John 20:28, My Lord and My God

[Same Hakeem]

Yes. That is literal reading of the Greek text:

. . . ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου.

ο κυριος - the Lord
μου - of me
και - and
ο θεος - the God
μου - of me

Thomas address Jesus as both his Lord and his God. Jesus was Lord being the man and God being the Son (John 5:23-24; John 14:6, 9; 1 John 5:20; John 17:3).

Two comments here;

1. Calling one god does not make this one real God. God called the judges in Psalm 82:6 "gods"

" I say you are gods and you are sons of the most high."

2. Jesus himself addressed "the Father" as "the only true God" in John 17:1-3. So the "only true God" is the Father according to Jesus.

[Unitarian101]

Two comments here;

1. Calling one god does not make this one real God. God called the judges in Psalm 82:6 "gods"

" I say you are gods and you are sons of the most high."

2. Jesus himself addressed "the Father" as "the only true God" in John 17:1-3. So the "only true God" is the Father according to Jesus.

I agree that calling someone θεὸς does not necessarily mean that someone (or something) is being called the Almighty. As you pointed out, in John 10:34 θεὸς (plural Θεοί) does not mean the only true God / the Almighty ("Y-WH"). Similarly the belly is not God is it , in below ?

ὧν τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια, ὧν ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία καὶ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ αἰσχύνῃ αὐτῶν, οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες.

Phil. 3:19

That being said, I do not believe Jesus is being called "god" in John 20:28. The Father (in Jesus) is being exclaimed as such by apostle Thomas here.

"My Lord (meaning Jesus) and my God (meaning the Father)."

If you see your friend walking your dog on the street and you exclaimed:

"My Friend and my Dog," is it reasonable to argue that you are calling your friend a dog ? Or is it more sensible to say that you are exuberantly identifying your friend and the dog (which he is walking) ?

Alas.

[Unitarian101]

No the bible never literally says that God is a Trinity. But it is scriptural when you reconcile the various passages that say the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and that there is only one true God. So either Jesus and the Holy Spirit are false gods or they are the same God as the Father. And we know that they are not the same person, because Jesus prays to the Father, and the Father spoke about the Son while the Son was being baptized and Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit as another person that he would send.

Jesus is also said to be the ultimate judge over all. and the creator. And is one with the Father.

Now if you had a scripture which declared the equivalent of red above in a single verse (as you just yourself did above!), you would have a leg to stand on.

You see, anyone can "reconcile" () scriptures to make them say almost anything they want to from different contexts and sprinkled with eisegesis -- even that Jesus is a space alien from another galaxy, or that he is simultaneously God Almighty and a human being, or that he is Baalzebul , etc. What we need is articulation from Scripture.

[Unitarian101]

Jn 14:10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?

oopsie. How do you explain Jesus indwelling the Father?

If anything this verse cries out against your position.

By the way, the Saints are also "in the Father," for example. See John 17:21. Why not call them God (Almighty) as well ?

[mikewhitney]

If anything this verse cries out against your position.

By the way, the Saints are also "in the Father," for example. See John 17:21. Why not call them God (Almighty) as well ?

You still have only attempted to present little points here and there. Are you able to address the broad discussion of the Trinity?

Which of the rejected views do you hold to? Or do you have a different view of the Messiah from the listed views? You have not provided anything of interest yet. You have only shown affinity toward a Muslim view of Christ.

[Sparko]

Now if you had a scripture which declared the equivalent of red above in a single verse (as you just yourself did above!), you would have a leg to stand on.

You see, anyone can "reconcile" () scriptures to make them say almost anything they want to from different contexts and sprinkled with eisegesis -- even that Jesus is a space alien from another galaxy, or that he is simultaneously God Almighty and a human being, or that he is Baalzebul , etc. What we need is articulation from Scripture.

Why would they have to be in a single verse? Do you not believe the whole bible is true and accurate? I can give you verses that call each of them God, that each are the creator, that show that Jesus has the same titles and functions as YHWH in the OT (Judge, First and Last, I Am, King, the only Savior, Shepherd, Messiah, the Light, that Jesus received worship where only God is to be worshiped)

The only solution is that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

And yet the bible is clear that there is only ONE God and no other.

So Jesus is either the one True God, or he is a false God.

As far as one verse goes, we are to baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. Why would we be baptizing in the name of false Gods or no God at all? And why is NAME singular? Why not the "Names" of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? What IS the Name? The Name is YHWH, God Almighty.

[Unitarian101]

Why would they have to be in a single verse?

It's called articulation, just as you did and just as your creeds do:

(13) In the same way the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, the Holy Spirit almighty; (14) yet there are not three almighties, but one almighty.

Athanasian Creed

Why can you do it, and your Creeds are able, but NOT the bible ?

Do you not believe the whole bible is true and accurate? I can give you verses that call each of them God, that each are the creator, that show that Jesus has the same titles and functions as YHWH in the OT (Judge, First and Last, I Am, King, the only Savior, Shepherd, Messiah, the Light, that Jesus received worship where only God is to be worshiped)

The only solution is that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

And yet the bible is clear that there is only ONE God and no other.

So Jesus is either the one True God, or he is a false God.

