My Lord And My God...

[seer]

When Thomas fell to his feet and called Jesus His Lord and God - was he correct in addressing Christ as his Lord and his God?

[NonTrinitarian]

When Thomas fell to his feet and called Jesus His Lord and God - was he correct in addressing Christ as his Lord and his God?
The question is whether he was adressing Jesus at all. Look at the word for "Lord" in that verse and see if you can find another instance anywhere else in the gospels where anyone directly addresses Jesus by the same word.

[Xavier]

The question is whether he was adressing Jesus at all. Look at the word for "Lord" in that verse and see if you can find another instance anywhere else in the gospels where anyone directly addresses Jesus by the same word.

250 Times in the word Kurios (LORD) used in the Gospels... Here are a few:

Matthew 1:20 - ... behold, the angel of LORD appeared to him... (Same in Matt 1:24 & 2:13 & 2:19)

Matthew 2:15 - ...which was spoken of the LORD by the prophet...

Matthew 3:3 - Prepare ye the way of the LORD...

Matthew 4:7 - Jesus said unto them: It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the LORD your GOD. (Same formula applied to the Father as Thomas applies to Christ) (Same in 4:10)

{Skipping a few}

Matt 7:21 - Not everyone that saith unto me, LORD, LORD... (Christ talking in 1st Person) (Same in 7:22)

{Skipping a few}

Matt 8:2 - And behold there came a leper and worshipped him (Christ) saying LORD if thou wilt thou canst clean me.

Matt 8:5 - And saying [the Centurian] LORD, my servent lieth at home... (Same in 8:8)

Matt 8:21 - And another of his disciples said unto him LORD... (Same in 8:25)

And that's just Matthew... There are 250 occurances of LORD in the Gospels. Roughly 10% are used as master, the remaining 90% used as direct address to either Christ or God the Father. No one ever refers to anyone other than Christ or God by LORD in direct address. Christ uses the word LORD to indicate master in several parables, however.

So we have several instances by both disciples and by others refering to Christ as Kurios...

But, since the point of the verse to show the divinity of Christ, the interesting word is THEOS... Let's see how many times THEOS is used to mean something other than God (YHWH) in the Gospels:

NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!

318 occurences of the word THEOS in the Gospel, and not a single time does it EVER refer to anyone other than YHWH.

Let me run my Search Reality engine:
"NonTrin's leg to stand on" -- Zero Occurences....

Ahhhhhhh, so sorry... :frown:

Yours,
Xavier

[seer]

The question is whether he was adressing Jesus at all. Look at the word for "Lord" in that verse and see if you can find another instance anywhere else in the gospels where anyone directly addresses Jesus by the same word.

Of course he is addressing Jesus: Then He said to Thomas, Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"



You guys don't like this verse do you! So is Jesus our Lord and God?

[NonTrinitarian]

250 Times in the word Kurios (LORD) used in the Gospels... Here are a few:

Matthew 1:20 - ... behold, the angel of LORD appeared to him... (Same in Matt 1:24 & 2:13 & 2:19)

Matthew 2:15 - ...which was spoken of the LORD by the prophet...

Matthew 3:3 - Prepare ye the way of the LORD...

Matthew 4:7 - Jesus said unto them: It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the LORD your GOD. (Same formula applied to the Father as Thomas applies to Christ) (Same in 4:10)

{Skipping a few}

Matt 7:21 - Not everyone that saith unto me, LORD, LORD... (Christ talking in 1st Person) (Same in 7:22)

{Skipping a few}

Matt 8:2 - And behold there came a leper and worshipped him (Christ) saying LORD if thou wilt thou canst clean me.

Matt 8:5 - And saying [the Centurian] LORD, my servent lieth at home... (Same in 8:8)

Matt 8:21 - And another of his disciples said unto him LORD... (Same in 8:25)

And that's just Matthew... There are 250 occurances of LORD in the Gospels. Roughly 10% are used as master, the remaining 90% used as direct address to either Christ or God the Father. No one ever refers to anyone other than Christ or God by LORD in direct address. Christ uses the word LORD to indicate master in several parables, however.

So we have several instances by both disciples and by others refering to Christ as Kurios...

But, since the point of the verse to show the divinity of Christ, the interesting word is THEOS... Let's see how many times THEOS is used to mean something other than God (YHWH) in the Gospels:

NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!

318 occurences of the word THEOS in the Gospel, and not a single time does it EVER refer to anyone other than YHWH.

Let me run my Search Reality engine:
"NonTrin's leg to stand on" -- Zero Occurences....

Ahhhhhhh, so sorry... :frown:

Yours,
XavierMan, there's nothing more thrilling than watching a rookie Trinitarian come in shooting off the mouth right before he sticks his foot in his mouth.

Request to TWeb: Can we create a "Beginner's Apologetics" forum here for people like Xavier?

Xavier,
Why don't you look at what word is used to call Jesus "Lord" every other time in the Gospels and compare that to the word for "Lord" at John 20:28. Tell us what you find:lol:

[NonTrinitarian]

Of course he is addressing Jesus: Then He said to Thomas, Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"



You guys don't like this verse do you! So is Jesus our Lord and God?
Bummer, if I had of seen the phrase "said to Him..." I would never have left Trinitarianism.:teeth:

Don't make me start quoting verses where people refer to someone other than YHWH as if he were YHWH.

Instead of dealing in remedial apologetics, why don't you help out Xavier in figuring out the difference between the Lord in John 20:28 and every other instance Jesus is undeniably refered to as Lord.

[Xavier]

Man, there's nothing more thrilling than watching a rookie Trinitarian come in shooting off the mouth right before he sticks his foot in his mouth.

Man, there's nothing more thilling than watching a JW once again look like a complete a total moron because they refuse to do ANY study outside of what their elders taught them.

Request to TWeb: Can we create a "Beginner's Apologetics" forum here for people like Xavier?

Request to TWeb: Can we start a "Idiot's Apologetics" forum for people like NonTrin? Oh, wait... It already exists...

Xavier,
Why don't you look at what word is used to call Jesus "Lord" every other time in the Gospels and compare that to the word for "Lord" at John 20:28. Tell us what you find:lol:

They are the same: Kuros (Strong's #2962).

It's the EXACT same word that Christ is called innumerous times throughout the gospels.

NonTrin is so trying to twist the simpliest verse to his own heretical ends. Let's look at the context of the statement and see who Thomas was talking to:
Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe."

Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

What's the classic JW response? Of course, that Thomas was talking about God the Father there. Even though such a stance violates the context AND the Greek.

Let's look at each bad argument:
1) Thomas was talking about God the Father.
Let's see how that would make sense. Christ talks to Thomas. Thomas replies to God the Father. Christ asks Thomas about his statement. :huh:

Common sense tells us that Christ was responding to something that Thomas was telling HIM.

2) Violating the Greek.
Notice that the ESV translation includes a direct object in the statement. Why might that be? Why does ever major translation I could look up have the exact same object? Simple. The Greek REQUIRES it to be there. The object occurs IN the sentance. The Object tell us EXACTLY who Thomas was talking about: Christ.

But, I'll enjoy watching how lifelong heretic NonTrin will twist, turn, and squirm while spilling all the answers that his elders spoon fed to him.

Yours,
Xavier

[Xavier]

Don't make me start quoting verses where people refer to someone other than YHWH as if he were YHWH.

You mean 'theos' I suppose... Yes, I'd love to see where someone called someone other than God the Father or Christ the Son 'theos'.

[barryrob]

Of course he is addressing Jesus: Then He said to Thomas, Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

You guys don't like this verse do you! So is Jesus our Lord and God?


Of course we do as we agree with that verse says!


If human beings are call "God" by Jehovah The Almighty God:-

Humans are referred to as "God" or "god".


Exodus 4:16 "And he* must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you** will serve as God*** to him*."


*Aaron; **Moses; ***N.W.T. (ftn) "As God." Heb., le´·lo·him', pl.; Gr., the·on'; Lat., De'um."

Exodus 7:1 "Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: "See, I have made you God* to Pharaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.

*N.W.T. "(ftn.) "God." Heb., ´elo·him'; Gr., the·on'; Latin, De'um."

Psalms 82:1-8 "God is stationing himself in the assembly of the Divine One*; In the middle of the gods** he judges: "How long will YOU keep on judging with injustice And showing partiality to the wicked themselves? Be judges for the lowly one and the fatherless boy. To the afflicted one and the one of little means do justice. Provide escape for the lowly one and the poor one; Out of the hand of the wicked ones deliver [them]." They have not known, and they do not understand; In darkness they keep walking about; All the foundations of the earth are made to totter. "I myself have said, 'YOU are gods***, And all of YOU are sons of the Most High. . . ."




*N.W.T. (ftn) "Or, "God." Heb., ´El; LXXVg, "gods"; Sy, "angels.""

**N.W.T. (ftn) "Or, "godlike ones." Heb., ´elo·him'; LXXVgc, "gods"; Sy, "angels"; T, "judges.""
***N.W.T. (ftn) "Or, "godlike ones." Heb., ´elo·him'; Gr., the·oi'; Syr., da´·la·hin; Lat., di'i; T, like angels."

K.J.V. Companion Bible, Ps 82:1

**"gods Elohim: used of earthly judges as representing Him. Cp. Ex. 21.6; 22.8, 9, 28 (quoted in Acts 23.5.). Hence Moses is so spoken of (Ex. 7. 1). (it is used also of idols as representing even a false god.) See John 10. 34, 35."

"Verse 6. Ye are gods — Or, with the prefix of k ke, the particle of similitude,µyhlak keelohim, "like God." Ye are my representatives, and are clothed with my power and authority to dispense judgment and justice, therefore all of them are said to be children of the Most High."-Clarke's Commentary OT, Vol. 3 Job - Song of Solomon by Adam Clarke p.1084



and being as Jesus is "a god" (John 1:1) but Not the "God of gods" Jehovah:-

Deuteronomy 10:17 For Jehovah YOUR God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the God great, mighty and fear-inspiring, who treats none with partiality nor accepts a bribe,
Daniel 2:47 The king was answering Daniel and saying: "Truly the God of YOU men is a God of gods and a Lord of kings and a Revealer of secrets, because you were able to reveal this secret."

Exodus 18:11 Now I do know that Jehovah is greater than all the [other] gods by reason of this affair in which they acted presumptuously against them."

2 Chronicles 2:5 And the house that I am building will be great, for our God is greater than all the [other] gods.

Psalm 97:9 For you, O Jehovah, are the Most High over all the earth; You are very high in your ascent over all [other] gods.



So IF (PLEASE NOTE I DO SAY "IF") Thomas did call Jesus God it would have been in the Background of JEWISH THEOLOGY as Christandom's theology as it did not exist then, Thomas would have been correct because he would be fullly understsnd it would have been realitive to The Almighty Jehovah.


This verse
John 20:28 In answer Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!"
follows:-

John 20:17 For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’"

If you said to someone this is "My God and Father" they would think that you where talking about Jesus, is that not so?

So being as Chritianity did not exist when Jesus said what he did etc. in John Ch. 20, then The God who was the "My God and Father" of Jesus, and by conection Thomas, must have been Jehovah "the God of gods"

And then Jesus makes it quoite plan that he is not God but God's Son:-

John 20:31 But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, YOU may have life by means of his name.

Here it is plain to see that Jesus and God the Father are not the same being as Jesus is here the Son of the Father whom is His -Jesus'- "God" ("my God") and the "God of gods" now as the trinity dogma once again did not exist at that time Jesus must be a subordinate "god" and has the right to be called God but 2nd or relative to Jehovah The God of gods", The God of Jesus Christ, "a god".

Barryrob

[seer]

Ok guys, and barry. I think it is clear that Thomas called Jesus my Lord and My God. So the question remains - was Thomas correct in addressing Christ as My Lord and My God?

[seer]

Instead of dealing in remedial apologetics, why don't you help out Xavier in figuring out the difference between the Lord in John 20:28 and every other instance Jesus is undeniably refered to as Lord.

That has already been done. But let me ask you NT - is Jesus your Lord - yes or no?

[barryrob]

Ok guys, and barry. I think it is clear that Thomas called Jesus my Lord and My God. So the question remains - was Thomas correct in addressing Christ as My Lord and My God?

To add to what you say, we can ask who then was Jesus addressing in John 20:17 when he said "my God"?

Barryrob

[seer]

To add to what you say, we can ask who then was Jesus addressing in John 20:17 when he said "my God"?

Barryrob

Barry, I will be happy to deal with that in a bit. But first - was Thomas correct in calling Christ My Lord and My God.

[Sparko]

Yep, Nontrinitarian. Xavier is right. I just checked (www.studylight.org) an interlinear greek / english bible and the word used in John 20:28 for Lord is Kurios just as it is in Matt 20:30 and every other place that Jesus is called Lord, or that God is called Lord.

[Xavier]

Of course we do as we agree with that verse says!

Uhh... I think NonTrin would disagree... :wink:


If human beings are call "God" by Jehovah The Almighty God:

Humans are referred to as "God" or "god".

The problem is all your examples come from the OT. The OT was written in Hebrew and there are different words that all mean God. So, the LXX won't help you much there since the Greek doesn't have the semantic range that the Hebrew had.

and being as Jesus is "a god" (John 1:1) but Not the "God of gods" Jehovah:-

Jaltus has already corrected you on this one... The Greek simply cannot mean that.

Secondly, there are several other titles that God uses for himself in the OT. "I AM THAT I AM" comes to mind. Care to guess who used the Greek equivalant "Ego Emi"???

So IF (PLEASE NOTE I DO SAY "IF")[/b] Thomas did call Jesus God it would have been in the Background of JEWISH THEOLOGY as Christandom's theology as it did not exist then, Thomas would have been correct because he would be fullly understsnd it would have been realitive to The Almighty Jehovah.

That would be well and good IF that's what the Jewish Theology was. However, Judism is STIRICTLY monothesistic. So Thomas couldn't have called Christ God and still believed in God the Father without a form of trinitarianism.


This verse
John 20:28 In answer Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!"
follows:

John 20:17 For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’"

Follows... Hrmn... 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 -28...

Oh yeah "follows"...

Anywho... Christ doesn't violate triniarianism in his comment. Christ the Son is on Earth. God the Father is in heaven. So Christ was ascending to his Father and his God. Example plus common sense.

If you said to someone this is "My God and Father" they would think that you where talking about Jesus, is that not so?

No... not really.

