(Psalms 83:18) Whom to worship, Help!?

[newcovenantchristian]

Hello newcovenantchristian, there is not a single scripture that Jehovah Witnesses deny. I’ll try and answer each one of the scripture that you states as plainly and short as I can.

Christ is the image of the invisible God, He is the exact representation of his being

We Humans are also Gods image, however does that make us God? of course not!

(Genesis 1:27) And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.

Jesus is the image of God in the same sense that you can be the Image of your own father, have you ever heard of the phrase "a chip of the old block" you must of because I can see your English. A human son can act very similar to his own Father in like manner Jesus who is Perfect and been with God since before the earth was even created reflects his Father so well that he is God’s image, and only Gods image. Notice Col 1:15 says Jesus is God’s image; why not say Jesus is simply God?

He had glory with the Father before the world began

Just because scripture says the Father had Glory doesn't then mean no one else can have Glory, I as a human can have Glory, but again does that make me God? No!

PROOF is in scripture below

(Revelation 18:1) After these things I saw another angel descending from heaven, with great authority; and the earth was lighted up from his glory

(2 Corinthians 3:18) And all of us, while we with unveiled faces reflect like mirrors the glory of Jehovah, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory

So the glory Jesus had before the world was does not mean he must also be God. If people were to make such a claim then they have to accept Humans as God and also the Angel in Rev 18:1 as God.

The fulnesss of the Godhead bodily dwells in Christ

American King James Version (Col 2:9) “For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”

To get this answer we need to find the meaning of the Greek words here. We also need to consider the context of the scripture.

First, verse 10 states that Christians "share in this fullness in him" (NAB). Also Paul says of Christians "That ye might be filled with all the fullness of God" (Eph.3:19; cf. Jn. 1:14,16).

(Ephesians 3:19) and to know the love of the Christ which surpasses knowledge, that YOU may be filled with all the fullness that God gives.

No one would claim that because Paul said Christians would be "filled with all the fullness of God" then we must be equal to God. Likewise, it is ridiculous to say and claim that this would make Jesus equal to God. The obvious understanding is that Christians and Christ would be full of God's divine qualities, certainly not some mystical union of a Trinitarian "Godhead."

He reigns now in Heaven and on earth as all things have been put under his feet by the Father

(1 Corinthians 15:27) For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.”

Look at the context of the scripture, If Jesus is part if the Godhead then why does the “Father who alone [is] the Most High over all the earth” need to subject things under his feet, If Jesus is God wouldn’t he simply take what is rightfully his, instead of waiting for the Father to allow it to him.

There is no way to the Father but through the Son

This is simply because it’s only through Jesus shed blood that we gain the forgiveness of our sins, a question people need to ask is why is getting through to the father so important? Why doesn’t the scripture say that we should be seeking the Father Jesus and the HS but simply the father.

International Standard Version (©2008) (John 14:6) Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Like i’ve shown we accept all these scriptures.

Hi NWL
Thanks for your responses
I think you misunderstand my questions. I did not put forth those verses to try and prove Jesus is God Himself, rather to know if a JW would accept them as written. I happen to believe all of those verses can be accepted as written wothout a person having to believe Christ is God Himself, so there would be no need to explain them away in order to believe Christ was soley the Son of God if you like.

The Bible is very clear that the Father has put all things under Christ's feet, he reigns now in Heaven and on earth
Christ confirmed to the disciples that all power and authority had been given to him. Would a JW accept that the Father has put all things under Christ's feet and he reigns now in Heaven and on earth?
I am not writing this as proof Christ is God Himself.

Then the end will come, when he(Christ) hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he has put veverything under his feet
Now when it says that everything has been put under him it is clear that this does not include God Himself who put everything under Christ
When he has done this then the son himself will be made subject to him who piut everything under him so that God will be all in all
1Cor 15:24-28

All authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to me
Matt28:18

Would a JW accept Christ reigns now in Heaven and on earth for the Father has put all things under his feet, and would they accept that all authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to Christ. Again, I am not asking if a JW would accept Christ is God, but will they accept the plain text of the Bible as written?

 

[resurrection33]

Hello all!! Hope everyone is well, please please read and answer my Q, I’m really interested in your answers.

