My Lord and my God - Shema Trinity

[Wootah]

Thomas says, "My Lord and my God."

https://biblehub.com/text/john/20-28.htm

What did he mean to claim about Jesus?

[PinSeeker]

I'm not sure you are really addressing the possibility that Thomas referred to Christ (as my Lord) and then also to God Most High (as my God).

I did address this. I have said at least twice now that Thomas was not referring to two persons in verse 28 but rather only one, Christ, as both his Lord and his God. The reason that he cannot be referring to two persons is that his answer, all of verse 28 and not just half of it, is addressed to Christ, as John says, and the conjunction 'and' there clearly indicates he was referring to one and the same person.

I cannot say this is what Thomas actually did, because I do not know.

I say you can know, you either just don't want to do so, or you're just hesitant to do so. If it's just hesitancy, I can certainly understand being careful with God's Word and heartily commend you for that.

I just know it is possible to praise Christ (as Lord) and then continue on to praise God (as God), because I once did the same.

Sure it's possible, but that's not what Thomas is doing in John 20:28.

1. at best, pantheism (which certainly would have drawn a sharp rebuke from Jesus rather than silent acceptance of praise)

Christ's own words - which I copied in my original post - refute this...

Right; I'm refuting it, too. He's most certainly not falling into pantheism. But if the assumption is made that he's referring to two people (the one to which he is speaking and another) and not one (only the person he is speaking to), then that's one possible resulting erroneous understanding.

If Thomas was indeed referencing Christ as both "my Lord and my God", it does not mean he meant it in the sense that Christ is God Most High, the Most Holy One of Israel, whose name is Jah. (Psalm 68:4).

Disagree. Christ referred to Himself multiple times and assigned Himself the Name God revealed as His own to Moses in the Old Testament (Exodus) -- seven times (seven is a number used in Scripture to denote completeness), to be exact.

There is no problem with Christ being the Holy One of God and of Israel, whilst God Himself is the Most Holy One.

The Father is not more holy than the Son (or the Holy Spirit). No, holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, Who was and Who is and Who is to come (Revelation 4:8). Yes, I know, the thinking of many is that this only refers to God the Father; that's incorrect.

...with all due respect to you and JW and anyone else, God sent Himself in the form of Jesus.

That is the claim being made; but that is not what the text states; that is not what Christ states.

Yes, it is.

We see this graphically in the unilateral covenant God made with Abraham in Genesis 15. In a bilateral covenant, both parties make promises to each other to fulfill certain responsibilities, and both parties agree to suffer just penalties if they don't hold up their end of the covenant. But the Abrahamic covenant is unilateral -- God alone passes between the halves of the animals while Abraham sleeps deeply. In so doing, God made the following dual promise:

• 1. "If I don't keep my end of this covenant, death is the penalty I will suffer."
  
  2. "if you don't keep your end of the covenant, I will suffer death on your behalf."

Could you post the actual words from scripture that state this?

Oh, good grief. God caused Abraham to fall into a deep sleep, Tammy. The clear implication is that God participated in the covenant and participated in place of Abraham, thereby making Himself culpable on both ends of the covenant.

Please note that Paul does not state that Christ existed AS God; but in the form of God.

Yes, I'm very well aware of that. Christ was/is a man, but also God. Humanly speaking (which Paul, as a human being, is doing in Philippians and elsewhere to other humans), Christ, as a man, was in the form of God -- the full likeness, meaning that in addition to being man, He is also God. I'm going to expound on this, because it's very important:

Christ is more than a mere model, but He is a model for our behavior nonetheless. Thus, Paul rightly uses Jesus as an example of service that puts others first, service that he commends in Philippians 2:1–4. Paul explores Christ as our model of humble, selfless service to others. In so doing, he provides a key passage for Christology (the doctrine of Christ).

Morphē is the Greek word translated as “form� in verse 6, and it means that which corresponds inwardly to an outer appearance. Essentially, Paul is saying that the Son of God shares fully in the very essence of God. To borrow a phrase from the Nicene Creed (which was of course written long after Paul lived), the Son of God, Jesus Christ, is “very God of very God.� The early church father John Chrysostom wrote, “The form of God is truly God and nothing less. Paul did not write that he was in process of coming to be in the form of God; rather ‘being in the form of God,’ hence truly divine. This is much as to say ‘I am that I am.’�

Grace and peace to you, Tammy.

[tam]

Peace to you,

I'm not sure you are really addressing the possibility that Thomas referred to Christ (as my Lord) and then also to God Most High (as my God).