So being as Chritianity did not exist when Jesus said what he did etc. in John Ch. 20, then The God who was the "My God and Father" of Jesus, and by conection Thomas, must have been Jehovah "the God of gods"

Forgiving the fact that the Greek CANNOT mean that, of course...

And then Jesus makes it quite plan that he is not God but God's Son:-

No... He makes it plain that his is the "Son of God". It's a messianic title.

Here it is plain to see that Jesus and God the Father are not the same being as Jesus is here the Son of the Father whom is His -Jesus'- "God" ("my God") and the "God of gods" now as the trinity dogma once again did not exist at that time Jesus must be a subordinate "god" and has the right to be called God but 2nd or relative to Jehovah The God of gods", The God of Jesus Christ, "a god".

:eh:... Once Trinity always Trinity. You can't just split them up whenever you feel like it. Jesus was subordinate, but that falls in the Trinity doctrine just fine. There is no reason to believe that Jesus is a "second god" or "god-like" is a necessary fact.

Yours,
Xavier

[NonTrinitarian]

Okay, kiddy apologetics is in session. I can't believe you two. I even pointed you in the right direction and you still can't accomplish a simple task. I asked you to note the difference between "Lord" in John 20:28 and every other time it is used as a direct address to Jesus. Xavier said,


They are the same: Kuros (Strong's #2962).

It's the EXACT same word that Christ is called innumerous times throughout the gospels. The super studier JS adds his two cents in by saying,


Yep, Nontrinitarian. Xavier is right. I just checked (www.studylight.org (http://www.studylight.org)) an interlinear greek / english bible and the word used in John 20:28 for Lord is Kurios just as it is in Matt 20:30 and every other place that Jesus is called Lord, or that God is called Lord. Sigh. Why even try? They are NOT the same word! Whenever someone addresses Jesus as Lord they always use kyrie, the vocative form. ONLY in John 20:28 do we see the nominative form Kurios. Throughout the NT when God, humans and Jesus are addressed directly as "Lord" they use kyrie. When they refer to someone as "Lord" but are not addressing that person directly, they use the nominative kurios.

IE., "Dear Lord, [kyrie]what will you give me?"-Here the person is directly being addressed as "Lord"

versus

"What will the Lord [kurios] give you?"-Here the person is speaking of the Lord but is not addressing the person he is calling Lord. He is addressing someone else and talking about the Lord.

Think on it and get back to me.


NonTrin is so trying to twist the simpliest verse to his own heretical ends. Let's look at the context of the statement and see who Thomas was talking to:
Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe."

Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

What's the classic JW response? Of course, that Thomas was talking about God the Father there. Even though such a stance violates the context AND the Greek. Actually, many JW's think it is directed toward Jesus. Jesus is a Mighty GOd and we call him that when we sing songs out of our song books.

Violating the Greek.
Notice that the ESV translation includes a direct object in the statement. Why might that be? Why does ever major translation I could look up have the exact same object? Simple. The Greek REQUIRES it to be there. The object occurs IN the sentance. The Object tell us EXACTLY who Thomas was talking about: Christ.

But, I'll enjoy watching how lifelong heretic NonTrin will twist, turn, and squirm while spilling all the answers that his elders spoon fed to him.

Yours,
Xavier Don't talk to me about Greek or even begin to act like you know anything about it. You didn't even know the difference between the nominative and vocative addresses of Lord. And again, many JW's do think Thomas is addressing Jesus. I have my doubts that he is but have no problem with it if he is.


http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-top-left.gif Quote: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-top-right.gif
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-by-left.gif Originally Posted by barryrob http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-by-right.gif
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-top-right-10.gif


Of course we do as we agree with that verse says! http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-bot-left.gif
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-bot-right.gif


Uhh... I think NonTrin would disagree... :wink: And that just shows what a...well, I'm not gonna say it but you know it. I odn't disagree with Barry, I just recognize it might be in reference to God as it appears by the Greek that Thomas was not addressing Jesus as "Lord".

JW's, all of us, believe Jesus is our Lord. What does that have to do with John 20:28?

[barryrob]

Jesus was subordinate Yours,
Xavier

Was or is?
Barryrob

[Xavier]

Today's lesson: Greek Words and their forms...

SIGH!!!!!! Such utter idiocy from the JW thumper... Maybe a little lesson in Greek will give NonTrin some insight...

Listen now, you might learn something:
THEY ARE THE SAME WORD!!!!!!!!

They are merely used in different parts of speech. I realize that I shouldn't have to explain this becuase it is such an simple concept, but I guess I'm going to have to for the sheer idoicy that we found in the Watchtower Forum.

Jerry, Go to the store.

Jerry is going to the store.

Now, NonTrin, does Jerry mean different things here???

Think carefully before you answer now. I wouldn't want to have to go back through this again.

Actually, many JW's think it is directed toward Jesus. Jesus is a Mighty GOd and we call him that when we sing songs out of our song books.

Forgiving the fact that both Judism and Christianity are strictly MONOTHEISTIC.

Don't talk to me about Greek or even begin to act like you know anything about it. You didn't even know the difference between the nominative and vocative addresses of Lord. And again, many JW's do think Thomas is addressing Jesus. I have my doubts that he is but have no problem with it if he is.

Talk about Greek... You act like you know what you are saying. Even though the words are in a different case that doesn't change the MEANING of those words. They both STILL mean LORD.

And that just shows what a...well, I'm not gonna say it but you know it. I odn't disagree with Barry, I just recognize it might be in reference to God as it appears by the Greek that Thomas was not addressing Jesus as "Lord".

And that just goes to show... well, I won't say it...

I've already dealt with that crap answer earlier. Context nor Greek allows that to be so.

JW's, all of us, believe Jesus is our Lord. What does that have to do with John 20:28?

You're the one with the problem...

Have you got an answer for Theos yet??? Yeah, didn't think so. Just keep ignoring it NonTrin...

Yours,
Xavier

[Xavier]

Was or is?
Barryrob

Depends on your frame of reference I would suppose.

Was and will be again (at the time of judgement).

Yours,
Xavier

[seer]

And again, many JW's do think Thomas is addressing Jesus. I have my doubts that he is but have no problem with it if he is.

So you would have no problem following the lead of Thomas and calling Jesus "my God."

[barryrob]

And again, many JW's do think Thomas is addressing Jesus. I have my doubts that he is but have no problem with it if he is.

So you would have no problem following the lead of Thomas and calling Jesus "my God."

How could I call Jesus my God when he himself calls The Father "my God" (his God) so that being the case I will have to follow Jesus and ONLY call the Father -Jehovah- my God to whom I render worship as Jesus did. Thomas was only a man Jesus is God's Son, so what he says has the last say.

Barryrob

[seer]

How could I call Jesus my God when he himself calls The Father "my God" (his God) so that being the case I will have to follow Jesus and ONLY call the Father -Jehovah- my God to whom I render worship as Jesus did. Thomas was only a man Jesus is God's Son, so what he says has the last say.

But doesn't Jesus also call God the Father MY Lord? Yet you have no problem calling Jesus your Lord - correct? So the above does not make sense. And you would have to assume that you are more correct than Thomas the apostle who did call Jesus his God.

[NonTrinitarian]

Today's lesson: Greek Words and their forms...

SIGH!!!!!! Such utter idiocy from the JW thumper... Maybe a little lesson in Greek will give NonTrin some insight...

Listen now, you might learn something:
THEY ARE THE SAME WORD!!!!!!!!

They are merely used in different parts of speech. I realize that I shouldn't have to explain this becuase it is such an simple concept, but I guess I'm going to have to for the sheer idoicy that we found in the Watchtower Forum.

Jerry, Go to the store.

Jerry is going to the store.

Now, NonTrin, does Jerry mean different things here???

Think carefully before you answer now. I wouldn't want to have to go back through this again. With no due respect, you're an idiot. You are demonstrating to eveyone who knows anything about Greek that you know nothing about Greek. And your stupid Jerry example was altering the VERB, not the NOUN. What a M_R_N! Do you even know what a vocative and a nominative is? Oohh! Better yet. Ignore that question (probably would have anyways) and answer this one. Why does EVERY TIME Jesus is referred to as "Lord" it is vocative but this ONE instance that Thomas is supposedly addressing Jesus as Lord it is in the nominative?

And sense you're clueless on this subject, let me direct you to some scholarly sources on the subject. See Edwin Abbott's Johannine Grammar
or Murray Harris' Jesus as God. Or, if you're too lazy to do that, ask AV Metro or Jaltus about it here at TWeb. For petes sake, do something beside making yourself look like a fool when you obviously don't even understand the argument.


Talk about Greek... You act like you know what you are saying. Even though the words are in a different case that doesn't change the MEANING of those words. They both STILL mean LORD. I can't deal with child apologetics. Please go back and highlight WHERE I said it didn't mean LORD. Can you do that? Will you do that? Because I don't remember saying that. What I said (and read this carefully) is that when some addresses someone directly by the title "Lord" in the gospels, it is ALWAYS in the vocative form, highlighting you are refering the title to the person you are talking to. If you are talking to a person but referring to another person as Lord, (usually God) then it is in the nominative form. Every time Jesus is called Lord in the gospels, they call him kyrie. If they are calling God "Lord" then it is kurios (unless they are directly speaking to God, then it is kyrie). In John 20:28 Thomas say my kurios, not kyrie. If we look at every other instance in the gospels, we would conclude that he was not addressing Jesus as the Lord but was addressing the Father. (That statement is based simply on the Greek word for Lord) Now offer an intelligent refute of it next time instead of gibberish.

Have you got an answer for Theos yet??? Yeah, didn't think so. Just keep ignoring it NonTrin... And as usual, your thinking is garbage. I assume you are referring to this?

You mean 'theos' I suppose... Yes, I'd love to see where someone called someone other than God the Father or Christ the Son 'theos'. No, actually I was referring to persons other than YHWH being referred to by the title YHWH. In fact, that's what I said in the sentence you were replying to! They were referred to as YHWH, not theos. But you can't even decipher that simple of a sentence. (you're not a teenager are you?) As far as theos though,

How about Moses and Solomon in the LXX? They are referred to as theos. Or better yet, let's just let Jesus answer this one, shall we?

"Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, 36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son? "

Thus, we have Jesus arguing that God called these men "theos" and as Jesus said, the scriptures cannot be nullified. And Jesus justifies his own claims based on the fact that these men could rightly be called theos.

[NonTrinitarian]

And again, many JW's do think Thomas is addressing Jesus. I have my doubts that he is but have no problem with it if he is.

So you would have no problem following the lead of Thomas and calling Jesus "my God."Did I not just say we refer to Jesus with the title "might God"? Here is an excerpt from our song book, song 53

"Christ on his judgment throne sits and is reigning;

Nations and peoples before him appear.

God’s sov’reignty he will soon be maintaining,

Crushing his enemies both far and near.

Wonderful Couns’lor and Father Supernal,

Yes, Mighty God is he and Prince of Peace"

However, I have doubts that Thomas did refer to Jesus when he said My God. I believe he was referencing the Father who raised Jesus from the dead.

[Sparko]

Did I not just say we refer to Jesus with the title "might God"?
So, how many true Gods are there?

[Xavier]

Let's step back a tad and reform...

The central question is if the words are directed to Christ or not.

You have argued that since the nominative is used that Christ cannot be the one to whom the sentence is addressed. However, there ARE examples where the nominative is used as direct address.

Let's look at a couple of passages:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

περὶ δὲ τὴν ἐνάτην ὥραν ἀνεβόησεν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγων· ἠλι ἠλι, λαμὰ σαβαχθανί; τοῦτ᾿ ἔστι, Θεέ μου Θεέ μου, ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες


And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

καὶ τῇ ὥρᾳ τῇ ἐνάτῃ ἐβόησεν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγων· ᾿Ελωΐ, ᾿Ελωΐ λαμὰ σαβαχθανί; ὃ ἐστι μεθερμηνευόμενον, ὁ Θεός μου ὁ Θεός μου, εἰς τί με ἐγκατέλιπές;


Matthew uses Vocative, Mark uses Nominitve... Yet they both mean EXACTLY the same thing. Both are direct address to God the Father. Now, if the absense of the vocative outrules direct address, how do you make sense of Mark and Matthew's differences?

What I said is that when some addresses someone directly by the title "Lord" in the gospels, it is ALWAYS in the vocative form. If you are talking to a person but referring to another person as Lord, (usually God) then it is in the nominative form. Every time Jesus is called Lord in the gospels, they call him kyrie. If they are calling God "Lord" then it is kurios (unless they are directly speaking to God, then it is kyrie). In John 20:28 Thomas say my kurios, not kyrie. If we look at every other instance in the gospels, we would conclude that he was not addressing Jesus as the Lord but was addressing the Father. (That statement is based simply on the Greek word for Lord) Now offer an intelligent refute of it next time instead of gibberish.

Done... Nominative doesn't outrule Direct Address (as in the Mark passage). AND your explanation ignores the indirect object present in the verse:

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου.


How do you make sense of the fact that Thomas was talking TO HIM. Some version do translate it as a Direct Object, but that doesn't get you out of the woods. The Context and The Greek indicate a statement directed to Jesus.

Thus, we have Jesus arguing that God called these men "theos" and as Jesus said, the scriptures cannot be nullified. And Jesus justifies his own claims based on the fact that these men could rightly be called theos.

So you believe that Jesus actually believed these men to be god? Or was he simply making a polemical point about the Pharisees. Check out the OT verse that Christ is quoting.

Now, let's drop the polemic garbage and stick to the argumentation. You need to start actually giving some argument in explication rather than ducking and making me guess what your argument is.

Yours,
Xavier

[seer]

However, I have doubts that Thomas did refer to Jesus when he said My God. I believe he was referencing the Father who raised Jesus from the dead.

Then you deny the plain meaning of the text.

[barryrob]

So, how many true Gods are there?
Once again you are overlooking THE RELATIVE USAGE OF THE TREM GOD AND RELATED WORDS:-

VARIOUS MEANINGS OF THE PHRASE "MIGHTY GOD"

(Hebrew -!, El and 9&"# gibbor) IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES (O.T.).



King James Version

Isa 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God (Heb. 9&"# -!, El gibbor), The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

Isa 10:21 "The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God (Heb. 9&"# -!, El gibbor)."

Ezk 32:21 "The strong among the mighty (Heb. /*9&"# *-!, El gibbor) shall speak to him out of the midst of hell with them that help him: they are gone down, they lie uncircumcised, slain by the sword."



