Stars, Dust & Sand

[RR]

Well then RR, please explain Revelation 1:8. "I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." This cannot be God the Father because the Father is not the one coming or was dead. Revelation 1:17, "And when I saw Him/Jesus Christ I fell at His feet as a dead man. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, vs18, and the living One; and I was dead and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and Hades." Now what RR?

Okay, let's begin. Verse 8 states

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."
​

This verse interrupts John’s narrative and the opening theme of the Book of Revelation. It's an interjection of thought by Jesus himself to personally confide some important truth; namely, that he is the “Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending” and that he is declared to be such by no less an authority than the great Jehovah, the Almighty God, the One “which is, and which was, and which is to come.”

As you may know, Alpha and Omega are the first and the last letters of the Greek alphabet. The context signifies some unique office singularly occupied by Jesus, one that he was “the first” and one that he is to be “the last” to possess. Two such roles already exist in which Jesus meets these requirements.

First, Jesus is “the beginning and the ending” in that he is God’s “only [directly] begotten Son,” “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature” (John 3:16; Col. 1:15). “The beginning” in the text does not refer to the beginning of the existence of Jehovah, the God, the Father, because He is “from everlasting to everlasting,” and never had a beginning (Psa. 90:2; 106:48). However, Jehovah’s work of creation did have a beginning. Jesus, “the faithful and true witness . . . the creation of God,” did not create himself but was begotten of his Father (Rev. 3:14). Since Jesus was the first (beginning) and only (ending or last) direct creation of God, all other
sentient beings—human and angelic—were subsequently created “of” the Father but “by” or “through” the Son (John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Rev. 1:17; 2:8). “Let us make man in our image” (Gen. 1:26). “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible” (Col. 1:16).

Second, the title “Alpha and Omega” refers to a position occupied solely by Jesus among those who are called by God to joint-heirship upon the divine plane of glory, for God sent Jesus to be the everlasting head over the Church, his body. “He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell” (Col. 1:18,19). Accordingly, Jesus issued a caution to his followers: “Be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your [spiritual] father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ” (Matt. 23:8–10). Indeed millions of professed followers of the Master unwittingly disobey this injunction whenever they address local parish priests as “Father.”

In the introductory remarks of Revelation, Jesus calls himself the Alpha and the Omega in order to emphasize that the true Church of God is neither man-made nor man-ruled, that its members are enrolled not on earth but in heaven (Heb. 12:23). The Church has but one head: Jesus. His word is its law. The Church is built upon the testimony of the apostles and the prophets, Jesus Christ himself being its chief cornerstone. Not only are Christians to be cut off from institutional heads, synods, and authorities; but they are to cease to have heads and wills of their own, and to accept instead the headship, the will, of the Lord Jesus. Although Jesus is meek and lowly of heart, he does not intend to shirk the honor and responsibility of office conferred upon him by the Father; rather, he intends to take complete charge in the fulfillment of his role as the spiritual guide and caretaker of the Church. The Lord’s people are to look
to Jesus alone for direction in the present life because “thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows” (Heb. 1:9).

 

[bluto]

Come on RR, are these the best "excuses" you got in denying that Jesus Christ is the Almighty God? At Revelation 1:7 it is Jesus Christ who is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him. It can't be God the Father because the Father cannot be seen even according to Jesus Himself. John 5:37, John 6:46. Also included is John 1:18 and 1 Timothy6:16.

At Revelation 1:8 it is Jesus Christ Himself doing the talking and claiming He is the "Almighty." (Btw, as a side note it was Jesus who claimed to be Almighty God at Genesis 17:1-3.) This is just a side note for informational purposes only, I won't get into details at this time.

Your biggest mistake in all of this is when you quoted Revelation 3:14 demonstrating that Jesus is a created being like the rest of us. If you would have done your homework on the verse the word for "Beginning" in the Greek is "arche." We get our English word "architect" from that word. What do you think the job of an architect is? He is the "origine" or draws up the plans of anything that is to be made. In Thayer's Greek Lexicon (who btw is a Unitarian) it says, "beginning, origin, the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader etc. You can also look it up in Strong's Lexicon #746.