I did address this. I have said at least twice now that Thomas was not referring to two persons in verse 28 but rather only one, Christ, as both his Lord and his God. The reason that he cannot be referring to two persons is that his answer, all of verse 28 and not just half of it, is addressed to Christ, as John says, and the conjunction 'and' there clearly indicates he was referring to one and the same person.

Or it could mean that he was referring to Christ and (then) to God. This is possible (as I know from personal experience; and as you also admitted).

I cannot say this is what Thomas actually did, because I do not know.

I say you can know, you either just don't want to do so, or you're just hesitant to do so. If it's just hesitancy, I can certainly understand being careful with God's Word and heartily commend you for that.

I could know what Thomas meant if I spoke to Thomas directly and asked him; I could know what Thomas meant if my Lord told me.

Barring those two things, I - personally - cannot know for certain what Thomas meant. So I will not pretend to know for certain.

(God's Word is Christ)

1. at best, pantheism (which certainly would have drawn a sharp rebuke from Jesus rather than silent acceptance of praise)

Christ's own words - which I copied in my original post - refute this...

Right; I'm refuting it, too. He's most certainly not falling into pantheism. But if the assumption is made that he's referring to two people (the one to which he is speaking and another) and not one (only the person he is speaking to), then that's one possible resulting erroneous understanding.

Your wording is a bit unclear there in the bold.

If Thomas was indeed referencing Christ as both "my Lord and my God", it does not mean he meant it in the sense that Christ is God Most High, the Most Holy One of Israel, whose name is Jah. (Psalm 68:4).

Disagree. Christ referred to Himself multiple times and assigned Himself the Name God revealed as His own to Moses in the Old Testament (Exodus) -- seven times (seven is a number used in Scripture to denote completeness), to be exact.

Christ never referred to Himself as "YHWH" or even as Jah (Psalm 68:4).

Please list these seven occasions where Christ referred to Himself by the name "YHWH".

There is no problem with Christ being the Holy One of God and of Israel, whilst God Himself is the Most Holy One.

The Father is not more holy than the Son (or the Holy Spirit).

He is. Hence the Most Holy Place (representing the Most Holy One) and the Holy Place (representing the Holy One).

No, holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, Who was and Who is and Who is to come (Revelation 4:8). Yes, I know, the thinking of many is that this only refers to God the Father; that's incorrect.

In fact, the One sitting on the throne there in Revelation (God Almighty) is distinguished (and distinct) from the Lamb (Christ).

To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power,
for ever and ever!�

...with all due respect to you and JW and anyone else, God sent Himself in the form of Jesus.

That is the claim being made; but that is not what the text states; that is not what Christ states.

Yes, it is.

If it were what the text states or what Christ states... then you could just quote it, Pinseeker, and that would be the end of it. But you can't. You can only infer it. Just as JW's can only infer from the text that "Jesus" is Michael.

Neither the text nor Christ makes those claims.

We see this graphically in the unilateral covenant God made with Abraham in Genesis 15. In a bilateral covenant, both parties make promises to each other to fulfill certain responsibilities, and both parties agree to suffer just penalties if they don't hold up their end of the covenant. But the Abrahamic covenant is unilateral -- God alone passes between the halves of the animals while Abraham sleeps deeply. In so doing, God made the following dual promise:

• 1. "If I don't keep my end of this covenant, death is the penalty I will suffer."
  
  2. "if you don't keep your end of the covenant, I will suffer death on your behalf."

Could you post the actual words from scripture that state this?

Oh, good grief. God caused Abraham to fall into a deep sleep, Tammy. The clear implication is that God participated in the covenant and participated in place of Abraham, thereby making Himself culpable on both ends of the covenant.

So no, you cannot post the actual words from scripture? I mean, you're not even posting what you think implies these words, Pinseeker.

Please note that Paul does not state that Christ existed AS God; but in the form of God.

Yes, I'm very well aware of that. Christ was/is a man, but also God. Humanly speaking (which Paul, as a human being, is doing in Philippians and elsewhere to other humans), Christ, as a man, was in the form of God -- the full likeness, meaning that in addition to being man, He is also God.

I think you have misread. The text is referring to Christ being in the form of God BEFORE He took the form of a man.

Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.


He was in the form of God, THEN took the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tigger2]

Reply to PS post 87. My response in blue.

"When the object of a clause is a noun like this, it is called the "predicate nominative" and Colwell's Rule allows the translation to indicate the definiteness of the word even when the Greek lacks the article."

