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior."

Philippians 3:20 ~ "But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ..."

1 Timothy 1:1 ~ "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope..."

1 Timothy 2:3 ~ "This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior..."

1 Timothy 4:10 ~ "For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe."

2 Timothy 1:10 ~ "and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel..."

Titus 1:3 ~ and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior;

Titus 1:4 ~ "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior."

Titus 2:10 ~ "...not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior."

Titus 2:13 ~ "...waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ..."

Titus 3:4 ~ "But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared..."

Titus 3:6 ~ "...Whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior..."

2 Peter 1:1 ~ "Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ..."

2 Peter 1:11 ~ "For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

2 Peter 2:20 ~ "For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first."

2 Peter 3:2 ~ "...that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles,"

2 Peter 3:18 ~ "But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen."

1 John 4:14 ~ "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world."

Jude 1:25 ~ "...to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen."​

Likewise, God (the Father) is acknowledged in many places throughout the Bible as Lord. This is the Word of the Lord. Thanks be to God.

1. John 20:28
   And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
   Acts 7:59
2. And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

There is no scriptural doubt that Christ and the Father are One.

 

[Scott Downey]

26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

 

[PinSeeker]

26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Absolutely. But Jehovah's Witnesses and those who think along the same lines as far as Jesus and His deity (or lack thereof) will say that Thomas was referring to Jesus only in the first part of his exclamation ("my Lord"). They will say that in the latter part, Thomas was merely (merely!) breaking commandment number three and taking the name of the Lord God in vain ("my God"), which is quite astounding... and absurd, because if that were what he was doing, Jesus, instead of accepting Thomas's worship and praise here and actually praising Thomas for believing (all of which He clearly did), would have strongly rebuked Thomas, as He did others for unrepentant sin throughout His public ministry, and especially throughout John's gospel.

And I'll just add that this is actually at least the fourth instance of Jesus causing the blind to see, which only God can do.

Thanks, Scott. Grace and peace to you.