Q1. If the Father “alone” is the most high over all the earth and Jesus himself said to “only” worship the father, then why do people worship the Holy Spirit and Jesus along with the Father?

Darby Bible Translation (Psalms 83:18) “...That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, art the Most High over all the earth...”

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (Luke 4:8) “Yeshua answered and said to him, “It is written: 'you shall worship THE LORD JEHOVAH your God, and him only you shall serve.' “

Q2. When Jesus said "It is written: 'you shall worship THE LORD JEHOVAH your God, and him ONLY you shall serve" did he also mean for that to be directed to himself and the Holy Spirit?

I believe that the Father (God), the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit are all the same person.

 

[Ugly]

You must of misunderstood what I meant, please re-read what I wrote, please remember anyone one can make up anything and say its based on the Bible just aslong as they throw in The son of God, some angels and Abraham references and then hey presto its from the Bible.

As I said before I'm looking for answers just aslong as people "base there answers on the bible within context of the scriptures"

What I said earlier underneath.

****and when I say biblical I mean ideas backed up by the bible with scriptual proof.

If their is anyone that can answer them and base there answers on the bible within context of the scriptures then yes, I want to know.

so far I think all people have done is quote scriptures in a vain attempt to answer my question.****

Repeating it in different colors doesn't cause it to make more sense.

 

[PopClick]

don't get confused.

We'd hate to be confused, now wouldn't we.

Also how can Jesus be with God and God at the same time? So God is there in heaven "God =Father/Son/Spirit" and then the "Son" is with the Father/Son/Spirit. How can the son be with the Son?

Does God Himself make any human sense? Can one apply Earthly logic to something so divine? Can you grasp the very concept of omnipotence?
"Such knowledge is too wonderful for us; we cannot attain to it."

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

(Luke 18:19) "Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God"

He clearly say's here he is NOT God here. Let me re-word it for you "Why are you saying these things about me only God is the one you should say this about"

There is absolutely no way that this Jewish leader would have taken that comment as anything else other than what it said, he knew God was Jehovah, he was a Jew.

Not only that but your just trying to cram a sentence in the scriptures that has no meaning whatsoever, Jesus speaking in the third person here has entirely no meaning whatsoever behind it, it's just in the scriptures taking up space.

Jesus spoke in third person very rarely and for one reason and one reason only, to make known the importance and significance of his name. Which is essential for salvation.

[FONT=&quot]Obviously you’re looking at the text of Luke 18.19 through a Unitarian lens. You have to ask yourself this question: What prompted this man to call Christ ‘good master’? [/FONT]

Notice that Christ does not respond by saying, ‘I am not good, only God is good.’ Rather, Christ responded enigmatically, forcing the rich man to think. Jesus is not rebuking the man and in the process denying that He Himself is good. Rather, He is using a penetrating question to push the man to think through the implications of his own words to Jesus. So Jesus' question to the man is designed to draw him to recognizing Christ's divine identity as God.

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

The fulnesss of the Godhead bodily dwells in Christ

American King James Version (Col 2:9) “For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”

To get this answer we need to find the meaning of the Greek words here. We also need to consider the context of the scripture.

First, verse 10 states that Christians "share in this fullness in him" (NAB). Also Paul says of Christians "That ye might be filled with all the fullness of God" (Eph.3:19; cf. Jn. 1:14,16).

(Ephesians 3:19) and to know the love of the Christ which surpasses knowledge, that YOU may be filled with all the fullness that God gives.

No one would claim that because Paul said Christians would be "filled with all the fullness of God" then we must be equal to God. Likewise, it is ridiculous to say and claim that this would make Jesus equal to God. The obvious understanding is that Christians and Christ would be full of God's divine qualities, certainly not some mystical union of a Trinitarian "Godhead."

I find these statements altogether fascinating to say the least. You acknowledge that “we also need to consider the context of the scripture,” but then in the following paragraph you do exactly the opposite. Instead of discussing the context in which the passage resides, you instead jump to Paul’s letter to the Ephesians which addresses a different issue altogether.

