John 20:28

[PaulSacramento]

PaulSacramento

So you suggest that Thomas spoke about himself “The Lord of me and the God of me.” Why then people use this text as proof of Trinity God?

I don't need your explaining away of the scriptures which is beyond reproach that the Father is the only true/one/our God.

Please point to a proof text stating that Jesus is God instead of making up stories while rejecting hundreds of proof texts stating to the contrary.

I know you cannot because it would mean that God contradicted Himself.

Watch your tone son...
Read what I wrote.
Thomas proclaimed Jesus as His God and His Lord.
There is no other interpretation of that passage.
The writer of the GOJ proclaimes Christ as the Divine Logos and states that the Word is WITH God and IS God ( a statement of divine nature).

It is not about "proof texting", it simply is what was stated in the GOJ.

Paul states in Colossians and Philippians that Christ is of the same nature as The Father, ie: God.
What is begotten of God is, quite simply, God, that is why the statement of " the only begotten Son" has such relevance.

You can disagree with the Trinity all you want, that is your choice BUT you can't deny that the NT states that Son and Father ( and HS) share the same divine nature.
The even have the some roles as saviour and redeemer.

That simply just is.

[jerzy]

Christian2

You said: “My interpretation of John 17:3 follows.”

My first question is who authorised you to interpret what God said? Do you think that you are the person appointed to correct God?

My second question to you is, based on Jn 17:1-3, how you derived to conclusion that it supposed to differentiate between the true God and pagan gods?
From verse 1-3 Jesus explains his position in relation to the Father the only true God. He subjects the eternal life upon this knowledge. He further subjects the eternal life to the knowledge that he is the one sent, the foretold Messiah. He was made both Lord and Christ Ac 2:36 because he was a servan man whom God raised from Davi's seed which proceded from his body long after his death. The God groomed him to become the lamb Isa 11:1-3.

Thus Jesus subjected the eternal life to knowledge of two entities:
1. the Father the only true God
2. The one whom the Father sent.

Bear in mind that Jesus doesn’t mention knowledge of the Holy Spirit required for the eternal life. The reason is very obvious. It will come up later in our discussion, I suppose.

Besides, in absence of proof text/s stating that God is Trinity, that Jesus is God and that the Holy Spirit is God the same way as God the Father nobody should try to molest God’s word to account for the theology created in non-Christian ways.

Further, Jn 20:17 follows 17:3 shortly and there is no way any sane person would attempt explaining this one away. Jn 20:28 comes as a total contradiction of the earlier two. It affirms the two in the overall Biblical context like Lu 1:32 to mention but one. Unfortunately, being not a proof text remains subject to molestations although those molestation come as a sharp and fundamental contradiction of the two and of the overall Biblical context.

You mentioned verse 5. You seem unaware of many texts stating that:
1. God foretold Jesus through every prophet. Vague earlier prophecies like the one in Ge 3 become more specific with time.
2. God didn’t do anything before He foretold His intentions. He foretold glory of Jesus to.
3. Jesus’ followers are said to have been saved before the world began.

Conclusion.

Proof texting is a horrible think. Rejections of hundreds of proof texts or molesting them away in order of providing some sort of legitimacy to man-made stories or theologies is fatal.

You said: “Christ joins Himself to the Father in this verse, it is clear enough that it is strongly Trinitarian, not anti-Trinitarian.”

One wonders why God didn’t say it clearly although it is a matter of idolatry or not. Why would God leave the subject to eternal life to man to figure out by "interpreting" His way yet comman not remove or add to His word even as much as an iota.

One wonders why Jesus says in Jn 10:6 that he is the way to the Father not the destination. One wonders why Jesus doesn’t direct people to the other Trinitarian God, the Holy Spiirit.

You said: “Christ is also making Himself equal with God in this verse, since we must "know" both the Father, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent”.

One wonders how you derived to this conclusion. Since when he who sends is equal to the sent?

You said: “Jesus had to make the distinction between My Father and your Father and My God and your God.”

Well, your assumption has no Biblical support at all for this one. Further, Jesus calls his followers brothers. There are few more obvious points to disprove your assumption like 2Sam 7:12, Isa 11:1-3, Mt 11:25+27, 28:18, Lu 1:32 but let’s stop here.

You said: “It is also to be noted that in Jesus' statement we see the two natures of Christ. The statement, "My Father", points to the divine nature of Christ”

You are turning God’s word on its head by trying to explain it away. You miss or reject the origin of Jesus as stated in the Bible. Please consider those few verse for once: 2Sam 7:12 = Ac 2:30 + 13:23, Isa 11:1-3, Mt 11:25+27, 28:18, Lu 1:32 You are trying to proof text the man-made story or the Trinitarian theology.

You said: “The Jews understood the statement `My Father' as a claim to divinity.”

The Jews put God’s word to a dust bin. Jesus explains clearly in Jn 10:34-36 what his Son hood means. Further we are clearly told that God did His works through Jesus Ac 2:22.

You said: "Source: (M. Anderson, used by permission)"

After all you don't know God's word. You don't seek God granted knowledge but rely on man.

I understand that. It is going to back fire one day. You know what day I mean, do you?

[jerzy]

PaulSacramento

You said:” None of those passage contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity which simply states that Jesus and His Father share the same divine nature.”

1. Neither of those texts states that Jesus and His Father share the same divine nature. The Bible is clear on origin of Jesus. See 2Samm=Ac2:30, 13:23, Isa 11:1-3 and many more
2. From those two texts and from the overall Biblical context there is neither mention nor room for multiple God’s whom the Trinitarian explain as one God.
3. The Trinity God is a man-made pagan flavoured story or theology created in non Christian ways and implemented by barbaric means.