"At Isaiah 9:6 the future Messiah is called, among other titles, "Mighty God"; and "Eternal Father". Does this mean he is Almighty Jehovah and is a father that never began nor will never end? Jehovah is called "the mighty God" at Isaiah 10:21 (NASV) Because of this some have concluded that the Father and the Son are of equal rank; both being called "the mighty God". However others are referred to by the same title; does this make them equal to the Father in rank? This occurrence is found at Ezekiel 32:21. On this passage The New Century Bible, New Series, has this comment: "mighty chiefs is the plural of the Messianic title, "Mighty God" given the child in Isa 9:6 (MT 5) -[Jewish scribal] text, verse 5) "and could be rendered "mighty gods" just as correctly." If the original Hebrew text could call these human warriors 'mighty gods' without elevating them to the position of Jehovah, so could the Son of God be called without such elevation.



The Hebrew for "Mighty God" is "el" (god) "gibbor" (mighty) and has a broad range of meanings. We see in Brown, Driver, and Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, page 42*, on "el" "applied to men of might and rank ... mighty heroes". In various translations this phrase is rendered as: "a divine hero" (Moffatt{Mo}); God-Hero" (New American Bible [NAB]; in battle God-like" (New English Bible [NEB]) and "Leaders of Champion" S. T. Byington ).



Only the Father Jehovah is ever called "God Almighty" which, of course is above Mighty God". Neither the Son nor the holy spirit are ever called "God Almighty". The Father Jehovah is supreme and unique."-'The Trinity Doctrine' Examined in the Light of History and The Bible p.21

*Also see Gesenius Hebrew Chaldee Lexicon of the O.T. pp.45, 153.



A relevant comment is found in the book called 'Principles of Biblical interpretation' by Louis Berkhof pp.80-1:-



"In employing the aid of parallel passages, the interpreter must be sure that they are really parallel. In the words of Davidson. "it is not enough that the same term or phrase be found in both; there must be similarity of sentiment . . .
Parallels of words properly so called. . . . In Isa. 9:6 the prophet says: "For unto us a child is born . . . and his name shall be called . . . Mighty God (El gibbor)." Gesenius find no reference to God here, and renders these words "mighty hero." But in Isa. 10:21, the same phrase is employed in a context, in which it can only reefer to Deity."


Also See the following from James Strong's Hebrew Dictionary for other uses of the Hebrew "El-gibbor" or "Mighty God" applied to beings other than Jehovah:-



Strong's No.410 -!, el {ale} shortened from 0352; T.W.O.T. - 93a; n m

A.V. - God 213, god 16, power 4, mighty 5, goodly 1, great 1, idols 1, Immanuel + 06005 2, might 1, strong 1; 245
1) god, god-like one, mighty one
1a) mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
1b) angels
1c) god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
1d) God, the one true God, Jehovah

2) mighty things in nature
3) strength, power


Strong's No.1368 9&"#, gibbowr {ghib-bore'} or (shortened) gibbor {ghib-bore'} intensive from 01396; T.W.O.T. - 310b

A.V. - mighty 63, mighty man 68, strong 4, valiant 3, .... ones 4, mighties 2, man 2, valiant men 2, strong man 1, upright man 1, champion 1, chief 1, excel 1, giant 1, men's 1, mightiest 1, strongest 1; 158

adj

1) strong, mighty n m
2) strong man, brave man, mighty man
Also see Theological Wordbook of the O.T. pp.41, 148-9



In various other translations this phrase "el gibbor" is rendered as when referring to humans: "a divine hero" -J. Moffatt; "God-Hero" -New American Bible; "Divine Champion" -S.T. Byington; "mightiest of warriors" -E. Goodspeed; "The strong among the mighty" -K.J.V.; "The mighty chiefs" -Revised Standard Version & the New Revised Standard Version; "Warrior chieftains" -Revised New English Bible; "greatest heroes" -Good News Bible; please see the text at [b]Ezekiel 32:21 for this use of "el gibbor" and it being applied to men so if the original Hebrew text could call these human warriors "el gibbor" (literally "Mighty Gods") without elevating them to the position of Jehovah, so could the Son of God (Jesus) be called without such elevation.



So once again we see here GOD calling human Beings by the same term, here "El Gibbor", he uses towards His Son Jesus showing that other things can be called God or related terms without being Him part of Him or a Triad. All such texts need to be related to the Almighty (who He is) who inspired the Bible for us to be able to understand about him and how he relates to his creation and his purpose in conection with it, show that his is above his creation and deals with it throught his Son.

Barryrob

[Sparko]

Again, How many TRUE Gods are there?
Isaiah 45:20 "Gather together and come;
assemble, you fugitives from the nations.
Ignorant are those who carry about idols of wood,
who pray to gods that cannot save.
21 Declare what is to be, present it-
let them take counsel together.
Who foretold this long ago,
who declared it from the distant past?
Was it not I, the LORD ?
And there is no God apart from me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none but me.

--------------------

By the way, Barrryob, not to sound mean or anything, because you sound like a nice guy, but why is it you always just argue by cut and paste of watchtower articles? Occasionally it is fine, to make a point or when such an article is the subject of a thread, or to bolster your own argument, but you do it consistantly, in nearly every post, where it is the majority of your post, and that goes against the etiquette and rules of this board.

And when you do post an article from the watchtower, you need to provide a link back to where you got it from if it is available online, and if it is from a protected or copyrighted source (like from a CD or a membership only site) you should say so and only quote summaries and excerpts and not complete articles.

From TWEB's policy on the subject:

Plagiarism and Copyrighted Material
If other authors are cited in a post, proper credit must be given including a web link, if available, to the source. Material, other than a brief summary with a supporting link, must not be posted from a website that requires registration or subscription before allowing a user to view the content. If any news item or story prohibits unlicensed duplication, such as the Associated Press, you should post a link to a licensed source and 50-60 words or less summarizing the article. You may not post articles in their entirety from a protected source. Posts in violation of this section may be deleted without notice.

[barryrob]

Again, How many TRUE Gods are there?

"true —adj. (truer, truest) 1 in accordance with fact or reality (a true story). 2 genuine; rightly or strictly so called. 3 (often foll. by to) loyal, faithful. 4 (foll. by to) accurately conforming to (a type or standard) (true to form). 5 correctly positioned or balanced; upright, level. 6 exact, accurate (a true copy). —adv. 1 archaic truly (tell me true). 2 accurately (aim true). 3 without variation (breed true). come true actually happen. out of true out of alignment. true to life accurately representing reality. [Old English]."-Oxford Dic.

"god n. 1 a (in many religions) superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature, human fortunes, etc. b image, idol, etc., symbolizing a god. 2 (God) (in Christian and other monotheistic religions) creator and ruler of the universe. 3 adored or greatly admired person. 4 (in pl.) Theatr. gallery. God forbid may it not happen! God knows 1 it is beyond all knowledge. 2 I call God to witness that. God willing if Providence allows. [Old English]."-Oxford Dic.


We have God the Father and Jesus "a god" (or a God depending upon context of usage) along with Powerful humans who have been given Great Power by divine decree:-

Psalm 82:3 Be judges* for the lowly one and the fatherless boy. To the afflicted one and the one of little means do justice.

Psalm 82:6 "I myself have said, *‘YOU are gods, And all of YOU are sons of the Most High.

Watchtower 1979 7/1 p. 15 Championing Bible Truth!
The Watchtower has consistently used the Divine Name. For example, after explaining that the Hebrew word el means "god," the issue of October 1881 (p. 9) went on to state:
"Jehovah is the chief ‘el’ and ruleth over all other el—powerful ones. And it should be known to all, that JEHOVAH is the name applied to none other than the Supreme Being—our Father, and him whom Jesus called Father and God."

So by The Word Of God, are other gods a reality or truly exist (good and Demonic), Yes.

Now ture God, is Jesus a True God, yes, but a sbordinate divine being or diety to His Father Jehovah as his "First-born".

The following is an example of the ideas of God calling other creatures god, God etc.

Taken from 'THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS' The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 printed July, 1975 THE REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D., AND JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D., EDITORS AMERICAN REPRINT OF THE EDINBURGH EDITION VOLUME 4 TERTULLIAN PART FOURTH; MINUCIUS FELIX; COMMODIAN; ORIGEN, PARTS FIRST AND SECOND.

ORIGEN BK 7 Ch.65 p.1267-8
"In regard to the Persians, we have already said that though they do not build temples, yet they worship the sun and the other works of God. This is forbidden to us, for we have been taught not to worship the creature instead of the Creator, but to know that "the creation shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God;" and "the earnest expectation of the creation is waiting for the revelation of the sons of God;" and "the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who made it subject, in hope." We believe, therefore, that things "under the bondage of corruption," and "subject to vanity," which remain in this condition "in hope" of a better state, ought not in our worship to hold the place of God, the all-sufficient, and of His Son, the First-born of all creation. Let this suffice, in addition to what we have already said of the Persians, who abhor altars and images, but who serve the creature instead of the Creator. As to the passage quoted by Celsus from Heraclitus, the purport of which he represents as being, "that it is childish folly for one to offer prayers to images, whilst he knows not who the gods and heroes are," we may reply that it is easy to know that God and the Only-begotten Son of God, and those whom God has honored with the title of God, and who partake of His divine nature, are very different from all the gods of the nations which are demons; but it is not possible at the same time to know God and to address prayers to images."

Barryrob

[Sparko]

Again barry,

if you are going to argue by cut and paste to watchtower articles, you need to provide links. Occasionally, yes, it is OK. but to continually do it is against the theologywebs rules. Your quote of Origen was fine, since it was short and from a book and you gave the reference. But you need to be aware that as far as I can see, you are not participating in these forums, you are just being a robot that cuts and pastes the watchtower. The watchtower is not a member of theologyweb. We welcome your participation, but you need to contribute your thinking to the threads, and not just repeat what the watchtower says verbatum.

Please respond to this post so I know you have read and understand it. Thank you.

[Sparko]

Another point of John 2:28

There is a definite article used in the greek before the word for God and for Lord. The literal translation is that "Thomas said 'The Lord of me and the God of me' to him."

Thomas did not call Jesus "a God" but "THE GOD" and the god of what? OF HIM. So he was not just referring to Jesus being a God in the sense of what you claim others might have been called 'gods" in the OT, he was claiming that Jesus was HIS GOD. And a Jew, who believes in only one true God, would never do that, it would be blasphemy and would have gotten a rebuke from Jesus if he was not truly THE God. But if it is OK for Thomas to do claim that Jesus was The God of him, then why do you JW's have such a hard time saying that Jesus is your God?

An interesting parallel to John 20:28 is Revelation 4:11, "You are worthy, our Lord and God" (ho kurios kai ho theos hemon), which the NWT translates, "You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God..." The only differences between this text and John 20:28 are (1) the possessive pronoun is singular in John ("my") and plural in Revelation, while it is repeated in John. Since in both cases the two nouns refer to one person, the fact that Revelation 4:11 hemon ("our") appears only once does alter the parallel. What makes this parallel especially striking is that JWs agree with conservative Christians that the same man, John the apostle, was the author of both the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation. In this light, it seems likely that John 20:28 should be interpreted in a manner similar to Revelation 4:11." (pp. 135-135).

[barryrob]

From TWEB's policy on the subject:

Plagiarism and Copyrighted Material
If other authors are cited in a post, proper credit must be given including a web link, if available, to the source. Material, other than a brief summary with a supporting link, must not be posted from a website that requires registration or subscription before allowing a user to view the content. If any news item or story prohibits unlicensed duplication, such as the Associated Press, you should post a link to a licensed source and 50-60 words or less summarizing the article. You may not post articles in their entirety from a protected source. Posts in violation of this section may be deleted without notice.


The Items i have quoted from are in harmony with WTBTS guide lines:-

Watchtower 1999 8/1 p. 30 Gladly Accepting Jehovah’s Direction

Brother Knorr wanted to be sure that we all had plenty to do, so there were other assignments too. Some of these drew on my training as a commercial artist. Others involved the Society’s radio station, WBBR. There was work to do in connection with motion pictures produced by the Society. Theocratic history was, of course, part of the Gilead course, but now various projects were undertaken to acquaint more of Jehovah’s people with details of that history of the modern-day theocratic organization and to make this available to the public too. Another aspect of Gilead training involved public speaking, and work needed to be done to make more of the basics of public speaking available to the brothers in the congregations. So there was plenty to do.



Watchtower 1992 10/15 p. 20 Elders—Delegate!

Within the Christian congregation today, there are many elders who, like Moses, are trying to care for more than they can possibly accomplish alone. They organize meetings as well as prepare and then present program parts in an orderly, effective manner. (1 Corinthians 14:26, 33, 40; 1 Timothy 4:13) Elders also care for the needs of individual members of the congregation. (Galatians 6:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:14; James 5:14) They take the lead in the all-important work of preaching the good news of the Kingdom. (Matthew 24:14; Hebrews 13:7) They arrange, too, for literature supplies to be made available to the congregation for distribution to the public.


If you wish to view any quoted material please feel free to go into any Kingdom Hall wherein you will find a library which will contain Watchtower Volumes. You could read it for yourself or maybe ask for a photocopy. Also the Item are to be found on Watchtower Library 2003 CD-Rom. Or write to any Watchtower branch and ask for a photocopy or try http://www.watchtower.org


I will get to Isa. quote asap.

Barryrob

[barryrob]

Isaiah 45:20 “Collect yourselves and come. Bring yourselves up close together, YOU escapees from the nations.





Addressing the Jewish nation freed from Babylon by the power of their God Jehovah.





Those carrying the wood of their carved image have not come to any knowledge, neither have those praying to a god that cannot save.





Talking of the Idol gods of the nations who have no power against the God of the Jews.







Isaiah 45:21 Make YOUR report and YOUR presentation. Yes, let them consult together in unity. Who has caused this to be heard from a long time ago? [Who] has reported it from that very time?





Who but the God of the Jews could have foretold the exile and release of the Jewish people (sometimes hundreds of years in advance)





Is it not I, Jehovah, besides whom there is no other God; a righteous God and a Savior, there being none excepting me?





Here He compared himself against the pagan impotent gods that could not hold his people in captivity the proving to be the “Savior” of his people.





To use this text to deal with internal theological views of the Jews is to use it totally out of context as Jehovah is comparing himself in general terms against the pagan gods who prove ineffectual against his expressed will.