Paul’s letter to the Colossians addresses a proto-gnostic type of philosophy (v 2.8) at Colosse that had a disastrous mix of legalism, asceticism, and mysticism which by the 2nd c. had turned into the heresy that we identify today as full-blown Gnosticism. With that in mind, Paul here at Colossians 2.9 disposes of the Docetic theory that Jesus had no human body as well as the Cerinthian separation between the man Jesus and the aeon Christ. Paul asserts plainly the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ in corporeal form. The proto-gnostics that Paul wrote against denied that Jesus had actually come in the flesh (since to them all matter was evil and therefore God could not incarnate), and denied that Jesus was fully God. These proto-gnostics believed that only a tiny fraction of divine power or pleroma resided in Christ. Paul refutes this by saying that “all the fullness” of that which makes God absolute Deity resides in Jesus, not just a tiny fraction of it.

 

[chesser]

I have a sneaking suspicion that NWL doesn't speak Greek

 

[newcovenantchristian]

I have a sneaking suspicion that NWL doesn't speak Greek

That may stand him in good stead!

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

Psychomom I've already said before that I'm not here to convince anyone, I here to learn from others whether they agree with me or not, and if they don't agree with me and then go ahead and oppose me then I apply this scripture;

(1 Peter 3:15) But sanctify the Christ as Lord in YOUR hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of YOU a reason for the hope in YOU, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect.

Please psychomom, if you have something to share with me then please do, I sincerely want to hear anything you have to say.

Regards NWl

Notice the verse you cited (1 Peter 3.15) is an OT citation taken from Isaiah 8.12-13 LXX, and was in direct reference to YHWH. And yet here in the NT, a text which was applied to YHWH, is applied to Chrirst:

[FONT=&quot]τὸν[FONT=&quot] δὲ φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε μηδὲ ταραχθῆτε, κύριον[/FONT] δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε [“But do not fear what they fear, or be in dread, but honor Christ the Lord as holy”] (1 Peter 3.14-15)
[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτοῦ οὐ μὴ φοβηθῆτε οὐδὲ μὴ ταραχθῆτε, κύριον αὐτὸν ἁγιάσατε [“But do not fear what it fears, or be in dread; honor the Lord Himself as holy”] (Isaiah 8.12-13 LXX)
[/FONT]​

The main difference between the two passages, is that where Isaiah spoke of honoring YHWH ("the Lord") as holy, Peter makes it known that it is "Christ the Lord" that we are to honor as holy. If we were to replace "Lord" with the Divine Name as the JW's often times do in OT texts used of YHWH, then this would be identifying Christ as YHWH.

 

[NWL]

[FONT=&quot]Obviously you’re looking at the text of Luke 18.19 through a Unitarian lens. You have to ask yourself this question: What prompted this man to call Christ ‘good master’? [/FONT]

Notice that Christ does not respond by saying, ‘I am not good, only God is good.’ Rather, Christ responded enigmatically, forcing the rich man to think. Jesus is not rebuking the man and in the process denying that He Himself is good. Rather, He is using a penetrating question to push the man to think through the implications of his own words to Jesus. So Jesus' question to the man is designed to draw him to recognizing Christ's divine identity as God.

I had a quick scan through your responses and I straight away noticed you haven't even addressed the issue that your argument stands and falls on, namely "Where is it written in the Hebrew scriptures where anyone other than Jehovah ALONE was worshipped ?" "Where is it that the Jews had any other God than ONE God Jehovah"? I can answer these questions. You however ignore them. You fail to address the point therefore your argument falls as I stated quite openly in my reply.

Really there is entirely no need to address any more of your points seeing as your argument has fallen at the first hurdle. However I shall address them for the public so they can understand the absolute spiritual blindness that goes on in the realms of Christendom.

On the contrary clearly you're looking at the text through a trinitarian lense , which is a lense that is completely void of logical reasoning and a lense tainted by assumption. To make the claim Jesus is speaking in the third person here goes completely against common sense, context and scriptural pattern. In fact it's just a ridiculous cop out for a verse you have no answer for. What it is, is a twist on a scripture. Let me tell you what a twisted scripture is, it's an illogical scripture your explanation is the absolute pinnacle of a twisted scripture. You start from the assumption Jesus is God and stick to it no matter what in the process making certain verses completely illogical and without meaning.

Let me demonstrate.

Your question holds no relevance to the subject at hand, however.

