Evidence for “a god” at John 10:33

[TiggerII]

Hey @TrueBeliever37 , hope you are well.

Don’t have much time to go into this, but please read the context, including John 20:17.

And furthermore, ask yourself, what was Thomas expressing disbelief in prior to Jesus’ appearance? Thomas had seen other resurrrections....if, before Jesus’ death, Thomas thought Jesus was really God, why would he express disbelief that He would be resurrected?

More info:
The Trinity Delusion: John 20:28

John 20:28
I believe the JW interpretation is that Thomas is applying 'god' in its lesser sense to Jesus. Numerous trinitarian scholars admit that theos may be used for judges, kings, angels, etc. who are appointed by God to do his will.

While I certainly don't disagree, I do see a probable alternate.

NT Scholars admit that commonly used expressions and doxologies to God are often abbreviated by leaving out words.

The reason I believe that Thomas is not addressing God in this verse is that John (and, I believe, all other NT writers) always uses the vocative kurie when addressing someone as 'Lord.' Since kurios, not kurie, is used here, this is a praise or promise to God: "My Lord [kurios] and my God be praised," "May my Lord [kurios] and God [be witness that I believe you have been resurrected]....”

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/mygod.html

Notice the parallel between 1 Samuel 20:12 (where Jonathan’s words appear to be directed to David: “... Jonathan saith unto David, ‘Jehovah, God of Israel - when I search my father, about this time tomorrow ....’” - Young’s Literal Translation, cf. KJV) and John 20:28 (where Thomas’ words appear to be directed to Jesus: “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’”).

The significant point here is that, although the scripture shows Jonathan speaking to David, it apparently literally calls him (David) “O LORD God of Israel”!! (For a straightforward literal translation see 1 Samuel 20:12 in the King James Version.) You can bet that, if modern Bible translators wanted to find “evidence” that made King David also appear to be equally God (Quadrinarians?), they would continue to translate this scripture addressed to David just as literally as they do John 20:28 to “prove” that Jesus is equally God!

Instead, we see many modern translations adding words to bring out what they believe may have been originally intended. There is absolutely no reason for this addition except the translators believe from the testimony of the rest of the Bible that David is not Jehovah God. So something else must have been intended here.

Translators from about 200 B.C. (Septuagint) until now have been guessing (and disagreeing) at exactly what was intended here. It was probably some common idiom of the time such as: “I promise you in the sight of the LORD the God of Israel” - NEB, or, as found in the ancient Septuagint: “Jonathan said unto David, ‘The Lord [kurios] God of Israel knows that....’”

Perhaps the most-used interpretation is: “Jehovah, the God of Israel, (be witness)....” - ASV (cf. NASB, RSV, AT, NKJV).

There is no reason to believe that Thomas is calling Jesus 'God' at Jn. It is significant that John does not follow up this blockbuster (if the Trinitarian interpretation were true) with further references to this great 'truth.'

Instead he summarizes his Gospel in 20:30, 31 with "these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God...."

Why no summary including 'Jesus is God'?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Hey @TrueBeliever37 , hope you are well.

Don’t have much time to go into this, but please read the context, including John 20:17.

And furthermore, ask yourself, what was Thomas expressing disbelief in prior to Jesus’ appearance? Thomas had seen other resurrrections....if, before Jesus’ death, Thomas thought Jesus was really God, why would he express disbelief that He would be resurrected?

More info:
The Trinity Delusion: John 20:28

I will wait till you have time to answer my questions then. But remember I am not a Trinitarian.

Thomas didn't fully understand many things until after the resurrection. Luke 24:45

And remember the scripture says if they had known he was the Lord (YHWH) of glory they wouldn't have crucified him. 1 Corinthians 2:8 He had to keep who he was somewhat hidden to accomplish his mission.

Think about it. The one and only God loved us so much that he took on a fleshly body, and shed his blood for our sins.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

John 20:28
I believe the JW interpretation is that Thomas is applying 'god' in its lesser sense to Jesus. Numerous trinitarian scholars admit that theos may be used for judges, kings, angels, etc. who are appointed by God to do his will.

While I certainly don't disagree, I do see a probable alternate.