Barryrob

[Sparko]

The Items i have quoted from are in harmony with WTBTS guide lines:-

Watchtower 1999 8/1 p. 30 Gladly Accepting Jehovah’s Direction
Brother Knorr wanted to be sure that we all had plenty to do, so there were other assignments too. Some of these drew on my training as a commercial artist. Others involved the Society’s radio station, WBBR. There was work to do in connection with motion pictures produced by the Society. Theocratic history was, of course, part of the Gilead course, but now various projects were undertaken to acquaint more of Jehovah’s people with details of that history of the modern-day theocratic organization and to make this available to the public too. Another aspect of Gilead training involved public speaking, and work needed to be done to make more of the basics of public speaking available to the brothers in the congregations. So there was plenty to do.



Watchtower 1992 10/15 p. 20 Elders—Delegate!
Within the Christian congregation today, there are many elders who, like Moses, are trying to care for more than they can possibly accomplish alone. They organize meetings as well as prepare and then present program parts in an orderly, effective manner. (1 Corinthians 14:26, 33, 40; 1 Timothy 4:13) Elders also care for the needs of individual members of the congregation. (Galatians 6:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:14; James 5:14) They take the lead in the all-important work of preaching the good news of the Kingdom. (Matthew 24:14; Hebrews 13:7) They arrange, too, for literature supplies to be made available to the congregation for distribution to the public.
If you wish to view any quoted material please feel free to go into any Kingdom Hall wherein you will find a library which will contain Watchtower Volumes. You could read it for yourself or maybe ask for a photocopy. Also the Item are to be found on Watchtower Library 2003 CD-Rom. Or write to any Watchtower branch and ask for a photocopy or try http://www.watchtower.org

I will get to Isa. quote asap.
Barryrob

Since I shouldn't have really put this in the middle of this thread, I am just going to reply to you via Private Message. Check your link that says private messages at the top of this page to the right.

[themuzicman]

(FYI, there is a form of the Nominative Case that operates as a Vocative, namely the Vocative Nominative, thus the two forms of Kurios are, for all intents and purposes, identical, especially in the way that Thomas uses it.)

Michael

[NonTrinitarian]

(FYI, there is a form of the Nominative Case that operates as a Vocative, namely the Vocative Nominative, thus the two forms of Kurios are, for all intents and purposes, identical, especially in the way that Thomas uses it.)

Michael
You're correct Michael on one part and incorrect on the other. Many words lost their vocative form to the nominative by the time the NT was written. But not so with kurios as it retained the vocative form in classical Greek, the LXX, the NT and the papyri. As Edwin Abott observes, "The Egyptian Papyri use kyrie freely but never, so far as alleged, kurios vocatively. Thus, a great mass of evidence from all extant Greek [shows] that, had the vocative been intended [at John 20::28], kyrie would have been employed. This is confirmed by the Latin versions, which have 'dominus.'"- Johannine Grammar, p.94

Thus, the evidence shows that, while many words did lose the vocative, kurios did not.

[NonTrinitarian]

So, how many true Gods are there?
Let's let Jesus answer that: "This means eternal life, their knowing you (his Father) the ONLY true God, and the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."

Jesus said his Father was the ONLY true God and even differentiated himself from the only true God. Now you can ask me if Jesus is a false God.

[Sparko]

Here He compared himself against the pagan impotent gods that could not hold his people in captivity the proving to be the “Savior” of his people.

To use this text to deal with internal theological views of the Jews is to use it totally out of context as Jehovah is comparing himself in general terms against the pagan gods who prove ineffectual against his expressed will.
Barryrob

No its not, Barryrob. It is in context. There are no other Gods but Jehovah. He is the only one, it is said over and over in Isaiah, and the rest of the old testament. He is the one TRUE God. All other "Gods" are false gods or mere men using the title God but they are not God. A Jew would never call such a man "The God of ME" - A Jew only has one God over himself, Jehovah. Why do you think the Jews tried to stone Jesus when he said, "before Abraham was, I AM"? The Jews knew that Jesus was claiming to be God and were going to stone him for blashphemy.

If you disagree with this and say it was OK for Thomas to call Jesus "The God of Me" -- then why don't you do it? Tell us that Jesus is the God of Barryrob. If you think that would be wrong, then it must have been wrong for Thomas to say it to Jesus, and Jesus should have rebuked him for it. But he didn't. BECAUSE JESUS REALLY IS GOD.

Please answer this directly, in your own words, and not just post another article.

I just want you to think for yourself and not rely on the watchtower to spoonfeed you your responses.

[NonTrinitarian]

Let's step back a tad and reform...

The central question is if the words are directed to Christ or not.

You have argued that since the nominative is used that Christ cannot be the one to whom the sentence is addressed. However, there ARE examples where the nominative is used as direct address.

Let's look at a couple of passages:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

περὶ δὲ τὴν ἐνάτην ὥραν ἀνεβόησεν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγων· ἠλι ἠλι, λαμὰ σαβαχθανί; τοῦτ᾿ ἔστι, Θεέ μου Θεέ μου, ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες


And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

καὶ τῇ ὥρᾳ τῇ ἐνάτῃ ἐβόησεν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγων· ᾿Ελωΐ, ᾿Ελωΐ λαμὰ σαβαχθανί; ὃ ἐστι μεθερμηνευόμενον, ὁ Θεός μου ὁ Θεός μου, εἰς τί με ἐγκατέλιπές;


Matthew uses Vocative, Mark uses Nominitve... Yet they both mean EXACTLY the same thing. Both are direct address to God the Father. Now, if the absense of the vocative outrules direct address, how do you make sense of Mark and Matthew's differences?



Done... Nominative doesn't outrule Direct Address (as in the Mark passage). AND your explanation ignores the indirect object present in the verse: Good argument accept for the fact that many words in Greek lost their vocative form and so everything I've argued would be false in regards to theos. (see Muzicman's post on next page and my reply to it). One of the few exceptions is the word Lord, which is why you were unable to offer as a refutation example any verse with Lord in it. You had to go to a verse with God in it because theos lost the vocative form significance. It can be taken too lightly that of ALL the times Jesus is EVER unrefutedly addressed as Lord in the NT (not just the gospels, the whole NT), he is addressed as kyrie, not kurios. The lone exception (which I am not sure is an exception because I'm not sure Thomas was referring to Jesus) is John 20:28. With scores and scores of times Jesus being addressed as kyrie, the lone instance where he is supposedly being addressed as kurios should cause all to pause, at least for a second.


And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου.


How do you make sense of the fact that Thomas was talking TO HIM. Some version do translate it as a Direct Object, but that doesn't get you out of the woods. The Context and The Greek indicate a statement directed to Jesus. The same way I make sense of Lot calling two angels by the name Jehovah. He addressed them directly as "Jehovah" and yet the scriptures call them angels. Among many other examples I can site as well.

So you believe that Jesus actually believed these men to be god? Or was he simply making a polemical point about the Pharisees. Check out the OT verse that Christ is quoting.

Now, let's drop the polemic garbage and stick to the argumentation. You need to start actually giving some argument in explication rather than ducking and making me guess what your argument is.

Yours,
Xavier Yes, they are gods in a representative sense. Allow me to quote from the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God" by Brian Holt.


"It should also be stated that these 'gods' in Psalms 82:6 are not false gods as some like to claim. If they were then Jesus' point would have been moot. It would have been like saying 'If these judges can be called gods and they are in fact false gods, what's wrong with me saying I am God?' (As [Trinitarians] understand his as meaning) This would have been no serious defense on Jesus' part and in reality, a ridiculous argument! So apparently Jesus did not think these were false gods. An examination of Psalms 82 verifies this too.

82 God is stationing himself in the assembly of the Divine One;
In the middle of the gods he judges:

2 “How long will YOU keep on judging with injustice
And showing partiality to the wicked themselves? Se´lah.

3 Be judges for the lowly one and the fatherless boy.
To the afflicted one and the one of little means do justice.

4 Provide escape for the lowly one and the poor one;
Out of the hand of the wicked ones deliver [them].”

5 They have not known, and they do not understand;
In darkness they keep walking about;
All the foundations of the earth are made to totter.

6 “I myself have said, ‘YOU are gods,
And all of YOU are sons of the Most High.

7 Surely YOU will die just as men do;
And like any one of the princes YOU will fall!’”

8 Do rise up, O God, do judge the earth;
For you yourself should take possession of all the nations.

Notice the context and what is implied by it. God is urging these kings and human judges to quit showing partiality. He urges them to be good judges that help the fatherless boy and the afflicted ones. He tells them to provide escape for the lowly ones and deliver then out of the hands of the wicked. In summary, God is telling them to be good judges and kings. Why? Because he has given them their position as a god. The whole reason he did this was so they could use their limited authority to help others.

Would it make sense to them to judge righteously and to help the poor and afflicted ones because 'I said you are false gods?' Jehovah was telling them to live up the title he had given them because He will judge them as well...

Consider also the import of Jesus' statement that the scriptures cannot be nullified. Why would Jesus say that and why would the Jews want to nullify this scripture if it were simply calling these men 'false gods'? The criptures constantly refer to false gods and the Jews had no desire to nullify the rest of them. Is it not logical Jesus said that statement because he knew the Jews would have a hard time admitting certain ones were called gods in a positive sense and that would lend credence to Jesus' argument? Any claim that God called these human judges "gods" in the sense of false gods does not live up to Jesus' quoting of this verse nor the whole context of Psalm 82" p 73,74 As Holt brought out, Jesus used the fact that these men were called God's to defend his own claim. He in fact said that if these men can be called gods and that scripture cannot be nullified, then what's your problem with me? It's obvious Jesus wasn't referencing this verse top describe the pharisees. He was referencing it to defend his own claims.

The way you describe has Jesus saying this, in effect: 'Did you not read the verse that calls men "gods"? These men were false gods and that's just like you. So if God can call these men, and thus you, false gods, then why do you condemn me for saying I am God?'

As you can see, that paraphrase is utterly ridiculous.

[themuzicman]

You're correct Michael on one part and incorrect on the other. Many words lost their vocative form to the nominative by the time the NT was written. But not so with kurios as it retained the vocative form in classical Greek, the LXX, the NT and the papyri. As Edwin Abott observes, "The Egyptian Papyri use kyrie freely but never, so far as alleged, kurios vocatively. Thus, a great mass of evidence from all extant Greek [shows] that, had the vocative been intended [at John 20::28], kyrie would have been employed. This is confirmed by the Latin versions, which have 'dominus.'"- Johannine Grammar, p.94

Thus, the evidence shows that, while many words did lose the vocative, kurios did not.

Yeah, Kurios is used instead of Kurie. However, the context doesn't allow for any translation other than a vocative nominative. John does some weird things with his greek, and this is just one of them.

It's clear that Thomas is talking to Jesus, and it's clear that he is identifying Jesus and His Lord and His God.

Even if you wanted to get weird and translate it as, "My Lord is also My God", (which doesn't really work, grammatically, but if you ignore a few rules like JW's like to do, you might come up with his) it's still addressed to Jesus, and a clear reference to Jesus being God.

Michael

[NonTrinitarian]

Yeah, Kurios is used instead of Kurie. However, the context doesn't allow for any translation other than a vocative nominative. John does some weird things with his greek, and this is just one of them.

It's clear that Thomas is talking to Jesus, and it's clear that he is identifying Jesus and His Lord and His God.

Even if you wanted to get weird and translate it as, "My Lord is also My God", (which doesn't really work, grammatically, but if you ignore a few rules like JW's like to do, you might come up with his) it's still addressed to Jesus, and a clear reference to Jesus being God.

Michael
John wrote the whole book of John and he's pretty consistent elsewhere with what he wrote to designate a direct address to Jesus with the title "Lord". JW's don't propose the translation of "My Lord is also My God" and so you created a straw man argument and then refuted it. Not impressed. And again, I am uncertain if Thomas is addressing Jesus or his Father. Since JW's address Jesus as a "Mighty God" in our publications and songs, we don't have a problem with it. In fact, I would say more JW articles than not believe Thomas is calling Jesus God. I just think otherwise (for the most part) due to the Greek.

[themuzicman]

And exactly what form of Nominative are kurioV and qeoV, NT?

[NonTrinitarian]

And exactly what form of Nominative are kurioV and qeoV, NT?
Michael, I already told you I don't speak Greek. I simply quote the experts. I refer you to Murray Harris' Jesus as God if you want to look further into the form of "Lord" at John 20:28. I could go pull the book off my shelf and answer it for you, fooling you into thinking I know it off the top of my head but I don't see any reason to act like I'm a Greek scholar. If you want me to go see what form it is, I will when I get a chance. I have to go for now.

BTW: I encouraged on our discussion of 1 John 5:20 to get Harris' book. I hope you do that. He's a Trinitarian but far more balanced than most quoted around here.

[themuzicman]

Well, if you're going to say that it's not a vocative nominative, then you should at least be able to say what kind it really is. If all you're doing is parroting one guy, I'd say you're on pretty thin ice.

Since I have THE Caddilac of greek grammars, here (Wallace), I can tell you that the only one that really fits this circumstance is the vocative.

Michael

[barryrob]

No its not, Barryrob. It is in context. There are no other Gods but Jehovah. He is the only one, it is said over and over in Isaiah, and the rest of the old testament. He is the one TRUE God. All other "Gods" are false gods or mere men using the title God but they are not God. A Jew would never call such a man "The God of ME" - A Jew only has one God over himself, Jehovah. Why do you think the Jews tried to stone Jesus when he said, "before Abraham was, I AM"? The Jews knew that Jesus was claiming to be God and were going to stone him for blashphemy.

If you disagree with this and say it was OK for Thomas to call Jesus "The God of Me" -- then why don't you do it? Tell us that Jesus is the God of Barryrob. If you think that would be wrong, then it must have been wrong for Thomas to say it to Jesus, and Jesus should have rebuked him for it. But he didn't. BECAUSE JESUS REALLY IS GOD.

Please answer this directly, in your own words, and not just post another article.