This makes sense because John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 backs it up. I'm also surprised you did not bring up Proverbs 8:22. "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old." Are you a Jehovah's Witnesses RR? I ask because these are their two go to verses to prove Jesus is created. In short, these facts alone "checkmate" your position.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[JohnDB]

Angels aren't men

Stop....
Not true.

Angel is the broad category and men are a particular. Meaning that an Angel is a messenger which can be a host of things God can use to send a message. From pestilence to prosperity. Catapillars, locusts, and Donkeys....and even including men as prophets....sometimes without them having an ounce of faith.

Now a semi-autonomous supernatural being that has conversations with men concerning what God wants them to do specifically?
Yeah....I'm not exactly sure that going beyond what scripture says very specifically is advisable.
Just saying....

 

[JohnDB]

Now for the OP proposition concerning the parallelism that is not parallelism....

Ummmmm
Sand of the SHORE vx Stars of the sky

Where there is a difference between the two....both are uncountable and immeasurable. So I would be hesitant to try. (Especially since touching anything belonging to God is verboten unless expressed written consent is given....and God is not writing more books lately)

Where this seems to be in error is the story of the workers where called at different times of the day and ALL paid the same wage. One had worked a full day Where one lucky guy showed up and barely worked an hour....and the all day worker complained that the guy who worked one hour got the same money as he did. And that is what this whole silly argument seems to center upon. Somebody wants to be "special" in heaven. They want the extra amenities in Heaven for their "hard work" here on earth. The loufa, special bath towel, or 4 color embroidery on their bath robe....whatever.

Not happening according to Jesus and this parable. Everyone is granted the SAME REWARD.

However....that being said.
We all have different abilities and talents. Meaning some in heaven, due to their real heart condition, might be capable of more than others who made it into heaven.
Reason?
When we enter heaven in our glorified bodies ALL SIN is removed from us. We can't and will no longer be able to sin. So, whatever portion of us that remains after our sinful nature is removed is the identity/personality/capabilities we will have to work with.
Its not like money making skills will work.
There is no striving to "get ahead" in heaven....servant leadership of servants is the best it gets.

 

[RR]

Come on RR, are these the best "excuses" you got in denying that Jesus Christ is the Almighty God? At Revelation 1:7 it is Jesus Christ who is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him. It can't be God the Father because the Father cannot be seen even according to Jesus Himself. John 5:37, John 6:46. Also included is John 1:18 and 1 Timothy 6:16.

True, but Jesus isn't speaking in verse 7, John is. As I mentioned, Jesus interrupts John in verse 8.

At Revelation 1:8 it is Jesus Christ Himself doing the talking and claiming He is the "Almighty." (Btw, as a side note it was Jesus who claimed to be Almighty God at Genesis 17:1-3.) This is just a side note for informational purposes only, I won't get into details at this time.

Well, I guess we can agree to disagree on this one.

Your biggest mistake in all of this is when you quoted Revelation 3:14 demonstrating that Jesus is a created being like the rest of us. If you would have done your homework on the verse the word for "Beginning" in the Greek is "arche." We get our English word "architect" from that word. What do you think the job of an architect is? He is the "origine" or draws up the plans of anything that is to be made. In Thayer's Greek Lexicon (who btw is a Unitarian) it says, "beginning, origin, the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader etc. You can also look it up in Strong's Lexicon #746.

Thayer also says: "used absolutely, of the beginning of all things", "that by which anything begins to be, the origin, active cause".
As noted above, "beginning" is the Greek word "ARCHE." We know it from English words like archeology - the study of beginnings.

This makes sense because John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 backs it up. I'm also surprised you did not bring up Proverbs 8:22. "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old."