Jesus had just been seen performing miracles the likes of which had never seen before this man witnessed that, he also knew the messiah was coming, he also knew there was confusion spreading around at the time among the Jews that a certain amount of good deeds would get you everlasting life.

So he wanted to ask the Messiah if this was true(basically), so Jesus gave him the answer and as he ALWAYS did he took the credit off himself and gave it to God, hence his words

19 "Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God"

This is the same sort of message Jesus conveyed time after time in his ministry

John 3:16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son"

John 5:19 "The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing"

John 8:”54 Jesus answered: “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifies me, he who YOU say is YOUR God"

Jesus always gave credit to his father. This is the scriptural pattern.

The way you're reading it not only conveys no message whatsoever, it's just a random statement.

So keep that in mind and look at this comment you made.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Rather, He is using a penetrating question to push the man to think through the implications of his own words to Jesus. So Jesus' question to the man is designed to draw him to recognizing Christ's divine identity as God.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So if this is correct this is how your version should read.

Ruler: "what do I need to inherit everlasting life"

Jesus: "I'm God"

Ruler: "Excuse me but why are you telling me who you are? I didn't ask who you are. I already know that, hence the reason why I fell on my knees before you and why I'm asking you this important question"

It's just a completely pointless statement given for entirely no reason.

Let's go further.

Jesus:"Oh Ok I didn't realize you knew that already sorry, OK this is what you need to do. Now you've heard about the law given to Moses by the trinity God, here:

Deut 6:

4 “Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. 5 And you must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your vital force. 6 And these words that I am commanding you today must prove to be on your heart; 7 and you must inculcate them in your son and speak of them when you sit in your house and when you walk on the road and when you lie down and when you get up. 8 And you must tie them as a sign upon your hand, and they must serve as a frontlet band between your eyes"

Ruler: "Yes since I was a youth I kept the 'trinity' God's law"

Jesus: "Well you also need to sell all your stuff and come follow me"

Ruler: "Absolutely gutted I have so much stuff that I just can't get rid of"

So now we have a pointless statement followed by a complete deviation from what the Jews knew about God.

Secondly it's a completely misleading statement, let's read it this way.

"why do you call me good , only one person is good, me"

Or

"why do you call God good ,only one person is good, God"

So now we make Jesus a misleader

Thirdly he's not even talking in the third person anyway, Because he quite clearly refers to himself as "ME" so he only talks in the third person for half a sentence!!!

The idea's ludicrous.

It goes against absolute common sense , context and scriptural pattern. Not only that it makes Jesus a man of flawless teaching ability and logic not able to even put a coherent sentence together.

So your assumption Jesus is God that you refuse to budge from has made a mockery of the scriptures.

So now tell me why isn't this verse in the third person?

Phil 1:26 "so that YOUR exultation may overflow in Christ Jesus by reason of me through my presence"

Is it because you don't assume Paul is Jesus? Is it because it's not the words Jesus and God in the same sentence? Does it make sense in the third person?or is it illogical to read it that way?

How about this one

Phil 4:

"who have striven side by side with me in the good news along with Clement"

Same reason? Cause you don't assume Paul is clement? Does it make sense in the third person?

How about this?

John 1:

“The one coming behind me has advanced in front of me, because he existed before me"

Or this: John 1:33 "Even I did not know him, but the very One who sent me to baptize in water said to me"

So if we started reading these in the third person, would it be a twisted, illogical scripture?

So what we're now forced into doing is having to pick and choose when the scriptures are talking in the third person and when they're not.

We have to make the sentence so ridiculous and the whole reason for doing it has started from an assumption that you refuse to budge from!

So the only argument you can possibly present in luke 18:19 is one's like this.

"Although reading this in the third person makes entirely no sense, there's no scriptural pattern to it and it doesn't fit the context not least because it's just a random statement made by Jesus with no meaning whatsoever behind it. It simply has to be Jesus talking in the third person because he is God."

"The scriptures are inconsistent. Because in places they are illogical and have no meaning behind the statements in fact they're just random statements. This is because Jesus is God"

"The scriptures follow a pattern and context is majorly important the only exception is when it appears to be saying Jesus is not God because he actually is"

This is the strength of your argument, completely sweeping statements that fly in the face of logic, common sense and in every single way the Bible is resented.

It's utter nonsense!!