I just want you to think for yourself and not rely on the watchtower to spoonfeed you your responses.
Using the scriptures is much better then my words



John 20:17-31 Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’” 18 Mary Mag´da·lene came and brought the news to the disciples: “I have seen the Lord!” and that he said these things to her. 19 Therefore, when it was late on that day, the first of the week, and, although the doors were locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them: “May YOU have peace.” 20 And after he said this he showed them both his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced at seeing the Lord. 21 Jesus, therefore, said to them again: “May YOU have peace. Just as the Father has sent me forth, I also am sending YOU.” 22 And after he said this he blew upon them and said to them: “Receive holy spirit. 23 If YOU forgive the sins of any persons, they stand forgiven to them; if YOU retain those of any persons, they stand retained.” 24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, who was called The Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 Consequently the other disciples would say to him: “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe.” 26 Well, eight days later his disciples were again indoors, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and he stood in their midst and said: “May YOU have peace.” 27 Next he said to Thomas: “Put your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and stick it into my side, and stop being unbelieving but become believing.” 28 In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him: “Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe.” 30 To be sure, Jesus performed many other signs also before the disciples, which are not written down in this scroll. 31 But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, YOU may have life by means of his name.



1. Thomas was not a Christian so would not have any concept of the trinity.



2. He must have been a Faithful Jew otherwise Jesus would not have treated him toe way he did to reinforce his faith in the God of the Jews, Jehovah. So as a Jew llike Jesu what would he have believed:-



Exodus 33:20 And he added: “You are not able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live.”





3. He saw the resurrected Jesus:-



John 6:28-29 Therefore they said to him: “What shall we do to work the works of God?” 29 In answer Jesus said to them: “This is the work of God, that YOU exercise faith in him whom that One sent forth.”



Here Jesus was “sent forth” thus showing his willing submission to God.



Acts 2:32-33 This Jesus God [Jehovah] resurrected, of which fact we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore because he was exalted to the right hand of [Jehovah] God . . . See Ps 110:1

[ ] added for meaning



Here we see that God must be The Father is the one that restored Jesus’ life back to him, so he must be a person other than God, thus not God.



Thomas was one of John’s contemporise so would have believed the same as they where both instructed by Jesus himself



John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god [Jesus] who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.



John 14:28 YOU heard that I said to YOU, I am going away and I am coming to YOU. If YOU loved me, YOU would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.



John 6:46 Not that any man has seen the Father, except he who is from God*; this one has seen the Father.



*John 6:31-35 Our forefathers ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” 32 Hence Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Moses did not give YOU the bread from heaven, but my Father does give YOU the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 Therefore they said to him: “Lord, always give us this bread.” 35 Jesus said to them: “I am the bread of life. He that comes to me will not get hungry at all, and he that exercises faith in me will never get thirsty at all.

*John 3:16-17 .“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent forth his Son into the world, not for him to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through him. . .





1 John 4:12 At no time has anyone beheld God. If we continue loving one another, God remains in us and his love is made perfect in us.



In John 1:18; John 6:46; 1 John 4:12 it makes an emphatic statements of fact ‘no man has seen God’ now that is 1) true, 2) untrue but which?



It states that God CANNOT be seen )this must be trus as it is inspired og God who was talking about himself), so Thomas could not have been addressing Jesus as God, but as God’s appointed Lord and my Lord. He also could of meant as he know that Jesus was God Spokesman (if I may use that expression) as “The Word” he addressed him is terms as one speaking to God like at:-





EXAMPLE OF AN ANGEL SPEAKING IN GOD'S NAME

[b]Judges 6



1 Then the sons of Israel began to do what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah. So Jehovah gave them into the hand of Midian for seven years. .....

6 And Israel became greatly impoverished due to Midian; and the sons of Israel began to call to Jehovah for aid.

7 And it came about that because the sons of Israel called to Jehovah for aid on account of Midian,

8 JEHOVAH PROCEEDED TO SEND A MAN, A PROPHET, to the sons of Israel and to say to them: "This is what Jehovah the God of Israel has said, 'It was I who brought YOU up from Egypt and thus brought YOU out of the house of slaves.

9 So I delivered YOU out of the hand of Egypt and out of the hand of all YOUR oppressors and drove them out from before YOU and gave YOU their land.

10 Furthermore, I said to YOU: "I am Jehovah YOUR God. YOU must not fear the gods of the Amorites in whose land YOU are dwelling." And YOU did not listen to my voice.'"

11 LATER JEHOVAH'S ANGEL came and sat under the big tree that was in Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abi-ezrite, while Gideon his son was beating out wheat in the winepress so as to get it quickly out of the sight of Midian.

12 THEN JEHOVAH'S ANGEL APPEARED TO HIM AND SAID TO HIM: "JEHOVAH IS WITH YOU, YOU VALIANT, MIGHTY ONE."

13 At this Gideon said to him: "Excuse me, my lord, but if Jehovah is with us, then why has all this come upon us, and where are all his wonderful acts that our fathers related to us, saying, 'Was it not out of Egypt that Jehovah brought us up?' And now Jehovah has deserted us, and he gives us into the palm of Midian."

14 UPON THAT JEHOVAH FACED HIM and said: "Go in this power of yours, and you will certainly save Israel out of Midian's palm. Do I not send you?"

15 In turn he said to him: "EXCUSE ME, JEHOVAH. With what shall I save Israel? Look! My thousand is the least in Manasseh, and I am the smallest in my father's house.

16 BUT JEHOVAH SAID TO HIM: "Because I shall prove to be with you, and you will certainly strike down Midian as if one man."

17 At this he said to him: "If, now, I have found favor in your eyes, you must also perform a sign for me that you are the one speaking with me. ......

20 THE ANGEL OF THE [TRUE] GOD NOW SAID TO HIM: " Take the meat and the unfermented cakes and set them on the big rock there, and pour out the broth." At that he did so.

21 Then JEHOVAH'S ANGEL thrust out the tip of the staff that was in his hand and touched the meat and the unfermented cakes, and fire began to ascend out of the rock and to consume the meat and the unfermented cakes. AS FOR JEHOVAH'S ANGEL, HE VANISHED FROM HIS SIGHT.

22 Consequently Gideon realized that it was JEHOVAH'S ANGEL. At once Gideon said : "ALAS, SOVEREIGN LORD JEHOVAH, for the reason that I have seen JEHOVAH'S ANGEL FACE TO FACE!"

23 But Jehovah said to him: "Peace be yours. Do not fear. You will not die."



Also at:-



Exodus 3:2 Then Jehovah’s angel appeared to him in a flame of fire in the midst of a thornbush. . . .



Acts 7:30 “And when forty years were fulfilled, there appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Si´nai an angel in the fiery flame of a thornbush.



Acts 7:35 This Moses, whom they disowned, saying, ‘Who appointed you ruler and judge?’ this man God sent off as both ruler and deliverer by the hand of the angel that appeared to him in the thornbush.



Here we see an Angel addressed as if God Himself the being recognized as God’s spokesman and this addressed in such a way. Thus also could have been the situation with Thomas.



Barryrob

[Sparko]

OK barryrob,

I could not follow much of that post - it seemed to jump all over the place. Rather than answering my questions and points, you seem to have decided to go off on a tangent and try to prove that the Father and Jesus are not the same person. Well, Trinitarians agree with that. But we believe they are the same God. This whole arguement really belongs in the thread you started on the trinity and that I answered with my article on the trinity. Here we are talking about Thomas and him calling Jesus "The God of me"

So let me repeat my questions - If it was OK for Thomas to say call Jesus "The God of Me" - Then why is it not OK for you to say the same thing?

It states that God CANNOT be seen )this must be trus as it is inspired og God who was talking about himself), so Thomas could not have been addressing Jesus as God, but as God’s appointed Lord and my Lord. He also could of meant as he know that Jesus was God Spokesman (if I may use that expression) as “The Word” he addressed him is terms as one speaking to God like at:-
This is as clear a statement as I could garner from your post. And Jesus agrees with you saying that the Father is spirit and is invisible. But Jesus, being God incarnate, has a body and can be seen. Also remember in Genesis where Adam walked with God in the cool of the evening? Who do you think he was walking with? It was God in a theophany, a temporary body he created to interact with men. It was a theophany who argued over Sodam with Abraham, and wrestled with Jacob. And Moses did see God, just not his FACE.

And Jesus had been teaching his apostles who he was, that he was God, but they did not believe until they saw him raised from the dead. That is when it hit Thomas full force! Jesus was who he claimed he was! He was God!

But the point remains, no matter if Thomas thought Jesus was "God" as God's Spokesman or really God himself, he still claimed the Jesus was the God of him.

So why can't you, Barryrob, say the same thing? Why is it wrong for you to say that Jesus is the God of you? Is he still not a God? Is he still not the "spokesman" for Jehovah? The one who created all things and who everything is subject under?

I don't need quotes and articles, I just need your own opinion as to whether you can call Jesus your God and if not, why not?

[barryrob]

You say "try to prove that the Father and Jesus are not the same person. Well, Trinitarians agree with that" but then in the same breath say that Jesus is God, but God says:-




"I am Jehovah (Heb. vuvh). That is my name; and to no one else [this would include Jesus] shall I give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images."-Isaiah 42:8



at John Jesus says:-

John 17:1 Jesus spoke these things, and, raising his eyes to heaven, he said: "Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, that your son may glorify you,

So any glory that Jesus was given was bestowed upon from the Father the greater God and person to his a lesser god his Son as an image (Gk. eikon*) of the Father. Now if Jesus was God he would not need to be gloryfied as it is his regardless, but this is not the case showing Jesus to be the lesser being of the two persons. So if Thomas did call Jesus God he would then be making an "image" into God so this would then raise the prospect of Idolatery as Jesus taught his followers to worship God The Father:-


Matthew 4:10 Then Jesus said to him: "Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’"


John 4:23-24 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth."



*2 Corinthians 4:4 about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through...



For Thomas to call Jesus God (as the one to be worshiped) would have put him in a dangersous situation with The Father as he would have exulted an "image" to the postion of God! Is this not called Idolatery, the worship of an "image"?


Barryrob

[seer]

John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god [Jesus] who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.

Exodus 24:

"Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abi'hu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up,and they saw the God of Israel; and there was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank."

I guess the God they saw here was Jesus...

[NonTrinitarian]

Well, if you're going to say that it's not a vocative nominative, then you should at least be able to say what kind it really is. If all you're doing is parroting one guy, I'd say you're on pretty thin ice.

Since I have THE Caddilac of greek grammars, here (Wallace), I can tell you that the only one that really fits this circumstance is the vocative.

Michael
Michael,
I'm not going to get into another discussion with you on Greek. I learned my lesson on our discussion of 1 John 5:21. There are presented numerous scholars, many of them whom you have heard of and several whose books you probably own. All of them agreed with me in that verse and yet you were head-strong certain that these grammarians with years of experience were biased (though they were all Trinitarians) though you couldn't name a motive for their bias and you insisted these Greek grammarians were breaking simple rules of Greek language. I asked for just one grammarian who supports your position. Just one is all I asked for who would come back and label all these other famed grammarians as being incorrect in the Greek at 1 John 5:21.

You didn't (couldn't is more likely) provide one and instead insisted that because you were taking Greek and I wasn't that you were right and I along with every grammarian I know who has commented on the verse was wrong.

Now reflect on that and you'll see why I'm not even bothering to discuss NOR put much weight in your opinions of the Greek text at John 20:28.

BTW, you said "the only one that really fits this circumstance is the vocative." If you check the Greek it's not vocative, it's nominative. And unless you start offering real examples elewhere of Lord in the vocative nominative form you are only using special pleading. But that's the extent that I will discuss this point with you.

[NonTrinitarian]

John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god [Jesus] who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.

Exodus 24:

"Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abi'hu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up,and they saw the God of Israel; and there was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank."

I guess the God they saw here was Jesus...
You may be right. Jesus could have been a representative from God in the OT. IN fact, JW's believe he is Michael who was the prince of Israel. (but you can respond to that point on another thread that is already existing.) However, it may not have been Jesus. The scriptures say the law was transmitted by angels from God to the Israelites. Yet we always read of God transmitting the law to Moses. Of course, God is the ultimate source of the law so if an angel, prophet (see Heb 1:1,2) or some other means was the messenger it was still from God. So in the OT we see a person called "God" whom people on earth "saw" (though we're not sure in what sense they saw him) and yet the apostle Paul said these were God's angels who were telling Moses the law.

[themuzicman]

BTW, you said "the only one that really fits this circumstance is the vocative." If you check the Greek it's not vocative, it's nominative. And unless you start offering real examples elewhere of Lord in the vocative nominative form you are only using special pleading. But that's the extent that I will discuss this point with you.

Vocative class of Nominative.

Michael

[barryrob]

So why can't you, Barryrob, say the same thing? Why is it wrong for you to say that Jesus is the God of you? Is he still not a God*? Is he still not the "spokesman" for Jehovah? The one who created all things and who everything is subject under?


*"a god" in relationship to The Father.


If I agreed with you here I would be in voliation of:-

Ephesians 4:4-6 One body there is, and one spirit, even as YOU were called in the one hope to which YOU were called; 5 one Lord [Jesus], one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father [Jehovah] of all [persons], who is over all and through all and in all.

If Jesus where God as you claim Thomas said, this would make two Gods to worship but the above say "ONE".

Barryrob

[Sparko]

Let's let Jesus answer that: "This means eternal life, their knowing you (his Father) the ONLY true God, and the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."

Jesus said his Father was the ONLY true God and even differentiated himself from the only true God. Now you can ask me if Jesus is a false God.
No need to. The law of noncontradiction says it for you. If there is only one true God, then by definition all other Gods are not the true God, and therefore FALSE.

Jesus is either 1. Not a God at all. 2. A false God or 3. The one true God.

1. is eliminated by Thomas calling Jesus "The God of Me" as well as many other scriptures calling Jesus God, Mighty God, Our God and Savior, etc.
2. is eliminated by the fact that both you and I believe Jesus to be our Lord and Savior and therefore there is nothing false about him.

That leaves 3. Jesus is the one TRUE God. The same God as the Father. He is the second person of the one true triune God.

[Sparko]

So why can't you, Barryrob, say the same thing? Why is it wrong for you to say that Jesus is the God of you? Is he still not a God*? Is he still not the "spokesman" for Jehovah? The one who created all things and who everything is subject under?

*"a god" in relationship to The Father.


If I agreed with you here I would be in voliation of:-

Ephesians 4:4-6 One body there is, and one spirit, even as YOU were called in the one hope to which YOU were called; 5 one Lord [Jesus], one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father [Jehovah] of all [persons], who is over all and through all and in all.
If Jesus where God as you claim Thomas said, this would make two Gods to worship but the above say "ONE".
Barryrob
Not if they were the SAME God, Barryrob. That is what Trinitarians believe. That Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are the SAME God. Revealed in three persons.