Colwell's Rule (as used by many trinitarians) is false. Colwell, like most trinitarian apologists, uses improper examples, grammatical exceptions, to 'prove' his case at John 1:1c.

As already mentioned in my previous post, 'prepositional' examples are improper examples when examining the use of the definite article in NT Greek. These include objects of prepositions which often omit the definite article when it was originally intended to be understood ("in beginning," "under sky," etc.) and nouns modified by a genitive (slave of sin").

A clear example of translations showing the irregularity of 'preposition/genitive'- modified p.n. - John 8:34:

πᾶς � ποιῶν τὴν �μα�τίαν δοῦλος �στιν τῆς �μα�τίας.
everyone the doing the sin slave is of the sin .

'Slave' (doulos) is anarthrous (without an article), but it is modified by the genitive ('of the sin') which makes doulos EITHER indefinite OR definite. (I have found that such constructions are often, but not always, definite.) Even if you don't believe the many trinitarian NT Greek grammarians

• who admit the exception for preposition/genitive examples, here is further evidence:
  
  Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. - KJV.
  Everyone who sins is a slave to sin. - NIV.
  Everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. - NASB.
  Everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. - ESV.
  Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin. - ASV.
  Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. - NRSV.
  Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. - KJ21.
  Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. - HCSB.
  Everyone who commits sin is the bondservant of sin. - WEB
  Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. - CSB.
  
  
  It should be apparent that this construction (preposition/genitive modified anarthrous nominative) is rightly listed as an improper example for insisting that the anarthrous noun is definite or indefinite. And there are many more such examples in the rest of John’s Gospel! Many trinitarian apologists (Colwell and Harner included) select some of these exceptions where the article is understood by context, and all translators, therefore, translate it with the definite article. They will, of course, normally omit other 'prepositional' examples which disprove their objective.
  
  There are other exceptions (such as abstract nouns, non-count nouns, personal names, etc.), but they are not as often found as the 'prepositional' exceptions. When the exceptions are removed, we find that John (and the other Gospel writers) always omits the article before the count noun predicate nouns which John placed before the verb.
  
  "In English, we don't put "the" in front of God to show definiteness. We capitalize it. That's what Greek scholars recognize in this verse."
  
  It's true that we don't normally use the article before "God" in ENGLISH. However, John (and the other Gospel writers) didn't capitalize the first letter of words in the Greek. To show the only true, almighty creator, they used the definite article (ho theos).
  
  My simplest studies which prove the above:
  
  http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... _21.html
  
  http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... 1c-a.html

[PinSeeker]

So no, you cannot post the actual words from scripture? I mean, you're not even posting what you think implies these words, Pinseeker.

God's actions imply (actually much more than implication, but we'll go with that) the words, Tammy. Actions speak louder than words; what one does "says" exactly what one needs to know. And the whole event is described in the Bible, which is God's irrefutable, unassailable, infallible, inerrant Word. In short, what God did in the Abrahamic covenant tells us exactly what I put into words above.

I think you have misread.

Nope. But you're more than welcome to your opinion.

The text is referring to Christ being in the form of God BEFORE He took the form of a man.

LOL! Yes, that's true, but Christ did not cease to be in the form of God (having a Godly nature) when He took the form of man. Rather, he took on the additional form (nature) of man. To think differently than that is terribly limited and just wrong.

He was in the form of God, THEN took the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.

Well, yes and no:

* Yes, in the sense that before being made in human likeness, He only possessed a Godly nature (being God, this is the only thing that makes any sense), and after being made in human likeness possessed both the Godly nature and the nature of man -- again, 100% of both natures; this is what made it possible for Him not to sin.

* No, in the sense that Jesus always had a face, a nose, two arms and two legs... and still does, and always will.

Peace again to you,

And to you also. Grace and peace to you.

[PinSeeker]

Colwell's Rule (as used by many trinitarians) is false. Colwell, like most trinitarian apologists, uses improper examples, grammatical exceptions, to 'prove' his case at John 1:1c.

No, Colwell's Rule is ignored (in ignorance by some, purposely by others) in a vain attempt to dismiss the case of trinitarians. Having done this, the rest of your post is thus empty rationalization based on preconceived opinion: "...still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

At the end of the day, the great thing (in the words of the prophet Isaiah) is:

• "All flesh is grass, and all its loveliness is like the flower of the field. The grass withers, the flower fades, when the breath of the LORD blows upon it; surely the people are grass. The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever."

To God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) alone be the glory.

Grace and peace to you, Tigger.

[JehovahsWitness]

... Colwell's Rule is ignored (in ignorance by some, purposely by others) in a vain attempt to dismiss the case of trinitarians.