[jerzy]

PaulSacramento

You said: “Watch your tone son...”

I am not your son my friend. I think you shouldn’t try to hide your Biblical ignorance behind arrogance.

You said: ” What is begotten of God is, quite simply, God, that is why the statement of " the only begotten Son" has such relevance.”

Can you tell us who wasn’t begotten of God?
Do you know that God doesn’t breed like humans?
Do you know that God begat Jesus twice?
Do you know that God begat Jesus from the dead man’s seed and groomed him Isa 11:1-3?
Do you know that Jesus was the only person begat this way thus the only begotten?
Do you know that Jesus was begat from the dead to the eternal life; the only person this way so far?

You said: “the NT states that Son and Father ( and HS) share the same divine nature.”

Text please not stories.

No, it is not derived from the Bible.
1. God did His works through Jesus Ac 2:22.
2. The Spirit of God or the Holy (dedicated) Spirit is the means by which God does His acts. Jesus explains it in Jn 3:8 but the same word has been rendered differently. One wonders why. Anyway, it was said in those times that things were taking plase by blast of wind (spirit) if causes weren’t known.

[RickD]

PaulSacramento

You said:” None of those passage contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity which simply states that Jesus and His Father share the same divine nature.”

1. Neither of those texts states that Jesus and His Father share the same divine nature. The Bible is clear on origin of Jesus. See 2Samm=Ac2:30, 13:23, Isa 11:1-3 and many more
2. From those two texts and from the overall Biblical context there is neither mention nor room for multiple God’s whom the Trinitarian explain as one God.
3. The Trinity God is a man-made pagan flavoured story or theology created in non Christian ways and implemented by barbaric means.

Jerzy,

Your lack of understanding regarding the trinity is sad. The trinity is not multiple gods. If you're going to argue against something, it's best if you understand what you're actually arguing against.

Your agenda is showing through. Your time here is going to be short lived if you don't change your methods.

[PaulSacramento]

Here you go, NT text stating that Jesus and His Father are the same:
Colossians:
The Incomparable Christ

13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

Philipians:
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

[PaulSacramento]

If you do NOT understand the above posts then there really sin't much pointing in discussing the Trinity doctrine at all.

[jerzy]

RickD

You said: “The trinity is not multiple gods.”

Did you hear about the Athanasian Creed? Perhaps you don’t really know your faith basis.

[Jac3510]

RickD

You said: “The trinity is not multiple gods.”

Did you hear about the Athanasian Creed? Perhaps you don’t really know your faith basis.

Or you don't bother to read the sourcse you cite. Here's the Creed:

• 1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
  2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
  3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
  4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
  5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
  6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
  7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
  8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
  9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
  10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
  11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
  12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
  13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
  14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
  15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
  16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
  17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
  18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
  19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
  20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

It goes on, but I think you should be able to get the point.

In the meantime, try working your way through this if you would like some semblence of understanding about how ridiculous you are sounding.

[jerzy]

PaulSacramento

You said: “13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son”

Who did this? Not the Father the only true God? Where is this Kingdom? See Lu 1:32.

You said: “15 He is the image of the invisible God”

No wonder why. Didn’t God do His works through him Ac 2:22? Didn’t Jesus “manifest" the Father’s name? See Jn 17:6. One wonders what name he manifested and how He did it.

You said: “15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created.. all things have been created through Him”

What does mean the “by him”? What is the choice of multiple meanings?
Anyway, it doesn’t conform with your preaching that all was created by God not through God.

You said: “He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead”

Well, we have the reason for all of the above and following. He is the beginning of everything (the restitution of all things) because he is the firstborn from dead to eternal life. Thus everything since the fall hangs on him.

You said: “He Himself will come to have first place in everything.”

Strange that God needs to be elevated to have first place in everything.

You said: “19 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him”

Ups!!!

So he was nothing until when??? See Mt 28:18.

You said: “20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself”

Upss!!!

So Jesus is the means of restitution of all things to whom???? Certainly to the Father the only true God.

You said: “5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus”

So Jesus had certain attitude which is required of us. What was his attitude???

Let’s see:

Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him,…the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
Isa 11:3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD…

Question. Why “God” had to learn to fear the LORD? Why the spirit of the LOORD had to make this happen?

You said: “He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God”

Didn’t God do His works through him? Didn’t God hear him always? Did he ever take glory for what the Father was doing through him?

But hang on. What is this?????

Heb 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

What???

God cried like a baby to be saved from the death? He cried to whom??? Being God didn’t he save himself as some claim? Could God die in the first place?

You said: “God highly exalted Him”

Upssss!!!!

God exalted another God. Exalted to be a super God or a foretold king of the restored Kingdom on earth???

Hmmmmm!!!!

You said: “every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Confess that Jesus Christ is Lord ( he was elevated to this honourable position Ac 2:36 by whom? By God.

And who is to be gloryfied for all this. God the Father not one of the man-made Trinitarian God?

Hmmmmm!!!!

You said: “If you do NOT understand the above posts then there really sin't much pointing in discussing the Trinity doctrine at all.”

I don’t see any mention of Trinity here. Could you highlight the text stating anything remotely indicating that?

By the way, can you see how rejecting hundreds of proof texts, proof texting and relying on texts which can be easily manipulated by picking up from multiple meaning those often added because of the prevailing doctrine be achieved?

Anyway, I don’t think you applied your mind to those texts because you would have picked up what I pointed to. You would have picked up the inconsistency of those texts.

[PaulSacramento]

Like I said...