 

[NWL]

I find these statements altogether fascinating to say the least. You acknowledge that “we also need to consider the context of the scripture,” but then in the following paragraph you do exactly the opposite. Instead of discussing the context in which the passage resides, you instead jump to Paul’s letter to the Ephesians which addresses a different issue altogether.

As I said In exactly the same chapter just one verse later we are told that Christians also share in exactly the same fullness.

So you're telling me that you don't consider verses 9 and 10 of the same chapter as the same context??

So seeing as you're struggling to understand exactly what context is I'll share three verses with you in the same book, chapter one and chapter two and I'll give you a simple explanation.

Col 1:19 "because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him"

God decided that he wanted all his qualities and aspects of his personality(fullness) to dwell in Jesus.

So

2:9 "it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily"

Therefore


2:10 "And so YOU are possessed of a fullness by means of him"

So what do we learn from these three verses, well here's some more scriptures to help.

Jesus imitates God perfectly

Col 1:15 "He is the image of the invisible God"

Because God wanted it that way

Col 1:19 "because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him"

So that is exactly what happened

2:9 "it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily"

Which also means that Christians can also have the divine quality.

2:10 "And so YOU are possessed of a fullness by means of him"

By being in union with him

3:3 "For YOU died, and YOUR life has been hidden with the Christ in union with God"

OK that's the SIMPLIFIED teaching in that chapter.

Which fits exactly with the context of Colossians namely watch out for false teachers, particularly false teachings about the Mosaic law and by ascetics instead look to the teachings of Christ because he has all the qualities you will ever need as a member in his congregation.

Col 1:18 "and he is the head of the body, the congregation."


Then to help you understand the point further I used Ephesians which is a very close parallel book to Colossians.

Ephesians 3:19 "and to know the love of the Christ which surpasses knowledge, that YOU may be filled with all the fullness that God gives"

So the point here is again simple.

Christians can be filled with ALL the fullness that God gives.

So he gives his ALL his fullness to Jesus and to Christians, yet according to you only Jesus is God and none of the others who have all the fullness of God??

Paul’s letter to the Colossians addresses a proto-gnostic type of philosophy (v 2.8) at Colosse that had a disastrous mix of legalism, asceticism, and mysticism which by the 2nd c. had turned into the heresy that we identify today as full-blown Gnosticism. With that in mind, Paul here at Colossians 2.9 disposes of the Docetic theory that Jesus had no human body as well as the Cerinthian separation between the man Jesus and the aeon Christ. Paul asserts plainly the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ in corporeal form. The proto-gnostics that Paul wrote against denied that Jesus had actually come in the flesh (since to them all matter was evil and therefore God could not incarnate), and denied that Jesus was fully God. These proto-gnostics believed that only a tiny fraction of divine power or pleroma resided in Christ. Paul refutes this by saying that “all the fullness” of that which makes God absolute Deity resides in Jesus, not just a tiny fraction of it.

Firstly using long and what you consider intellectual words doesn't strengthen your argument. It means entirely nothing. Speak plain English so people will understand exactly your point. Despite your best efforts anyone with any sense is not going to think to themselves .

"He uses the most the intelligent sounding words therefore he must be correct" All they're gonna think is "Religion and God is confusing" When the reality is it's not. It's people like you who confuse the issue by trying to use intellectual language.

Matt 11:25 "At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes"

Your "intellectual" words mean nothing except the fact you are trying to hide your lack of understanding by hiding behind them. It’s pure smoke screening.

Second point.

Again you throw in a random teaching about Jesus having a fleshly body, you make this claim.

Paul asserts plainly the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ in corporeal form.

How is this possibly the case, when these subjects aren't even mentioned once in Colossians ??. Nothing to do with false teachings about Christ not being God and Christ not being in the flesh. Not one single mention of it!!

So right in the middle of a book dealing with false teachings about ascetism and the Mosaic law and sticking in union with Christ because you need nothing else. We have a random teaching about Christ having a fleshly body. Seriously!!

So what you do is you see the word bodily and think to yourself "Yes here's a teaching about Jesus in a fleshly body"

Without considering that there is no mention of Paul teaching the Colossians to avoid teachings that claim Jesus doesn't have a fleshly body. Absolutely nothing in the context whatsoever.