As far as one verse goes, we are to baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. Why would we be baptizing in the name of false Gods or no God at all? And why is NAME singular? Why not the "Names" of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? What IS the Name? The Name is YHWH, God Almighty.

And I can counter each of your so called verses where Jesus is apparently called the Almighty. As I said, anyone can take verses from different books and contexts to make a case for almost anything. Clear articulation is required,... as is the case with every important doctrine of the bible.

[Sparko]

It's called articulation, just as you did and just as your creeds do:



Athanasian Creed

Why can you do it, and your Creeds are able, but NOT the bible ?





And I can counter each of your so called verses where Jesus is apparently called the Almighty. As I said, anyone can take verses from different books and contexts to make a case for almost anything. Clear articulation is required,... as is the case with every important doctrine of the bible.

I am quite sure that you have your mind set and nothing will change it. But your individual "counters" don't take into consideration the evidence as a whole. If you are to be believed, the writers of the bible were complete morons who repeatedly made reference to Jesus as God and gave him titles that only YHWH has, without noticing their errors. One can be explained away, but multiple times by multiple authors, in multiple books? No.

[Unitarian101]

I am quite sure that you have your mind set and nothing will change it. But your individual "counters" don't take into consideration the evidence as a whole. If you are to be believed, the writers of the bible were complete morons who repeatedly made reference to Jesus as God and gave him titles that only YHWH has, without noticing their errors. One can be explained away, but multiple times by multiple authors, in multiple books? No.

They didn't.

[Sparko]

They didn't.

They did.

[Unitarian101]

They did.

But you do not have a single text from the GNT which irrefutably calls Jesus God. Don't have to take it from me. Here's Dan Wallace:

Few today would take issue with Rudolf Bultmann’s oft-quoted line that “In describing Christ as ‘God’ the New Testament still exercises great restraint.”2 The list of passages which seem explicitly to identify Christ with God varies from scholar to scholar, but the number is almost never more than a half dozen or so.3 As is well known, almost all of the texts are disputed as to their affirmation—due to textual or grammatical glitches—John 1:1 and 20:28 being the only two which are usually conceded without discussion.4

And the kicker:

4 Even here there is debate however. See Harris, Jesus as God, 51-71 (on John 1:1), 105-129 (on John 20:28).

Remember what Jesus said about the house built upon a weak foundation ?

[mikewhitney]

But you do not have a single text from the GNT which irrefutably calls Jesus God. Don't have to take it from me. Here's Dan Wallace:


And the kicker:



Remember what Jesus said about the house built upon a weak foundation ?

You forgot to mention the concluding remarks by Daniel:

Consequently, in Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 we are compelled to recognize that, on a grammatical level, a heavy burden of proof rests with the one who wishes to deny that “God and Savior” refers to one person, Jesus Christ.

Oops. It is easy to miss the conclusion, isn't it?

Are you going to develop a further study contesting the Trinity or are you just picking at the edges? You tend to be chopping away at the grounds for justification when you seek to remove either the deity of Christ or his humanity -- expressed as 100% God and 100% man. What is the model you are offering instead?

[Unitarian101]

You forgot to mention the concluding remarks by Daniel:


Oops. It is easy to miss the conclusion, isn't it?

Are you going to develop a further study contesting the Trinity or are you just picking at the edges? You tend to be chopping away at the grounds for justification when you seek to remove either the deity of Christ or his humanity -- expressed as 100% God and 100% man. What is the model you are offering instead?

Wallace is partly correct to say that at Titus 2:13 one person is in view, but the verse is NOT calling Jesus "God and Savior," rather it is calling him "the glory of the great God and Savior." See the difference ? In other words the vese is calling Jesus the glory of the Father (i.e. the great God and Savior). Gordon Fee, a Trinitarian, subscribes to this point of view.

The point is that this is a disputable text for Christ's "Deity," and Wallace is honest enough to recognize this. If Christ was actually God, the bible would have indisputably declared him to be so, dozens of times. There would have been no doubt as to the attestation. As is, you only have a handful (about five or six) of dubious texts .

[Sparko]

Wallace is partly correct to say that at Titus 2:13 one person is in view, but the verse is NOT calling Jesus "God and Savior," rather it is calling him "the glory of the great God and Savior." See the difference ? In other words the vese is calling Jesus the glory of the Father (i.e. the great God and Savior). Gordon Fee, a Trinitarian, subscribes to this point of view.

The point is that this is a disputable text for Christ's "Deity," and Wallace is honest enough to recognize this. If Christ was actually God, the bible would have indisputably declared him to be so, dozens of times. There would have been no doubt as to the attestation. As is, you only have a handful (about five or six) of dubious texts .

2:13 as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. ©NET

It says the APPEARING. Jesus is the one coming back and appearing, not the Father. So it is referring to Christ as God and Savior.

[Unitarian101]

2:13 as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. ©NET

It says the APPEARING. Jesus is the one coming back and appearing, not the Father. So it is referring to Christ as God and Savior.

The Greek here can be taken in more than one way.

προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ,

The pertinent issue of exegesis at Titus 2:13 is whether Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ is in apposition to τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν or to τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν .


It's just not a "proof text." In fact the Trinitarian understanding here is contrary to the usual reading of τῆς δόξης in the GNT.