And as everyone is has been trying to tell you, and that even nontrinitarian agrees might be the case (and he seems to have no problem with it) is that Thomas was speaking directly to Jesus and called Jesus his Lord and God. The literal Greek says "Thomas said to him 'the Lord of me and the God of me'" -- so Thomas was not calling Jesus just a God, like Moses and other were called gods in the OT, Thomas said Jesus was HIS OWN GOD. Meaning that Jesus was the true God of Thomas and the Jews. Now if Jesus was NOT the God of Thomas and merely an image of the true God, then he (as you said in your previous post) would have recognized that Thomas was engaging in idol worship and would have rebuked him. But he did not. He praised him and those that who would believe in him to come without seeing!

So if you feel it would be wrong for YOU to call Jesus your God, then it should have been wrong for Thomas to call Jesus HIS God. And yet Jesus did not correct him. Even if there was a possibility that Thomas was mistaken, Jesus should have corrected him.


X
GLORY

Previously you spoke of the Father's glory...

"I am Jehovah (Heb. vuvh). That is my name; and to no one else [this would include Jesus] shall I give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images."-Isaiah 42:8

So, if Jehovah did give his glory to someone else, then the only way the verse above could be reconciled would be if that other person was Jehovah, right?

So if Jesus did share the glory of the Father, then he would be God, right?

John 1:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JOHN+1:14&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,

2 Corinthians 4
5For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"[1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=2COR%2B4%3A5-7&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=NIV&x=17&y=5#footnote_132759376_1)] made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

Hebrews 1:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=HEB+1:3&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.



1 Peter 5:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1PET+5:10&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ,

2 Peter 1:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=2PET+1:17&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

Jude 1:25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JUDE+1:25&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.


Revelation 5:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=REV+5:13&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!"

[now Rev 5:13 is especially hard for JW's, barryrob. If the one who sits on the throne is the Father and the Lamb is Jesus, here we see both recieving the SAME praise, honor, glory, and power, forever --- in fact, let's look at it in the NWT to make sure I did not give you a bad translation.... And every creature that is in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, I heard saying: “To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.”]

Revelation 21:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=REV+21:23&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.
[The Glory is the light of God and Jesus is the Lamp. Light shines from a lamp and that means that God's Glory is shining from Jesus. God's glory is IN Jesus. Jesus posesses God's Glory.]


May God open your eyes to the truth and bless you, Amen.

[Sparko]

Nontrinitarian. I have been following your debate with theMuzicman and Xavier about the greek and you claim about the vocative case, etc. Since, like you, I am not a greek scholar, but can read, I found some interesting articles on the subject that refute your argument.



Also, the comment in John's Gospel where Thomas says "My lord and my God" is not directed to Jesus. I think the Gospel is written in Greek (and then ambiguously translated into English). The rules of Greek grammar mean that a statement like "My lord and my God" must be in the vocative-case if they are directed to someone present, but these words are in the nominitive-case. This means the comment is directed to someone else who is not present, ie. God in heaven.

Put simply, this argument relies on ignorance. There is no rule in Greek (or any other human language, to my knowledge) which distinguishes whether or not the person being addressed is present.

Furthermore, when used with the definite article (the word "the" in English), the nominative CAN act as a vocative. And although it is not obvious in most English translations, John 20:28 does use the definite article. (It literally says, "The Lord of me and the God of me!"

Finally, let me offer a counter-example. If there is indeed a rule of Greek grammar that states that someone not physically present (for instance, God) may not be addressed in the vocative case, then God should never be addressed in the vocative case in the New Testament. But there ARE counter-examples of God being addressed using the vocative case. For instance, Acts 1:24: When God is addressed here as "Lord", the word "Lord" in Greek is "kurie", which is in the vocative case.

Sorry to go into such detail. But when an incorrect argument relies on technicalities, we must use technicalities to answer it.

So the bottom line is this: whether Thomas was addressing Jesus (as Christians say) or God the Father (as JWs and some Muslims say), the grammar would be exactly the same. Just who is being addressed must be determined from context. And since Jesus is being spoken to, obviously the exclamation "my Lord and my God" is addressed to Jesus.

[NonTrinitarian]

Vocative class of Nominative.

Michael
Uh, I believe that was the whole argument. Just provide an example of Lord in that form and we might give it a little more serious thought on it.

[NonTrinitarian]

Nontrinitarian. I have been following your debate with theMuzicman and Xavier about the greek and you claim about the vocative case, etc. Since, like you, I am not a greek scholar, but can read, I found some interesting articles on the subject that refute your argument.



Also, the comment in John's Gospel where Thomas says "My lord and my God" is not directed to Jesus. I think the Gospel is written in Greek (and then ambiguously translated into English). The rules of Greek grammar mean that a statement like "My lord and my God" must be in the vocative-case if they are directed to someone present, but these words are in the nominitive-case. This means the comment is directed to someone else who is not present, ie. God in heaven.

Put simply, this argument relies on ignorance. There is no rule in Greek (or any other human language, to my knowledge) which distinguishes whether or not the person being addressed is present.

Furthermore, when used with the definite article (the word "the" in English), the nominative CAN act as a vocative. And although it is not obvious in most English translations, John 20:28 does use the definite article. (It literally says, "The Lord of me and the God of me!"

Finally, let me offer a counter-example. If there is indeed a rule of Greek grammar that states that someone not physically present (for instance, God) may not be addressed in the vocative case, then God should never be addressed in the vocative case in the New Testament. But there ARE counter-examples of God being addressed using the vocative case. For instance, Acts 1:24: When God is addressed here as "Lord", the word "Lord" in Greek is "kurie", which is in the vocative case.

Sorry to go into such detail. But when an incorrect argument relies on technicalities, we must use technicalities to answer it.

So the bottom line is this: whether Thomas was addressing Jesus (as Christians say) or God the Father (as JWs and some Muslims say), the grammar would be exactly the same. Just who is being addressed must be determined from context. And since Jesus is being spoken to, obviously the exclamation "my Lord and my God" is addressed to Jesus.


Thanks for the quote JS! But it's a straw man to my argument. I NEVER said the person had to be present. I simply said that the vocative is used when you are addressing the person you are calling Lord. In Acts 1:24, they are addressing the Lord in prayer. They are not saying to someone else 'You will knom God is Lord', which would be the nominative. They are taling to the Lord and calling him "lord", thus it's vocative. I dind't say the person had to be in front of the person. That's what the person who made this comment said and that is what the reply said as well. I would have also referenced Acts 1:24 to prove this false. So the argument is that whenever anyone is addressed as "Lord" is is kurie and your post here merely confirms it.

[NonTrinitarian]

No need to. The law of noncontradiction says it for you. If there is only one true God, then by definition all other Gods are not the true God, and therefore FALSE.

Jesus is either 1. Not a God at all. 2. A false God or 3. The one true God.

1. is eliminated by Thomas calling Jesus "The God of Me" as well as many other scriptures calling Jesus God, Mighty God, Our God and Savior, etc.
2. is eliminated by the fact that both you and I believe Jesus to be our Lord and Savior and therefore there is nothing false about him.

That leaves 3. Jesus is the one TRUE God. The same God as the Father. He is the second person of the one true triune God.
Jesus said his Father is the ONLY true God and separated himself from it. You obviously don't believe Jesus' words. You seem to think this means Jesus is a false God if I don't hold him to be the true God.

But if Jesus is the true light does this mean his followers are false lights? (John 1:9, Matt 5:14)

If Jesus is the true bread from heaven does this mean the manna was false bread from heaven?

If heaven is the true tabernacle does this mean the tabernacle Moses built is a false tabernacle? (Heb 8:2,5)

They are patterns after the original. (see Heb 8:5) Jesus is the exact representation of God, a pattern. He is not the original but he is not a false one either.

The end result is that we have numerous persons like Moses, Solomon, judges and Jesus given the title God. They are not the true God but they are not false God's either. And we do believe Jesus when he said his Father was the ONLY True God and distinguished himself from the only true God. You apparenlty do not.

[themuzicman]

Uh, I believe that was the whole argument. Just provide an example of Lord in that form and we might give it a little more serious thought on it.

You have a more direct problem than I. If you're going to say that kurioV isn't a nominative vocative, then you need to provide an alternative translation. You can't just say "it's not vocative" and think that we can just ignore it and make it go away.

You've not provided a translation that is suitable to the grammar, text, and context.

So, until you can come up with a proper alternative translation, your objections don't mean much.

Michael

[Sparko]

Thanks for the quote JS! But it's a straw man to my argument. I NEVER said the person had to be present. I simply said that the vocative is used when you are addressing the person you are calling Lord. In Acts 1:24, they are addressing the Lord in prayer. They are not saying to someone else 'You will knom God is Lord', which would be the nominative. They are taling to the Lord and calling him "lord", thus it's vocative. I dind't say the person had to be in front of the person. That's what the person who made this comment said and that is what the reply said as well. I would have also referenced Acts 1:24 to prove this false. So the argument is that whenever anyone is addressed as "Lord" is is kurie and your post here merely confirms it.
I think you missed the point of the article. Let me highlight the part that does pertain to your argument.

Furthermore, when used with the definite article (the word "the" in English), the nominative CAN act as a vocative. And although it is not obvious in most English translations, John 20:28 does use the definite article. (It literally says, "The Lord of me and the God of me!"
See? In the case of John 20:28, the nomitive acts as a vocative because of the definite article (ho).

So it is gramatically correct and consistant with Thomas speaking to Jesus directly.

[Sparko]

Jesus said his Father is the ONLY true God and separated himself from it. You obviously don't believe Jesus' words. You seem to think this means Jesus is a false God if I don't hold him to be the true God. Jesus is the SAME God as the Father. The same being but not the same person. So he is included in "GOD." He would only be a false God as compared to the Father in doctrines such as yours where he is another God from the Father.



But if Jesus is the true light does this mean his followers are false lights? (John 1:9, Matt 5:14)

If Jesus is the true bread from heaven does this mean the manna was false bread from heaven?

If heaven is the true tabernacle does this mean the tabernacle Moses built is a false tabernacle? (Heb 8:2,5) Light and bread are analogies and are figurative. Light is contrasted to darkness (evil) and dispells evil. Bread is analogous to nourishment of our souls, just as bread nourishes our bodies. The tabernacle in heaven is the true tabernacle, the one on earth was just a shadow of it. They do not in any way have anything to do with there being ONLY ONE TRUE GOD.

There can not be any other true Gods. God is the only one. All others either are no God at all, or false Gods. Which was Jesus?

They are patterns after the original. (see Heb 8:5) Jesus is the exact representation of God, a pattern. He is not the original but he is not a false one either. An exact representation of God? but not God? then he would not be an exact representation. If he is an exact representation of God, then he is the same as God. Jesus is God.

The end result is that we have numerous persons like Moses, Solomon, judges and Jesus given the title God. They are not the true God but they are not false God's either. And we do believe Jesus when he said his Father was the ONLY True God and distinguished himself from the only true God. You apparenlty do not. Moses and the others were not really gods, but just figuratively given the title "god" - so they were not gods. Jesus was more than this. He was truly God. Thomas called him HIS GOD, not A GOD. No Jew would ever call another man or an angel HIS GOD, just like you would never call a man or an Angel, YOUR GOD.

But Thomas did. He said to Jesus "The Lord of me and the God of me" - very plain language. Jesus was Thomas' God. And in such a sense, he was either the one TRUE God, or he was a false God.

Let me ask you another question. John, who wrote the gospel, was good Jew. When he wrote that verse, didn't he see how it might look to others who were reading it? That if looks like Thomas was calling Jesus God? If he wasn't really speaking to Jesus, but an exclamation to the Father, why wouldn't he say that? It would have been a simple matter to say "Thomas said to the Father, "My Lord and My God!" - but he did not. The implication is that John meant it to look like it does, that Thomas was speaking those words to Jesus and calling Jesus his God.

[NonTrinitarian]

NT said:
Jesus said his Father is the ONLY true God and separated himself from
it. You obviously don't believe Jesus' words. You seem to think this means
Jesus is a false God if I don't hold him to be the true God.

JS replied:
Jesus is the SAME God as the Father. The same being but not the same person.
So he is included in "GOD." He would only be a false God as compared to the
Father in doctrines such as yours where he is another God from the Father.

That's what you say but Jesus said differently. He not only called his FATHER the ONLY true God but he then distinguished himself FROM the only true God. IE: "YOU, the ONLY true God, AND the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." Jesus didn't just call his Father the only true God, he directly separated himself from it. You seem to think he said "Us, the only true God".


Light and bread are analogies and are figurative. Light is contrasted to
darkness (evil) and dispells evil. Bread is analogous to nourishment of our
souls, just as bread nourishes our bodies. The tabernacle in heaven is the
true tabernacle, the one on earth was just a shadow of it. They do not in
any way have anything to do with there being ONLY ONE TRUE GOD.

There can not be any other true Gods. God is the only one. All others either
are no God at all, or false Gods. Which was Jesus?

The examples I gave have a lot to do with this discussion. They clearly demonstrate that just because one is called true it does not mean the other is false. I agree that there cannot and are not any other true Gods. There is only one. The many persons who are called gods are gods because they represent God. If you want to call them false gods, go ahead. I won't. Jesus is also God's representative. The biggest blow to your argument is that Jesus used the fact that humans are called gods to defend his own claim. IE: "If they can be called gods and the scriptures cannot be nullified, then why do you condemn me?" Words right out of Jesus' own mouth.

NT said:

They are patterns after the original. (see Heb 8:5) Jesus is the exact
representation of God, a pattern. He is not the original but he is not a
false one either.

JS replied:
An exact representation of God? but not God? then he would not be an exact
representation. If he is an exact representation of God, then he is the same
as God. Jesus is God.

Yes, Jesus is an exact representation of God but is not God. Sorry if that confuses you. The Greek word there for exact representative literally refers to an in signet ring that would leave an impression in a wax. The impression is the exact representation of the ring.It is not the ring and the impression is not as old as the ring. That is the Greek word used to describe Christ. You can't change the meaning of it to suit your own needs. The word in NO WAY has EVER meant that the impression IS the original or is as old as the original.
NT said: The end result is that we have numerous persons like Moses, Solomon,
judges and Jesus given the title God. They are not the true God but they are
not false God's either. And we do believe Jesus when he said his Father was
the ONLY True God and distinguished himself from the only true God. You
apparently do not.