NT Scholars admit that commonly used expressions and doxologies to God are often abbreviated by leaving out words.

The reason I believe that Thomas is not addressing God in this verse is that John (and, I believe, all other NT writers) always uses the vocative kurie when addressing someone as 'Lord.' Since kurios, not kurie, is used here, this is a praise or promise to God: "My Lord and my God be praised," "May my Lord and God [be witness that I believe you have been resurrected]....”

Why do you add in so many words that aren't there? The Greek wording (using English words) for John 20:28 would be as I showed earlier. (He didn't say be witness that I believe you have been resurrected or be praised in this verse.) Just believe what it does say.

"Answered Thomas and said to him: The Lord (kurios) of me and the God of me." He is clearly speaking to him. And he is clearly calling him his God. And the definite article "the" is clearly there.

BTW Jonathan wasn't calling David YHWH in the verse you mentioned. Jonathan was saying something to David and mentioned YHWH in his statement. There is a big difference.

 

[YoursTrue]

The scripture says that YHWH is the God of all flesh. So that would have to include that flesh. Of course God's Spirit fills the heavens and the earth. But the fullness of deity was dwelling in that body. Colossians 2:9

It makes a lot more sense than Trinitarians saying 1 God + 1 God + 1 God = 1 God
Is it that difficult to believe the flesh would cry out to the Spirit for strength?

yes, if it were God. Or if God 'inhabited' that flesh. Yes, the flesh usually involves one's brain and spirit, if alive. So the answer is yes, if Jesus were God-in-the-flesh then it would actually be incongruous to believe that God-in-the-flesh couldn't help himself. Unless, of course, a person believes that God fully could be encased in flesh he could not get out of. In which case, I suppose his body would die. It makes much more sense to recognize that the Son had been in heaven and came from heaven to live entirely (not partially as God-in-the-flesh) as a human for a while.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you add in so many words that aren't there? The Greek wording (using English words) for John 20:28 would be as I showed earlier. (He didn't say be witness that I believe you have been resurrected or be praised in this verse.) Just believe what it does say.

"Answered Thomas and said to him: The Lord (kurios) of me and the God of me." He is clearly speaking to him. And he is clearly calling him his God. And the definite article "the" is clearly there.

BTW Jonathan wasn't calling David YHWH in the verse you mentioned. Jonathan was saying something to David and mentioned YHWH in his statement. There is a big difference.

Thomas recognized Jesus was no longer human. He also realized he was the King-designate, appointed and anointed by God, his Father.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I will wait till you have time to answer my questions then. But remember I am not a Trinitarian.

Thomas didn't fully understand many things until after the resurrection. Luke 24:45

And remember the scripture says if they had known he was the Lord (YHWH) of glory they wouldn't have crucified him. 1 Corinthians 2:8 He had to keep who he was somewhat hidden to accomplish his mission.

Think about it. The one and only God loved us so much that he took on a fleshly body, and shed his blood for our sins.

You completely take Yahweh out of the picture. (That’s dangerous theology!)
“No one has seen God at any time.”

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Thomas recognized Jesus was no longer human. He also realized he was the King-designate, appointed and anointed by God, his Father.

What he recognized was that he was God. As John 20:28 lets us know.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

yes, if it were God. Or if God 'inhabited' that flesh. Yes, the flesh usually involves one's brain and spirit, if alive. So the answer is yes, if Jesus were God-in-the-flesh then it would actually be incongruous to believe that God-in-the-flesh couldn't help himself. Unless, of course, a person believes that God fully could be encased in flesh he could not get out of. In which case, I suppose his body would die. It makes much more sense to recognize that the Son had been in heaven and came from heaven to live entirely (not partially as God-in-the-flesh) as a human for a while.

No - as the scripture says, the son was made of a woman, made under the law. Galatians 4:4 That fleshly body didn't exist until it was born. God made that body to dwell in and sacrifice for the sins of the world.

He called it his Son because he was the Father of the body, but it wasn't another person.
That is why he said I and my Father are one. (Not two persons - but flesh and Spirit)
That is why he said destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. Yet we know God raised it up.
That is why it says God was manifest in the flesh.
That is why Isaiah 9:6 says the name of the Son to be born shall be called the mighty God and the everlasting Father.
etc.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

You completely take Yahweh out of the picture. (That’s dangerous theology!)
“No one has seen God at any time.”