Since you mentioned it, Colossians 1:15-18 is a remarkable summary concerning Jesus. It reflects John 1 perfectly except that Colossians makes a distinct difference from John 1. Colossians dwells on the concept of Jesus as "the first born of the dead." THAT is clearly a reference to his new position as a New Creature - a Divine being, "the image of the invisible God." Whereas John 1 and Revelation 3:14 speak of Jesus as being the "beginning of the creation" of God. These two references (John and Revelation) have to do with Jesus' original creation - "In the beginning (arche) was the Logos," as opposed to the Colossians "firstborn from the dead" - the New Creature.

Are you a Jehovah's Witnesses RR? I ask because these are their two go to verses to prove Jesus is created. In short, these facts alone "checkmate" your position.

No, I am not one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

[williamjordan]

I don't deny the diety of Christ, I deny that Christ is God Almighty. There's a difference.

Did someone say, "Diet Tea"? Yuck.

 

[williamjordan]

True, but Jesus isn't speaking in verse 7, John is. As I mentioned, Jesus interrupts John in verse 8.



Well, I guess we can agree to disagree on this one.



Thayer also says: "used absolutely, of the beginning of all things", "that by which anything begins to be, the origin, active cause".
As noted above, "beginning" is the Greek word "ARCHE." We know it from English words like archeology - the study of beginnings.


Since you mentioned it, Colossians 1:15-18 is a remarkable summary concerning Jesus. It reflects John 1 perfectly except that Colossians makes a distinct difference from John 1. Colossians dwells on the concept of Jesus as "the first born of the dead." THAT is clearly a reference to his new position as a New Creature - a Divine being, "the image of the invisible God." Whereas John 1 and Revelation 3:14 speak of Jesus as being the "beginning of the creation" of God. These two references (John and Revelation) have to do with Jesus' original creation - "In the beginning (arche) was the Logos," as opposed to the Colossians "firstborn from the dead" - the New Creature.



No, I am not one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Oh brother. You are attempting to articulate an Arian position, but have failed to articulate the argument well enough to understand how these texts backfire against your ultimate aim: To prove Christ is God's first creation. Jn. 1 speaks of Christ as existing in the beginning. The point is, when the beginning began, Christ was already there. Jn. 1 says exactly the opposite of what you are trying to force onto it: That Christ was created. Arians do not use Jn. 1 to prove that Jesus was created, unless they are of the uninformed variety. Arians believe that Christ was created before the events in Gen. 1:1 unfold. That is significant, because Jn. 1:1 is an allusion to Gen. 1:1. So the only thing you can argue, is: Jn. 1:1 places Christ prior to Gen. 1:1.

Through that same vein, Rev. 3:14 is in keeping with the line of thought in Jn. 1:1. Rev. 3:14 uses a common vernacular (or “colloquialism”) with reference to Genesis. What Arians try to teach is that Rev. 3:14 is an allusion back to Prov. 8:22. But if taken as a reference to Gen. 1:1 then you can't really use the text to teach that Christ is created. You need to be able to push Rev. 3:14 back to Prov. 8:22.

 

[Bruce_Leiter]

God promised Abraham that his seed would be multiplied greatly. To illustrate this God likened Abraham's seed to the stars of heaven, the dust of the earth, and the sand of the seashore - each multitudinous. But Bible Students have long seen that these terms convey a deeper meaning than just of a vast number. The stars picture the heavenly seed of Abraham, the church of the firstborn, and the sand the earthly seed of Abraham, which will ultimately include all of restored mankind. A thought which has appealed to some is that the dust of the earth refers to natural Israel -earthly, but to some extent distinct from the sand class of all mankind.

We agree with these identifications. And when we look to the narratives of Genesis dealing with the patriarchs, we find a consistency in the use of these terms.