You also never consider that there is also a spirit body

1 Cor 15:39 "Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, and there is another flesh of cattle, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 40 And there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort"

Further you don't consider that to claim the word fullness means Jesus is God also is making the claim that humans are God as well according to the very next verse and Ephesians as I mentioned previously.

 

[NWL]

[FONT=&quot]You stated that each time theos is anarthrous that it is to be translated as “a god,” but when theos is articular it is in reference to God Almighty. This of course is completely false. As R. H. Countess pointed out, in the NT there are 282 occurrences of the anarthrous theos. In sixteen of the 282 occurrences, the NWT (translation put out by Jehovah’s Witnesses) has either “a god,” “god,” “gods,” or “godly.” In vv. John 1.1, 1.2, 1.6, 1.12, 1.13, 1.18, the articular theos occurs only twice. However, the NWT translates the anarthrous theos six times as “God,” once “a god,” and once “the god.” This of course means that the NWT does not agree with your assertion, “Where ‘theos’ in Greek is used on a person, scholars always render the person ‘a god,’ however when ‘ho theos’ is used then it becomes ‘God’ as in Almighty God.”[/COLOR])[/FONT]

You can't just assume that because you see the theos it means almighty God , because it's also used in reference to Judges and angels. However Ho Theos is God Almighty.Jesus is never spoken of as Ho THeos ever!! Which brings me to these two points.

[FONT=&quot]Further, this statement of course raises more problems for you, because Christ is also identified as ho theos in John 20.28; therefore, by your standard, He is Almighty.

Whether theos is anarthrous or articular, it does not matter. The anarthrous theos can refer to God Almighty without any indefiniteness whatsoever. In fact the anarthrou theos can carry with it three differing semantic forces: qualitative (Lord of the Sabbath), definite (the Lord of the Sabbath), or indefinite (a Lord of the Sabbath). So you are simply just wrong.
I want to strongly emphasize the statement you made here, “For people who say that ‘theos’ in this instance should be translated ‘God,’ then you must also must think that Judges, Angels, and Satan is also Almighty God.” However, let’s turn that argument around. Remember, in your previous statements, you argued whenever the articular theos is used it is in reference to God Almighty. If this then is the case, then by your own standard (since you see 2 Corinthians 4.4 as a reference to Satan), Satan is God Almighty (2 Corinthians 4.4, “&#8001; &#952;&#949;&#8056;&#962; &#964;&#959;&#8166; &#945;&#7984;&#8182;&#957;&#959;&#962;”)[/COLOR])[/FONT]

Jesus is not being referred to in this text . Thomas is praising the resurrection, two people are in involved in that Jesus (Thomas Lord) and Jehovah (Thomas God).

He is glorifying Jehovah through Jesus as Jesus taught him previously.

My Lord and My God are two seperate people

Thomas was doubting Jesus was resurrected

John 20:25 "The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, 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"

So as we Jesus appeared and gave him proof of the resurrection. Then Thomas believed Jesus had been raised from the dead and he was glorifying the resurrection. Two people involved in that Resurrection, Jesus as the one resurrected and Jehovah as the one who resurrected. Let’s back it up a bit and see what Jesus taught the apostles on the subject. We'll stick to John as this is where the account is mentioned.

John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me"

Jesus told the disciples here the ONLY way to approach Jehovah was through him.

He also taught them this, just before his death

(John 16:25,26) "These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father, At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you"

So Jesus was telling them here after my resurrection you cannot approach Jehovah without going through me, you can only address him through me and by me.

Then he said

John 17:1 "These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee"

So he says here to Jehovah bring me glory so I can bring you glory. He was talking about glory for both Jehovah and himself by his resurrection from the dead

Then he says

20 "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word"

I pray for these ones who believe I am your son and am your Messiah.

However the apostles didn't understand these particular words at this time

John 20:9 "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead"

Hence you get doubting Thomas who Jesus had to show the proof he was resurrected to. So Thomas recognized Jesus had been resurrected and Jehovah had glorified him by resurrecting him. Jesus resurrection had also glorified Jehovah. Thomas knew he could only glorify Jehovah through Jesus and he was moved to glorify both Jesus and Jehovah, hence you get these words to Jesus and these words to Jehovah through Jesus.