I have to agree with trigger here.

Colwells rule is much abused by Trinitarian to say the least.


JW

[PinSeeker]

Perhaps you would like to explain how Colwells rule supports your argument to prove you are not in error. Will you be doing that?

Well, I stated what Colwell's rule was, and it can be easily and clearly applied in the case of John 1:1c. Whether anyone chooses to or not is up to them. In other words, one can teach another how to add, and then the problem 2-plus-2 becomes an academic matter. If that person still wants to say 2 plus 2 does not equal 4, that's certainly his/her prerogative.

Grace and peace to you, JW.

[JehovahsWitness]

Well, I stated what Colwell's rule was, and it can be easily and clearly applied in the case of John 1:1c.

Yes you did but From what I can see trigger explained his case with clear points and specific examples HERE
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 289#980289

He did not ignore the argument he addressed it. What do you have in counterargument to the specific points he made ?


JW

[PinSeeker]

What do you have in counterargument to the specific points he made?

Other than to say he's incorrect and restate precisely what I did before, no.

But grace and peace to you both, just the same.

[JehovahsWitness]

COLWELLS RULE


YOUR POST

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 248#980248

RESPONSE

Reply to PS post 87. My response in blue.

"When the object of a clause is a noun like this, it is called the "predicate nominative" and Colwell's Rule allows the translation to indicate the definiteness of the word even when the Greek lacks the article."

Colwell's Rule (as used by many trinitarians) is false. Colwell, like most trinitarian apologists, uses improper examples, grammatical exceptions, to 'prove' his case at John 1:1c.

As already mentioned in my previous post, 'prepositional' examples are improper examples when examining the use of the definite article in NT Greek. These include objects of prepositions which often omit the definite article when it was originally intended to be understood ("in beginning," "under sky," etc.) and nouns modified by a genitive (slave of sin").

A clear example of translations showing the irregularity of 'preposition/genitive'- modified p.n. - John 8:34:

πᾶς � ποιῶν τὴν �μα�τίαν δοῦλος �στιν τῆς �μα�τίας.
everyone the doing the sin slave is of the sin .

'Slave' (doulos) is anarthrous (without an article), but it is modified by the genitive ('of the sin') which makes doulos EITHER indefinite OR definite. (I have found that such constructions are often, but not always, definite.) Even if you don't believe the many trinitarian NT Greek grammarians

• who admit the exception for preposition/genitive examples, here is further evidence:
  
  Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. - KJV.
  Everyone who sins is a slave to sin. - NIV.
  Everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. - NASB.
  Everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. - ESV.
  Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin. - ASV.
  Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. - NRSV.
  Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. - KJ21.
  Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. - HCSB.
  Everyone who commits sin is the bondservant of sin. - WEB
  Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. - CSB.
  
  
  It should be apparent that this construction (preposition/genitive modified anarthrous nominative) is rightly listed as an improper example for insisting that the anarthrous noun is definite or indefinite. And there are many more such examples in the rest of John’s Gospel! Many trinitarian apologists (Colwell and Harner included) select some of these exceptions where the article is understood by context, and all translators, therefore, translate it with the definite article. They will, of course, normally omit other 'prepositional' examples which disprove their objective.
  
  There are other exceptions (such as abstract nouns, non-count nouns, personal names, etc.), but they are not as often found as the 'prepositional' exceptions. When the exceptions are removed, we find that John (and the other Gospel writers) always omits the article before the count noun predicate nouns which John placed before the verb.
  
  "In English, we don't put "the" in front of God to show definiteness. We capitalize it. That's what Greek scholars recognize in this verse."
  
  It's true that we don't normally use the article before "God" in ENGLISH. However, John (and the other Gospel writers) didn't capitalize the first letter of words in the Greek. To show the only true, almighty creator, they used the definite article (ho theos).
  
  My simplest studies which prove the above:
  
  http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... _21.html
  
  http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... 1c-a.html

COUNTERARGUMENT : NONE

What do you have in counterargument to the specific points he made?

Other than to say he's incorrect and restate precisely what I did before, no.

So that would be no counterargument offered. Fair enough, that speaks volumes!








JW



RELATED POSTS


Does "Colwell's Rule" shed light on how John1:1 should properly be translated?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 838#822838
http://onlytruegod.org/defense/metzgercolwell.htm
http://fosterheologicalreflections.blog ... n-11c.html



FURTHER READING
http://onlytruegod.org/defense/john1files.htm
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... 11c-a.html
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... notes.html
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... endix.html[/quote]