JS replied:

Moses and the others were not really gods, but just figuratively given the
title "god" - so they were not gods. Jesus was more than this. He was truly
God. Thomas called him HIS GOD, not A GOD. No Jew would ever call another
man or an angel HIS GOD, just like you would never call a man or an Angel,
YOUR GOD.

But Thomas did. He said to Jesus "The Lord of me and the God of me" - very
plain language. Jesus was Thomas' God. And in such a sense, he was either
the one TRUE God, or he was a false God.

Well this argue hinges first of all on whether Thomas was referring to Jesus. I have my doubts as outlined in another thread. However, let's assume he is. JW's do call Jesus "God", even "mighty God", we just don't call him "Almighty God". Thomas heard Jesus use the fact the kings were called gods because of their position. Now if Thomas knew these men could be called gods due to their position then he certainly could call Jesus his god as well. Jesus is our God due to the abundance of power and authority that was GIVEN to him.

Let me ask you another question. John, who wrote the gospel, was good Jew.
When he wrote that verse, didn't he see how it might look to others who were
reading it? That if looks like Thomas was calling Jesus God? If he wasn't
really speaking to Jesus, but an exclamation to the Father, why wouldn't he
say that? It would have been a simple matter to say "Thomas said to the
Father, "My Lord and My God!" - but he did not. The implication is that John
meant it to look like it does, that Thomas was speaking those words to Jesus
and calling Jesus his God.

This whole question assumes John thought it was wrong for Thomas to call Jesus God. But I assure you John didn't. In fact, he calls Jesus God at John 1:1. Personally I think that if John has wanted us to think Thomas was directing the titles to Jesus he would have used the vocative like he did the other 30 times in his gospel when someone called Jesus "Lord". But I do leave room open for the possibility that I am wrong and Thomas was in fact directing his comments to Jesus.


Since I can't back to back post, I will address another post on this one:




NT SAID:

Thanks for the quote JS! But it's a straw man to my argument. I NEVER
said the person had to be present. I simply said that the vocative is used
when you are addressing the person you are calling Lord. In Acts 1:24, they
are addressing the Lord in prayer. They are not saying to someone else 'You
will knom God is Lord', which would be the nominative. They are taling to
the Lord and calling him "lord", thus it's vocative. I dind't say the person
had to be in front of the person. That's what the person who made this
comment said and that is what the reply said as well. I would have also
referenced Acts 1:24 to prove this false. So the argument is that whenever
anyone is addressed as "Lord" is is kurie and your post here merely confirms
it.


JS REPLIED:
I think you missed the point of the article. Let me highlight the part that
does pertain to your argument.

" Furthermore, when used with the definite article (the word "the" in
English), the nominative CAN act as a vocative. And although it is not
obvious in most English translations, John 20:28 does use the definite
article. (It literally says, "The Lord of me and the God of me!""

See? In the case of John 20:28, the nomitive acts as a vocative because of
the definite article (ho).

So it is gramatically correct and consistant with Thomas speaking to Jesus
directly.

JS, this is a general rule that applies to many Greek words. I already said as much in an earlier post. A number of Greek words made this switch in Koine Greek. Lord is not one of them. The only thing I would say to the guy who wrote the article is provide ONE example where the Greek word Kurios acts as a vocative. If he can provide an example of this, his "rule" might have more force. Here is a list of the addresses of "Lord" to someone. All of these use the vocative, kurie.

All uses of the vocative KURIE can be found at:
Matt 7:21, 22 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord
Matt 8:2 there came to him a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt
Matt 8:6 and saying, Lord, my servant lieth in the house
Matt 8:8 And the centurion answered and said, Lord
Matt 8:21 And another of the disciples said unto him, Lord
Matt 8:25 And they came to him, and awoke him, saying, Save, Lord
Matt 9:28 They say unto him, Yea, Lord.
Matt 11:25 I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth
Matt 13:27 And the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir
Matt 14:28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord
Matt 14:30 he cried out, saying, Lord, save me
Matt 15:22 and cried, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord
Matt 15:25 But she came and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me
Matt 15:27 But she said, Yea, Lord
Matt 16:22 and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord
Matt 17:4 And Peter answered, and said unto Jesus, Lord
Matt 17:15 kneeling to him, saying, Lord, have mercy on my son
Matt 18:21 Then came Peter and said to him, Lord
Matt 20:30, 31 cried out, saying, Lord, have mercy on us
Matt 20:33 They say unto him, Lord
Matt 21:29 And he answered and said, I go, sir
Matt 25:11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord,
Matt 25:20 saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents
Matt 25:22 and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents
Matt 25:24 and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art a hard man
Matt 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord
Matt 25:44 Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord
Matt 26:22 and began to say unto him every one, Is it I, Lord?
Matt 27:63 saying, Sir, we remember that
Mark 7:28 But she answered and saith unto him, Yea, Lord
Luke 5:8 I am a sinful man, O Lord.
Luke 5:12 and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
Luke 7:6 the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord
Luke 9:54 they said, Lord, wilt thou that we bid fire
Luke 9:61 And another also said, I will follow thee, Lord
Luke 10:17 And the seventy returned with joy, saying, Lord
Luke 10:21 I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth
Luke 10:40 she came up to him, and said, Lord
Luke 11:1 one of his disciples said unto him, Lord
Luke 12:41 And Peter said, Lord
Luke 13:8 And he answering saith unto him, Lord
Luke 13:23 And one said unto him, Lord, are they few that are saved?
Luke 13:25 and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, open to us
Luke 14:22 And the servant said, Lord, what thou didst command is done
Luke 17:37 And they answering say unto him, Where, Lord?
Luke 18:41 And he said, Lord, that I may receive my sight.
Luke 19:8 Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor
Luke 19:16 And the first came before him, saying, Lord
Luke 19:18 And the second came, saying, Thy pound, Lord, hath made five pounds.
Luke 19:20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound
Luke 19:25 And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.
Luke 22:33 And he said unto him, Lord, with thee I am ready
Luke 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords.
Luke 22:49 they said, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
John 4:11 The woman saith unto him, Sir
John 4:15 The woman saith unto him, Sir
John 4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir
John 4:49 The nobleman saith unto him, Sir
John 5:7 The sick man answered him, Sir
John 6:34 They said therefore unto him, Lord
John 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, Lord
John 8:11 And she said, No man, Lord.
John 9:36 He answered and said, And who is he, Lord
John 9:38 And he said, Lord, I believe.
John 11:3 The sisters therefore sent unto him, saying, Lord
John 11:12 The disciples therefore said unto him,Lord
John 11:21 Martha therefore said unto Jesus, Lord
John 11:27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord
John 11:32 saying unto him, Lord
John 11:34 They say unto him, Lord, come and see.
John 11:39 saith unto him, Lord
John 12:21 and asked him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.
John 12:38 which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report?
John 13:6 He saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?
John 13:9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only
John 13:25 saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
John 13:36 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, whither goest thou?
John 13:37 Peter saith unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee even now?
John 14:5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest
John 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father
John 14:22 Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto him, Lord, what is come to pass
John 20:15 She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir
John 21:15, 16, 17 He saith unto him, Yea, Lord
John 21:20, 21 and said, Lord, who is he that betrayeth thee? Peter therefore seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
Acts 1:6 when they were come together, asked him, saying, Lord
Acts 1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord
Acts 4:29 And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings
Acts 7:59, 60 and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit...and cried with a loud voice, Lord
Acts 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord?
Acts 9:10 And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.
Acts 9:13 But Ananias answered, Lord
Acts 10:4 and being affrighted, said, What is it, Lord?
Acts 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord
Acts 11:8 But I said, Not so, Lord
Acts 22:8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord?
Acts 22:10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord?
Acts 22:19 And I said, Lord, they themselves know
Acts 26:15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord?
Romans 10:16 For Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
Romans 11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets
Hebrews 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth
Rev. 7:14 And I say unto him, My lord, thou knowest
Rev. 11:17 saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God, the Almighty
Rev. 15:3 saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, O Lord God
Rev. 15:4 Who shall not fear, O Lord
Rev. 16:7 And I heard the altar saying, Yea, O Lord God
Rev. 22:20 He who testifieth these things saith, Yea: I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus
Thus, it is highly unusual that in one instance the NT would change hats and use kurios. That is why I am not 100% certain Thomas is speaking to Jesus. Though I would say the official JW leaning is that he is.


This is for Michael:



You have a more direct problem than I. If you're going to say that ??????
isn't a nominative vocative, then you need to provide an alternative
translation. You can't just say "it's not vocative" and think that we can
just ignore it and make it go away.

You've not provided a translation that is suitable to the grammar, text, and
context.

So, until you can come up with a proper alternative translation, your
objections don't mean much.

Michael I don't have a problem with the translation. It's your interpretation of it that I disagree with to some extent though I admit I am wishy washy right now as to whether Thomas was referring to Jesus or to God through Jesus. We see numerous examples in the OT where people spoke to someone other than God as if the person was god himself. IE, when Lot spoke to the two angels he called them Jehovah several times and yet at other times spoke of them as if they were not Jehovah. He knew they were delivering Jehovah's message and spoke to them as if he were speaking to Jehovah.

[Sparko]

NonTrin,

Since these posts are getting really long, I am going to chop a lot out of this post. I am not ignoring your points, but I want to get to the meat of the subject.



That's what you say but Jesus said differently. He not only called his FATHER the ONLY true God but he then distinguished himself FROM the only true God. IE: "YOU, the ONLY true God, AND the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." Jesus didn't just call his Father the only true God, he directly separated himself from it. You seem to think he said "Us, the only true God". If Jesus is the SAME GOD as the Father, then this verse is not a problem. It only becomes a problem with JW doctrine where Jesus is a God, but not the same God as the Father. If Jesus is the same God, then he is speaking to the Father, who is the one true God, and the God of Jesus the man. But it does not negate that Jesus the Son is also the one true God. Notice Jesus is speaking of himself in the third person? He is speaking of God sending his incarnation as the Christ. He equates eternal life to knowing the Father and the Son equally.

Well this argue hinges first of all on whether Thomas was referring to Jesus. I have my doubts as outlined in another thread. However, let's assume he is. JW's do call Jesus "God", even "mighty God", we just don't call him "Almighty God". Thomas heard Jesus use the fact the kings were called gods because of their position. Now if Thomas knew these men could be called gods due to their position then he certainly could call Jesus his god as well. Jesus is our God due to the abundance of power and authority that was GIVEN to him. Now this is getting somewhere. Barryrob told me that he would never call Jesus "HIS GOD" because that would be idol worship, since Jesus is just an image of God. Yet you say you have no problem calling Jesus YOUR God?

If Thomas could call Jesus his God (as you say may be the case) will you say Jesus is YOUR God?

This whole question assumes John thought it was wrong for Thomas to call Jesus God. But I assure you John didn't. In fact, he calls Jesus God at John 1:1. Actually, I don't think John thought it was wrong for Thomas to call Jesus his God, in fact I think that is what John is trying to say. But you JW's seem to have the problem with calling Jesus "God" as in "THE GOD" but as you point out, John does it in 1:1 and equated Jesus as the Word and the SAME AS THE ONE TRUE GOD.


Personally I think that if John has wanted us to think Thomas was directing the titles to Jesus he would have used the vocative like he did the other 30 times in his gospel when someone called Jesus "Lord". But I do leave room open for the possibility that I am wrong and Thomas was in fact directing his comments to Jesus. But if he did call Jesus, "the God of me" then that is a pretty clear indication that Jesus is really THE GOD, Jehovah, since Jesus would have rebuked anyone calling him HIS God if he were not really Jehovah.



Since I can't back to back post, I will address another post on this one:
The back to back rule is really for people who post back to back replies to the same post, or bring up several points in separate posts for no reason. Since you are replying to two of my posts, you can do so separately. Since I am a moderator in here, I won't complain :-)


JS, this is a general rule that applies to many Greek words. I already said as much in an earlier post. A number of Greek words made this switch in Koine Greek. Lord is not one of them. The only thing I would say to the guy who wrote the article is provide ONE example where the Greek word Kurios acts as a vocative. If he can provide an example of this, his "rule" might have more force. Here is a list of the addresses of "Lord" to someone. All of these use the vocative, kurie.

Here is another source on the matter:

(1) If one argues that the words hO KURIOS MOU KAI hO QEOS MOU cannot be
addressed to Jesus because the nouns are not in the vocative case, the
same argument would apply to the contention that they are addressed to
the Father, for in either case (if one concludes direct address is in
view and that the vocative is required in direct address) the nominative
rather than the vocative would preclude the conclusion. On the other
hand, if Ken's solution is adopted (which I think is probable), there is
no reason to suppose the words are not addressed to Jesus.

(2) There are many, many cases of the nominative case being used in
direct address in the GNT, and it is clear that it is equivalent (at
least syntactically) to the vocative in such cases. This can be seen,
e.g., in the parallel passages Matt 27.46/Mark15.34, where Matthew has
QEE MOU QEE MOU (vocative) and Mark has hO QEOS MOU hO QEOS MOU
(nominative). Both clearly express direct address.

[NonTrinitarian]

NT: said
That's what you say but Jesus said differently. He not only called his
FATHER the ONLY true God but he then distinguished himself FROM the only
true God. IE: "YOU, the ONLY true God, AND the one whom you sent forth,
Jesus Christ." Jesus didn't just call his Father the only true God, he
directly separated himself from it. You seem to think he said "Us, the only
true God".

JS replied:
If Jesus is the SAME GOD as the Father, then this verse is not a problem. It
only becomes a problem with JW doctrine where Jesus is a God, but not the
same God as the Father. If Jesus is the same God, then he is speaking to the
Father, who is the one true God, and the God of Jesus the man. But it does
not negate that Jesus the Son is also the one true God. Notice Jesus is
speaking of himself in the third person? He is speaking of God sending his
incarnation as the Christ. He equates eternal life to knowing the Father and
the Son equally. Goodness JS. I don't know what else to say. What excatly do you want Jesus to say to make you think he is not God?

NT said:
Well this argue hinges first of all on whether Thomas was referring to
Jesus. I have my doubts as outlined in another thread. However, let's assume
he is. JW's do call Jesus "God", even "mighty God", we just don't call him
"Almighty God". Thomas heard Jesus use the fact the kings were called gods
because of their position. Now if Thomas knew these men could be called gods
due to their position then he certainly could call Jesus his god as well.
Jesus is our God due to the abundance of power and authority that was GIVEN
to him.