Stars

Genesis 15. Abraham is asking for some assurance of God's promise of a child. At this time Abraham had no child at all, and it appeared that his inheritance would fall to "one born in my house" of servants - perhaps Eliezer, his steward, or a child of his. (Genesis 15:2, 3, cf. 14:14.) But the Lord assured him, "This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir." (vs. 4) The promised child, of course, was to be Isaac, who Paul tells us pictured the spiritual seed of Abraham. (Galatians 4:28) God responded by telling Abraham to "Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be." (vs. 5) So the promise of Isaac was specially tied to the stars, just as we would expect if the stars picture the spiritual seed of Abraham, as Isaac did.

And when God repeated the covenant to Isaac, after Abraham's death, it was the symbol of stars that God used to describe Isaac's seed. "I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries (as Genesis 15:18-21); and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 26:4)

Dust

The symbol "dust of the earth" for Abraham's seed was mentioned on the occasion of Lot and Abraham separating, dividing the land because of their number. After Lot had chosen the well watered plains of Jordan, God said to Abraham: "Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee." (Genesis 13:14-17)

The land which was being promised was the land given later to the Israelites, and to which they are now regathered. The land promised was most pertinent to Abraham's natural seed, Israel. This aspect of Abraham's seed was likened to the dust of the earth. And when God repeated the covenant to Jacob, who in contrast to Isaac stands for the natural seed of Abraham, Israel after the flesh, it was the symbol "dust of the earth" that He used. And again, the land itself was an important part of the promise. "... the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: (as Genesis 13:14) and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 28:13, 14)

Sand

This term appears first in connection with Abraham's offering of Isaac. That event pictured the death of Jesus as the Ransom for mankind, which assures the blessing of all those who will constitute the heavenly seed of Abraham, and those who will constitute the earthly seed in its widest scope. So it is consistent that on this occasion God likened Abraham's seed to "the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore ..." (Genesis 22:17)

In Revelation 20:8 the expression "sand of the sea" is applied to restored mankind. Satan will "... go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea."

Why do people have to allegorize the Bible? God is simply reassuring Abraham that his descendants through Isaac will be uncountable. Allegorizing the teachings of the Bible runs the risk of letting the Bible say whatever the student wants it to say.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

I've heard of this and I knew you were gonna go there, the only problem is that the Bible is explicit that Jesus is NOT an angel.

JWs also identify Him as the archangel michael or angel of the Lord, which is just not accurate:

Hebrews 1:5 and following:
For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father

Amen he commands the angels an angel wasn’t made flesh The Lord God was made flesh and worshipped by angels

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭3:16‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Jesus created the angels and men

“for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, ( father ) and for him: ( son )

and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1:16-

“He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.”
‭‭John‬ ‭1:10‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭2:16-17‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:27‬ ‭

man is unique in all of creation , chosen of all creatures to bear the image and likeness of God ( his children ) and to have dominion over the earth which is part of his creation along with the heavens.

Angels also have a place in Gods creation but it’s not the same role as mankind’s role.

We don’t hear of angels really until we see messengers and servants of God appearing in the scriptures, communicating his messages to chosen men in scripture, we know tbat tbey already existed but we don’t really hear much about them until God wants a message delivered to mankind.

sort of mediators between God and man , not rulers over man but in between messengers and also at times intervening servants for Gods Will such as with lot.

“And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭3:2, 4‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭23:20-22‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Now because of transgression God has placed an angel over the people in authority . God is communicating through angels often to and also through , chosen men who are prophets like Moses or Abraham or Noah ect isaiah ect which begats our biblical scripture

“And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him, and said unto him, The LORD is with thee, thou mighty man of valour.”
‭‭Judges‬ ‭6:12‬ ‭

In the ot it’s mankind on earth , then chosen men who sacrifice animal blood ( even before the law of Moses ) then angels who speak messages from God to the chosen people then God. In heaven

the New Testament is God in heaven becoming also flesh ( the son ) on earth
so that those who believe in him can receive his spirit of life and redemption through the gospel of Jesus oir lord and his eternal kingdom

 

[CS1]

God promised Abraham that his seed would be multiplied greatly. To illustrate this God likened Abraham's seed to the stars of heaven, the dust of the earth, and the sand of the seashore - each multitudinous. But Bible Students have long seen that these terms convey a deeper meaning than just of a vast number. The stars picture the heavenly seed of Abraham, the church of the firstborn, and the sand the earthly seed of Abraham, which will ultimately include all of restored mankind. A thought which has appealed to some is that the dust of the earth refers to natural Israel -earthly, but to some extent distinct from the sand class of all mankind.