YHWH isn't taken out of the picture. Read the post more slowly. YHWH was the one dwelling in that body. YHWH wrapped himself in flesh and shed his blood for man's sin. So how in the world would that be taking YHWH out of the picture?

And actually if they hadn't tampered with the name in the scriptures, instead of it reading Lord Jesus, it would read YHWH YHWSH. (Since YHWSH is the true name of the Messiah) and (YHWH is the name above all names that he inherited) Philippians 2:9

Yes - God is an invisible Spirit you can't see - but you can see the image that he took on. And YHWSH is the image of the invisible God as the scripture says. Colossians 1:14 That is why he told Phillip if you have seen me you have seen the Father. John 14:7-9 Because the invisible Spirit was dwelling in that body. John 14:10 and Colossians 2:8-10 and 2 Corinthians 5:19

 

[Hockeycowboy]

YHWH isn't taken out of the picture. Read the post more slowly. YHWH was the one dwelling in that body. YHWH wrapped himself in flesh and shed his blood for man's sin. So how in the world would that be taking YHWH out of the picture?

And actually if they hadn't tampered with the name in the scriptures, instead of it reading Lord Jesus, it would read YHWH YHWSH. (Since YHWSH is the true name of the Messiah) and (YHWH is the name above all names that he inherited) Philippians 2:9

Yes - God is an invisible Spirit you can't see - but you can see the image that he took on. And YHWSH is the image of the invisible God as the scripture says. Colossians 1:14 That is why he told Phillip if you have seen me you have seen the Father. John 14:7-9 Because the invisible Spirit was dwelling in that body. John 14:10 and Colossians 2:8-10 and 2 Corinthians 5:19

Oh my!

So, who was speaking from the heavens at Jesus’ baptism. Who was Jesus praying to, all those many times? And in one prayer, recorder in John 17, how could Jesus speak of his former existence, saying “And now Father, glorify me with the glory I had beside you, before the world was”? Why would Jesus pray “Let, not my will, but yours take place”? How did God ‘forsake’ him right before he died? And who resurrected him, since Jesus was dead, and “the dead know nothing”(Ecclesiastes 9:5)? How could Jesus say, “I’m going my way to the Father,” if the Father was already in him? And again, similar words in John 20:17?


You mention Philippians 2....just who, do you think, was Jesus being “obedient” to? Himself?!

What is Jesus doing now, in your view?

I do not agree w/ Patripassianism ideas.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I will wait till you have time to answer my questions then. But remember I am not a Trinitarian.

Thomas didn't fully understand many things until after the resurrection. Luke 24:45

And remember the scripture says if they had known he was the Lord (YHWH) of glory they wouldn't have crucified him. 1 Corinthians 2:8 He had to keep who he was somewhat hidden to accomplish his mission.

Think about it. The one and only God loved us so much that he took on a fleshly body, and shed his blood for our sins.

No, He “sent His Only-begotten Son,” “His Firstborn.”

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No, He “sent His Only-begotten Son,” “His Firstborn.”

He did send his Son - the problem is you don't understand that his Son was his fleshly body he took on.

I have been taking the time to answer your questions. You said you would answer mine - but have really only sent more questions. Please go back to the post you were going to respond to when you had time.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

He did send his Son - the problem is you don't understand that his Son was his fleshly body he took on.

I have been taking the time to answer your questions. You said you would answer mine - but have really only sent more questions. Please go back to the post you were going to respond to when you had time.

I’m sorry...which one? This?....

Ok, so what are you going to do with other verses such as John 20:28 where Thomas said he was his God?

First of all, you mention “other verses”, as if there are more like it. (Where?)

How would you react, knowing someone that you saw die, then they had come back to life? You’d say, “My GOD”, no doubt. (An idiom.) Would you mean they were....your God? Only if you said, “You are my Lord and my God.” Did Thomas say “You are my Lord and my God”? No, Thomas did not. Neither did any of the other Apostles. Thomas’ disbelief had nothing to do with Jesus being God. Rather, that Jesus had been resurrected. And that’s why Jesus commends Thomas, for recognizing that He had been resurrected, not that He was God.