JS replied:
Now this is getting somewhere. Barryrob told me that he would never call
Jesus "HIS GOD" because that would be idol worship, since Jesus is just an
image of God. Yet you say you have no problem calling Jesus YOUR God?

If Thomas could call Jesus his God (as you say may be the case) will you say
Jesus is YOUR God? I cannot speak for Barryrob and it very well may be you misunderstood him because you misunderstand me all the time. JW's recognize Jesus is called God and we refer to him as "mighty God". I have no problem calling Jesus "my God" nor do I have a problem calling him "my eternal Father." That being said, I do NOT think Jesus is Almighty God and I do not think he is the Father. You have to examine the context of what we mean when we say it. IE, consider this:

The Jews told Jesus "Our Father is Abraham." (John 8:39) Two verses later they say, "we have ONE Father, God." Now don't try to convince me that the Jews thought Abraham was God because I know better. Were they contradicting themselves? Were they confused? No. You have to understand what they meant by such. In the same way, we call Jesus our God and yet we no more think he is Almighty God than the Jews thought Abraham was. There is no contradiction. We have "ONE God" just as the Jews had "ONE Father". In the same way, Jesus is called "eternal Father" and yet you don't believe he is the Father.

NT said:
This whole question assumes John thought it was wrong for Thomas to call
Jesus God. But I assure you John didn't. In fact, he calls Jesus God at John
1:1.

JS replied:
Actually, I don't think John thought it was wrong for Thomas to call Jesus
his God, in fact I think that is what John is trying to say. But you JW's
seem to have the problem with calling Jesus "God" as in "THE GOD" but as you
point out, John does it in 1:1 and equated Jesus as the Word and the SAME AS
THE ONE TRUE GOD. I think it's pretty obvious I wasn't saying YOU thought John thought it was wrong to call Jesus God. I clearly meant that you assumed I would think that John would not want people to think Thomas was calling Jesus God. And since I don't think that there was no reason for John to try to rewrite what Thomas said so no one would incorrectly get the impression that he was calling Jesus God. BTW: John doesn't call Jesus "THE GOD" at John 1:1. The definite article is clearly missing from there. And it's clear from Jesus' words that he is not the ONE TRUE GOD unless you are a modalist and believe he is the Father.

NT said:
Personally I think that if John has wanted us to think Thomas was
directing the titles to Jesus he would have used the vocative like he did
the other 30 times in his gospel when someone called Jesus "Lord". But I do
leave room open for the possibility that I am wrong and Thomas was in fact
directing his comments to Jesus.

JS replied:
But if he did call Jesus, "the God of me" then that is a pretty clear
indication that Jesus is really THE GOD, Jehovah, since Jesus would have
rebuked anyone calling him HIS God if he were not really Jehovah. Your opinion. I think the HUNDREDS of other verses that differentiate Jesus from God over-ride this. Especially when you understand that persons can and are called gods due to their authority or when the represent God. I will include an example in a minute to show this.


NT said:
JS, this is a general rule that applies to many Greek words. I already
said as much in an earlier post. A number of Greek words made this switch in
Koine Greek. Lord is not one of them. The only thing I would say to the guy
who wrote the article is provide ONE example where the Greek word Kurios
acts as a vocative. If he can provide an example of this, his "rule" might
have more force. Here is a list of the addresses of "Lord" to someone. All
of these use the vocative, kurie.

JS replied:




Here is another source on the matter:

Quote Taken From:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2004-August/031007.html

(1) If one argues that the words hO KURIOS MOU KAI hO QEOS MOU cannot be
addressed to Jesus because the nouns are not in the vocative case, the
same argument would apply to the contention that they are addressed to
the Father, for in either case (if one concludes direct address is in
view and that the vocative is required in direct address) the nominative
rather than the vocative would preclude the conclusion. On the other
hand, if Ken's solution is adopted (which I think is probable), there is
no reason to suppose the words are not addressed to Jesus.

(2) There are many, many cases of the nominative case being used in
direct address in the GNT, and it is clear that it is equivalent (at
least syntactically) to the vocative in such cases. This can be seen,
e.g., in the parallel passages Matt 27.46/Mark15.34, where Matthew has
QEE MOU QEE MOU (vocative) and Mark has hO QEOS MOU hO QEOS MOU
(nominative). Both clearly express direct address.

Copyright respective of citation source. In regards to point 2, these examples again our straw men to my argument. (though I know they are not your arguments, you're just copying from someone else) I had already said TWICE that this is a known rule applicable to MANY Greek words. But not all words made the switch and we have scores of LXX, GNT and Papyri that use the vocative form of Lord in direct address.

Now note that I said "direct address". This leads back to point 1. Since we don't think Thomas was directly addressing God (he was speaking to Jesus) then this point is again a straw man. Now how can he(Thomas) speak to Jesus and yet be referring to God? Can such a thing be done? Has it been done? Yes, numerous times in the OT. Consider one example.

Two angels go to visit Lot. We know they are angels because the Bible calls them that:
"Now the two angels arrived in Sodom by evening..."

Lot invites them to his house but he doesn't know who they are yet. The men in the village want to rape them and Lot comes to their aid, asking the men in the village to take his daughters instead. (This proves Lot didn't know who the men were because he would'nt have thought angels would need protection from men) Then the angels grab Lot and pull him back into the house (saving Lot instead Lot saving them!) and tell him:

"Jehovah has sent us to bring the city to ruin."

Lot now knows these men are servants of God. He didn't think they were Jehovah (How could he, there were two of them and they said Jehovah sent them. What on earth would have even caused him to THINK they were Jehovah?) Then as they flee Lot says to them: "Not that, please Jehovah. Please, now, let your servant..."

Note here these were angels and they told Lot that Jehovah sent them. Lot obviously knew they were not Jehovah. There was no way he would have even imagined they were Jehovah. He didn't even know they were angels until the blinded the men of the city. And yet in a heat of passion Lot "said to them: Not that, please Jehovah." Note that the text said he was speaking directly to them and yet he was actually directing his question to Jehovah. If Lot did this with angels, calling them Jehovah, Thomas could do this to Jesus, calling him God.

I'm getting bored with this thread. We're going around and around. Unless you come back with some stellar argument I'll let you have the last word.

[Sparko]

I am done with this thread too, nontrin. You can have the last word.

God Bless,

John

[barryrob]

Of course he is addressing Jesus: Then He said to Thomas, Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"



You guys don't like this verse do you! So is Jesus our Lord and God?
So to whom was Jesus calling to at:-

Matthew 27:46 About the ninth hour Jesus called out with a loud voice, saying: "E´li, E´li, la´ma sa·bach·tha´ni?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Which in litrealy rendered "this is the God of me, God of me."-'The NASB-NIV parallel N.T. in Gk. & Eng.' with interliner Translated by Alfred Marshall*


Jesus must have been calling to the Almighty (the Father, his God *see John 20:17 "God of me") quoting from Ps 22:1 as King David was, showing the God is somone other than himself. No Jesus cannot be Almighty God if he plainly says in the above texts that he himself has a God!



We can also add the the above the following words where Jesus is speaking from a exulted heavenly postion:-

Revelation 3:12-13
"‘The one that conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God*, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God* and the name of the city of my God*, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God*, and that new name of mine. 13 Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations.’

*Which in litrealy rendered "the God of me."-'The NASB-NIV parallel N.T. in Gk. & Eng.' with interliner Translated by Alfred Marshall

So we can ask again, who is Jesus talking about, as it cannot be himself?


Barryrob

[Sparko]

You keep forgetting that not only was Jesus divine, he was also completely human. As a human being the Father was his God. Jesus was crying out in his humanity during his suffering to his God, the Father. It does not mean that Jesus was not also God.

You JW's get confused on that point. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But they are different persons. One being - three persons. One substance. One God. Jesus is unique in that he is not only God, but Man. As a man, the Father is his God.

[NonTrinitarian]

You keep forgetting that not only was Jesus divine, he was also completely human. As a human being the Father was his God. Jesus was crying out in his humanity during his suffering to his God, the Father. It does not mean that Jesus was not also God.

You JW's get confused on that point. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But they are different persons. One being - three persons. One substance. One God. Jesus is unique in that he is not only God, but Man. As a man, the Father is his God. We're not confused on it John. We're not not aware of any scriptures that say what you just said. Show me the 'one being-three person' scripture and I might come back to being a Trinitarian.

Also, Barryrob quoted scripture from Revelation after Christ returned to heaven. And yet in heaven he still has a God. So we simply wish to worship the God that Jesus has as of RIGHT NOW.

[Sparko]

Jesus, in heaven is still has a fully human nature (although glorified) and body. The same body he had before and after the resurrection. That is how he can be the mediator between man and God. He is both.

[barryrob]

You keep forgetting that not only was Jesus divine, he was also completely human. As a human being the Father was his God. Jesus was crying out in his humanity during his suffering to his God, the Father. It does not mean that Jesus was not also God.

You JW's get confused on that point. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But they are different persons. One being - three persons. One substance. One God. Jesus is unique in that he is not only God, but Man. As a man, the Father is his God.
That could be said of the text from Matthew but I think not as that would make Jesus a God Man (Demigod) which is a pagan concept that has no place in The Holy Scripture.

But that cannot be said of the text at Revelation 3:12-13 as that later is when he had returned to his now Greater Heavenly Grloy as a ""Mighty God" (Isa Ch. 9) without his humanity.

I see no confusion at all its very clear, but if I believe like you Jesus becomes his own father as he is of the same substance as the father, by your theology, now that is confusing?????

Barryrob

[NonTrinitarian]

Jesus, in heaven is still has a fully human nature (although glorified) and body. The same body he had before and after the resurrection. That is how he can be the mediator between man and God. He is both.
Then if Jesus still has a God over him because of his having a human body in heaven then Jesus still isn't Almighty God. We can try and rationalize it out in a million different ways but the plain fact is that Jesus still has a God over him who tells him things (such as giving him the Revelation at Rev 1:1) and directs him.

So you can tell me Jesus is God until you're blue in the face but the fact that he still has a God over him (for whatever reason, human body or not), he cannot be Almighty God because there is someone over him. We just prefer to go to the top of the chain and worship Almighty God, not someone who is in subjection to Almighty God. And again, it's really irrelivent as to WHY Jesus has a God over him. The point is that he has a God and thus he is not the Almighty. His God is.

[Xavier]

Then if Jesus still has a God over him because of his having a human body in heaven then Jesus still isn't Almighty God. We can try and rationalize it out in a million different ways but the plain fact is that Jesus still has a God over him who tells him things (such as giving him the Revelation at Rev 1:1) and directs him.

To which, I say, "So what?" The subservence of Christ to the Father on Earth is explicated by Paul and fully accepted in the Trinitarian Doctrine.

So you can tell me Jesus is God until you're blue in the face but the fact that he still has a God over him (for whatever reason, human body or not), he cannot be Almighty God because there is someone over him.

You're just assuming your own theology... You've begged the question.

We just prefer to go to the top of the chain and worship Almighty God, not someone who is in subjection to Almighty God.

Except for the clear fact that Paul assigns God's Glory in Christ...

YHWH speaking:
By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: 'To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.'

And now Paul's assignment:
Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

And again, it's really irrelivent as to WHY Jesus has a God over him. The point is that he has a God and thus he is not the Almighty. His God is.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, 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.

Yours,
Xavier

[NonTrinitarian]

To which, I say, "So what?" The subservence of Christ to the Father on Earth is explicated by Paul and fully accepted in the Trinitarian Doctrine. The "so what" is that you apparently didn't read the post I was replying to. We weren't discussing Jesus while he was on earth. We are talking about him having a God over him in heaven. If he has a God over still then he is still not Almighty God.

You're just assuming your own theology... You've begged the question. I'm sorry. I didn't realize that my thinking that someone having a God over him who directs him and tells him what to do would automatically mean he was not Almighty God was "begging the question." How foolish of me to assume that Jesus having a God over him who has to give him information and whom Jesus still calls "my God" would mean Jesus was not the Almighty God over whom there is no one else. I just assumed Jesus' God would be mightier than Jesus. I will brush up on my logic.

Except for the clear fact that Paul assigns God's Glory in Christ...

YHWH speaking:
By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: 'To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.'

And now Paul's assignment:
Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Actually, it God who assigns Jesus his glory. And it was his glory as LORD, not God. And kindly note that proclaiming Jesus as "lord" is to the glory of GOD.

Phil 2:5 is discussed in another thread.

[Sparko]

non-trin

Are you under the impression that Jesus is no longer fully human in heaven? That he no longer has a body?

He rose bodily into heaven and in acts the angel says he will return the same way as he went up. He still has his body and is still fully human.

That is why he can be our mediator. He still speaks from both his divinity and his humanity. He still calls the Father "my God" as a voluntary honoring of the Father, as the Father is the God of his humanity. That the Father is greater than the Son is not a matter of substantiveness, but of honorary position. Just as a human father is greater than his son, but both are equally human, so the Father is greater than the Son, but both are God. And since there is only ONE God, they are the same God, revealed in two persons of the trinity.

[NonTrinitarian]

non-trin

Are you under the impression that Jesus is no longer fully human in heaven? That he no longer has a body?

He rose bodily into heaven and in acts the angel says he will return the same way as he went up. He still has his body and is still fully human.
Whether Jesus has a body in heaven or not is another thread topic.

That is why he can be our mediator. He still speaks from both his divinity and his humanity. He still calls the Father "my God" as a voluntary honoring of the Father, as the Father is the God of his humanity. That the Father is greater than the Son is not a matter of substantiveness, but of honorary position. Just as a human father is greater than his son, but both are equally human, so the Father is greater than the Son, but both are God. And since there is only ONE God, they are the same God, revealed in two persons of the trinity.
All opinion, JS. And you're argument doesn't help anyway because one sends the other, tells the other what to do, etc. One is Almighty, the other is not. If you want to carry your point to that of a human relationship, I'm game.

A human king (Pharoah) and a servant. Both are fully human. Now go bow before the servant and pray to him in front of Pharoah and see how long your head remains on your neck. I'm sure the Pharoah will love to hear your reasoning on how the servant is just as much a human as he is.

The Father and the Son. ONE is ALMIGHTY and has NO ONE telling him anything, sending him, etc. The other is told what to do, is given information that he previously didn't have, etc. You can try to rationalize it away by teaching a lie about him having his physical body in heaven but it still doesn't help. Whatever bogus reason you want to have on why Jesus has a God over him is irrelivent. He is obviously not Almighty.