We agree with these identifications. And when we look to the narratives of Genesis dealing with the patriarchs, we find a consistency in the use of these terms.

Stars

Genesis 15. Abraham is asking for some assurance of God's promise of a child. At this time Abraham had no child at all, and it appeared that his inheritance would fall to "one born in my house" of servants - perhaps Eliezer, his steward, or a child of his. (Genesis 15:2, 3, cf. 14:14.) But the Lord assured him, "This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir." (vs. 4) The promised child, of course, was to be Isaac, who Paul tells us pictured the spiritual seed of Abraham. (Galatians 4:28) God responded by telling Abraham to "Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be." (vs. 5) So the promise of Isaac was specially tied to the stars, just as we would expect if the stars picture the spiritual seed of Abraham, as Isaac did.

And when God repeated the covenant to Isaac, after Abraham's death, it was the symbol of stars that God used to describe Isaac's seed. "I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries (as Genesis 15:18-21); and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 26:4)

Dust

The symbol "dust of the earth" for Abraham's seed was mentioned on the occasion of Lot and Abraham separating, dividing the land because of their number. After Lot had chosen the well watered plains of Jordan, God said to Abraham: "Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee." (Genesis 13:14-17)

The land which was being promised was the land given later to the Israelites, and to which they are now regathered. The land promised was most pertinent to Abraham's natural seed, Israel. This aspect of Abraham's seed was likened to the dust of the earth. And when God repeated the covenant to Jacob, who in contrast to Isaac stands for the natural seed of Abraham, Israel after the flesh, it was the symbol "dust of the earth" that He used. And again, the land itself was an important part of the promise. "... the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: (as Genesis 13:14) and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 28:13, 14)

Sand

This term appears first in connection with Abraham's offering of Isaac. That event pictured the death of Jesus as the Ransom for mankind, which assures the blessing of all those who will constitute the heavenly seed of Abraham, and those who will constitute the earthly seed in its widest scope. So it is consistent that on this occasion God likened Abraham's seed to "the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore ..." (Genesis 22:17)

In Revelation 20:8 the expression "sand of the sea" is applied to restored mankind. Satan will "... go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea."

Jesus said Before Abraham, "I AM."

 

[CS1]

The angel is a messenger of God. God often spoke to his creations through angels.

This is true, but if angel speaks any other Gospel than that of the Lord Jesus Christ, we are to reject it.

 

[CS1]

So the pre-human Jesus was a man of flesh? He was never a spirit being?

FYI, God became a Human Being, not man became GOD.

 

[CS1]

bluto, Jesus was the son of God, he came down to earth was born a man and died for our sins, about his death and resurrection, he ascended to heaven where he sits at the right hand of God. We worship Jesus because the scriptures tell us so. (Romans 1:3-5; 1 Cor. 15:3; Acts 2:33)

We worship Jesus because he is GOD, the only one to receive Worship.

 

[CS1]

Hmmm ... yes, this is one of those verses often used in an attempt to prove the Trinity doctrine. Let's notice Thomas didn't mention the holy Spirit. He would have needed to do so for this verse to sustain any Trinity connotation. Failing in this, it becomes, at best, a stool with only two legs—not good to stand on. Now this verse reveals Thomas’ happy response to finding his Master appearing before him. Remember, he was slow to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, and it took this personal interchange with Him to make a true believer out of him. He was the last of the Apostles to have been honored with a visit from the Master after his resurrection. It probably hurt his feelings to think that so many others had met with the resurrected Lord and he hadn't been so blessed.