Thomas was a Jew, so his God was Jesus’ God, whom Jesus identified very clearly when he spoke earlier w/ Martha in vs.17 (of the same chapter). And no doubt Martha relayed that message as Jesus asked her, to go tell his brothers that Jesus was soon “ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (This is Yahweh, whom Martha as a Jew worshipped.)

And here is yet another verse, showing the Father as separate from Jesus....Jesus had to ‘ascend’ to Him.

Take care, my cousin.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You know, in John 14, when Phillip asks Jesus, “show us the Father,” and Jesus says,”.....he that has seen me has seen the Father.”

If you understand Jesus to mean this literally....first off, it conflicts w/ other Scriptures, like the Father speaking from Heaven, saying “This is My Son, listen to him.” Or Jesus praying to his Father. Etc.

However, if you take it to be representatively, then that also explains Jesus’ introductory statement to Paul @ Acts of the Apostles 9, where Jesus asks, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” Then states, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.”

Taking Jesus’ statement literally, Jesus is his disciples.
And this makes no sense. However, if Jesus speaks as representing his disciples....

I’ll let y’all draw your own conclusions.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

How would you react, knowing someone that you saw die, then they had come back to life? You’d say, “My GOD”, no doubt. (An idiom.) Would you mean they were....your God? Only if you said, “You are my Lord and my God.” Did Thomas say “You are my Lord and my God”? No, Thomas did not. Neither did any of the other Apostles. Thomas’ disbelief had nothing to do with Jesus being God. Rather, that Jesus had been resurrected. And that’s why Jesus commends Thomas, for recognizing that He had been resurrected, not that He was God.

It wasn't an idiom as you claim. Why would Thomas answer and say: The Kyrios of me and the God of me. That is the same thing as saying You are my kyrios(LORD) and my God. Explain why the definite article is there if it is an idiom as you say. (Check the Greek to see that the definite article is there.)

If an idiom your reaction would be My God - not "My the God".

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It wasn't an idiom as you claim. Why would Thomas answer and say: The Kyrios of me and the God of me. That is the same thing as saying You are my kyrios(LORD) and my God. Explain why the definite article is there if it is an idiom as you say. (Check the Greek to see that the definite article is there.)

If an idiom your reaction would be My God - not "My the God".

Do you understand Koine Greek? (Or it’s idioms?) I don’t...but I’m slowly learning.

And I’ve learned the difference between kyrios, and the vocative kurie.

Kurios is used here....there is no identifying Jesus by both of these titles meant here.

Also, not according to the Greek grammar John used here....John puts the definite article (“ho”) before both titles / nouns.

I know @tigger2 has addressed this passage in more detail.

Can I ask, what church you attend?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Do you understand Koine Greek? (Or it’s idioms?) I don’t...but I’m slowly learning.

And I’ve learned the difference between kyrios, and the vocative kurie.

Kurios is used here....there is no identifying Jesus by both of these titles meant here.

Also, not according to the Greek grammar John used here....John puts the definite article (“ho”) before both titles / nouns.

I know @tigger2 has addressed this passage in more detail.

Can I ask, what church you attend?

Kyrios was one of the words they substituted for (YHWH) the name of God. You know like how in English they substituted his name with LORD in the old testament. When it was written in Greek, they replaced his name with Kyrios.

 

[Clear]

I am so sorry, clear, for missing this!
Here is his blog:
Examining the Trinity
Enjoy searching!

Thanks so much @Hockeycowboy

Clear

 

[Muffled]

Here's what I do understand, Muffled. Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus is not equal to his Father, and he is not "co-equal" to what is said to be another person of this triune combination.

I believe God is always equal to Himself. I will grant that it is more of an attribution to Jesus since there is also a human side that doesn't share in that equality.

 

[Muffled]

So let me try to understand what you just said. Jesus is God equal to God his father, is that what you just said, in essence? But he is trapped in a fleshly body and is limited, but he does not pray to himself because he's God trapped in flesh. Do I have this right so far?

I believe there is no trapping. I believe God prays because He has needs just as anyone does. And who else would He pray to? There is no-one else. It is like God swears by Himself because there isn't anything greater to swear by.