Thomas resolved: “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe [in his resurrection]” (John 20:25). Did Thomas believe that it was God the Father who was dead? Of course not. But if he believed Jesus was God, how could he believe that it was Jesus who was dead? Yet if anything at all is clear, it's that Thomas did believe Jesus was dead and was overjoyed to find him alive.

When Jesus offered to fulfill all the necessary conditions to make him believe his resurrection, Thomas cried out, “My [the] Lord and my [the] God” (John 20:28). God here is a translation of the Greek THEOS, which is defined by Dr. Young as “God, a god, object of worship.” It's a general term in the New Testament, used frequently to denote the Heavenly Father (such as in Matt. 27:46, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,” and in many additional places). However, it's also used to depict other beings, whether good or bad. THEOS is used to describe Satan, “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4), the saints, “gods, sons of the Most High” (John 10:34, 35, from Ps. 82:6, RSV), idols, or fabricated “gods who will go before us” (Acts 7:40), and heathen gods, “the gods have come down to us in human form!” (Acts 14:11, 12). Hence, THEOS is quite general in its application in Scripture, and the fact that it is occasionally used of Jesus should not be taken as proof that he was God the Father. Such usage alone is not conclusive to warrant such a distinction.

Remember, the Jews had earlier accused Jesus of blasphemy because, being a man, he made himself “God”—but this was a false and exaggerated accusation against Jesus which he never is recorded as saying. Jesus’ response was, “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (John 10:34-36). Even to be called God was not earthshaking. Jesus pointed out that those to whom the Word of God came were called “gods.” (The original early manuscripts were written with all capitals. Hence, translators must decide whether to capitalize or not.) But Jesus did clarify who he was. He said, “I am the Son of God.”

Did Thomas now believe something different than Jesus claimed for himself? If those to whom the word of God came were called “gods,” what would be extraordinary about Thomas calling Jesus “My Lord and my God”? Herod’s voice was called “god’s” voice, and Paul was called “god” (Acts 12:22; 28:6). This, undoubtedly, was a very emotional moment for Thomas and certainly not an attempt on his part to offer advanced theology. The fact that he says “the Lord” and “the God” seems appropriate to his emotional state wherein he accepts Jesus as his resurrected “the Lord” and “the God.” His very Jewishness prohibits us from concluding he thought Jesus was “God the Father.” He couldn't possibly have fused Jesus and God the Father into one. Jesus had been his “Lord” (or “Master”), and now, believing his resurrection, he accepts him as his “God” (or “mighty one”).

Now, in addition to the foregoing, there's an alternative explanation that should be considered. This was an emotion-filled moment for Thomas, a moment about which he had spent much time in prayer to God. It may be that Thomas was merely crying out to God, his Father, “My Lord and my God” as an exclamation for answering his prayers. Today, people cry out “My God” in moments of overwhelming sorrow or joy. Jesus cried out, “My God, my God” on the cross. This may be what Thomas meant by his expression on this occasion. There is nothing to preclude this thought. One thing we know, his assertion did not include the holy Spirit, and therefore the Trinity cannot have been implied. The Apostle John, who wrote his Gospel long years after Pentecost, likewise did not believe Jesus was God. John quotes Jesus’ reminder to Mary, saying, “I ascend to my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God” (John 20:17). Jesus had the same Father and God as Mary. Additionally, John sums up his lesson covering these events, saying, “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (John 20:31). The Apostle Thomas was a Jew who held to the view that the “LORD our God is one.” To argue that he forsook his Jewish religious training at the moment in question and received Jesus as (the) God the Father is an unlikely scenario. John, who is aged and serene while writing his Gospel, summarizes this entire chapter saying, “Jesus is the Christ, the son of God.” That’s what he wanted us to believe—and that’s what Thomas believed as well.

That is not true. The term Trinity is not in the bible, so Thomas could not say that. But Thomas did say, "My lord and my GOD." Thomas did not say that the Holy Spirit helped him on his own.

 

[CS1]

The problem is .... I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, it's what He said He was. What I deny is that Jesus is God the Son. There's a difference.

LOL. Is the son from the Father? He has all the father has and receives all the father gets.

Jesus said John 14: 6 "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".


The Greek has it an imperative: it reads I AM the only WAY, not another way, I AM the only Truth, not another truth, and I AM the only Eternal Life , not another life. NO ONE goes to MY Father except through ME, Meaning MY WAY, MY Truth, and MY ETERNAL LIFE.

If there was no Father Jesu was has not said so. If there was no Holy Spirit Jesu would have not said so. and IF Jesus was not GO the SON He would have said so. BUT Clearly in the Hebrew Jesus said "IAM" = GOD

 

[CS1]

A nature he left behind when he came to earth, not as a God-Man but as fully human, it's the only way he could be a ransom. a life for a life.

wrong unbiblical. He was like all men but without SIN because HE had an Eternal Divine Nature and one of flesh.

 

[Magenta]

Because a perfect man [Adam] sinned

Why do you call Adam perfect? God said he was good. We are perfected in Christ.

 

[CS1]

I did read the article, all 20 plus pages, and I've read dozens of others just like it. I have a dozen books on my shelf by renown theologians on the doctrine of the trinity, NONE of them have convince me. So yes, we're done. See you in the Kingdom.

First off, that theologian on the shelf do not change a mind that will not do so. Here is why you are wrong and unwilling to hear and learn.

1. you are arrogant
2. you think you know all there is to know about the Divine Nature of GOD

That is the issue; your human intellect prevents you from being humble. Many try to explain the Nature of the God of the Bible from a limited state of being. YOU ARE LIMITED. God is not. We must approach the Eternal Godhead reverently and with humility. No one on Earth holds to the full knowledge of GOD outside the means HE has provided.

1. General Revelation by HIS Creation
2. Special Revelation by HIS word
3. by relationship through HIS Spirit with the SON.

The word of God tells us there is a Father who is God, a Son who is God, and the Spirit of God who is God.

NO ONE can fully comprehend the Eternal Godhead, but we can apprehend what God has allowed us to have.


If you think you know how to say, there are no three in one yet distinct, coe equal, and distinct personifications of EACH yet one .

If you want to circle your wagon around what no one can fully know, be my guest. That is Pride.

 

[RR]

First off, that theologian on the shelf do not change a mind that will not do so. Here is why you are wrong and unwilling to hear and learn.

1. you are arrogant
2. you think you know all there is to know about the Divine Nature of GOD

That is the issue; your human intellect prevents you from being humble. Many try to explain the Nature of the God of the Bible from a limited state of being. YOU ARE LIMITED. God is not. We must approach the Eternal Godhead reverently and with humility. No one on Earth holds to the full knowledge of GOD outside the means HE has provided.

1. General Revelation by HIS Creation
2. Special Revelation by HIS word
3. by relationship through HIS Spirit with the SON.

The word of God tells us there is a Father who is God, a Son who is God, and the Spirit of God who is God.

NO ONE can fully comprehend the Eternal Godhead, but we can apprehend what God has allowed us to have.


If you think you know how to say, there are no three in one yet distinct, coe equal, and distinct personifications of EACH yet one .

If you want to circle your wagon around what no one can fully know, be my guest. That is Pride.

So, as a Trinitarian, I suppose YOUR human intellect has humbled you enough to understand the nature of God. You are UNLIMITED. Interesting.

 

[RR]

Why do you call Adam perfect? God said he was good. We are perfected in Christ.

Genesis 1:26 says Adam was created in the image of God. Is that image flawed?
When Jesus was approached and called "good", Jesus stated: "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God." (Matt 19:17; Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19) was Jesus not "good"?