John 20:28

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

And John nicely sums it all up for us as he sums up the chapter

John 20:31 "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"

If you demonstrate you believe that Jesus is the "anointed one of God" THE SON OF GOD(not God)
You can have life THROUGH his name.

If you wan't to talk to God nowadays you do it through Jesus in prayer but what if Jesus was standing in front of you??? There's entirely no need to pray as we do now you can talk to Jehovah through Jesus. Just as Thomas did here.

Second point Cor 4:4 Satan is HO Theos OF a certain area - Of the system of things - So it uses Ho theos The God and then qualifies exactly what he is THE God of.

So as I meant to put it. The unqualified Ho Theos refers to Jehovah and Jehovah the Almighty ALONE.

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

You can't just assume that because you see the theos it means almighty God , because it's also used in reference to Judges and angels. However Ho Theos is God Almighty.Jesus is never spoken of as Ho THeos ever!! Which brings me to these two points.




Jesus is not being referred to in this text . Thomas is praising the resurrection, two people are in involved in that Jesus (Thomas Lord) and Jehovah (Thomas God).

He is glorifying Jehovah through Jesus as Jesus taught him previously.

My Lord and My God are two seperate people

Thomas was doubting Jesus was resurrected

John 20:25 "The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, 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"

So as we Jesus appeared and gave him proof of the resurrection. Then Thomas believed Jesus had been raised from the dead and he was glorifying the resurrection. Two people involved in that Resurrection, Jesus as the one resurrected and Jehovah as the one who resurrected. Let’s back it up a bit and see what Jesus taught the apostles on the subject. We'll stick to John as this is where the account is mentioned.

John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me"

Jesus told the disciples here the ONLY way to approach Jehovah was through him.

He also taught them this, just before his death

(John 16:25,26) "These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father, At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you"

So Jesus was telling them here after my resurrection you cannot approach Jehovah without going through me, you can only address him through me and by me.

Then he said

John 17:1 "These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee"

So he says here to Jehovah bring me glory so I can bring you glory. He was talking about glory for both Jehovah and himself by his resurrection from the dead

Then he says

20 "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word"

I pray for these ones who believe I am your son and am your Messiah.

However the apostles didn't understand these particular words at this time

John 20:9 "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead"

Hence you get doubting Thomas who Jesus had to show the proof he was resurrected to. So Thomas recognized Jesus had been resurrected and Jehovah had glorified him by resurrecting him. Jesus resurrection had also glorified Jehovah. Thomas knew he could only glorify Jehovah through Jesus and he was moved to glorify both Jesus and Jehovah, hence you get these words to Jesus and these words to Jehovah through Jesus.

John 20:28

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

And John nicely sums it all up for us as he sums up the chapter

John 20:31 "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"

If you demonstrate you believe that Jesus is the "anointed one of God" THE SON OF GOD(not God)
You can have life THROUGH his name.

If you wan't to talk to God nowadays you do it through Jesus in prayer but what if Jesus was standing in front of you??? There's entirely no need to pray as we do now you can talk to Jehovah through Jesus. Just as Thomas did here.

Second point Cor 4:4 Satan is HO Theos OF a certain area - Of the system of things - So it uses Ho theos The God and then qualifies exactly what he is THE God of.

So as I meant to put it. The unqualified Ho Theos refers to Jehovah and Jehovah the Almighty ALONE.

A Brief Look at the Articular & Anarthrous Theos

Let me make this abundantly clear: It is not at all correct to assume that the anarthrous theos refers to someone or something other than the one God, and should therefore be translated as "god" or "a god." Likewise, it is also not at all correct to assume that the articular theos refers only to the Almighty. The biblical data doesn’t support either of these assertions since theos is used both with and without the article to denote the one true God.

There are several examples from the NT, specifically from the writings of John, where the anarthrous theos is used in reference to YHWH:

"There came a man who was sent from God (theou); his name was John." - John 1.6

"No one has ever seen God (theon), but the One and Only, Himself God, who is at the Father's side, has made Him known." - John 1.18

"Jesus replied, ‘If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God (theos), is the one who glorifies Me.’" - John 8.54

"Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God (theou)." - John 16.30
​

Also see Mt 5.9, 6.24; Lk 1.35, 78; 2.40; Jn 1.12, 13; 3.2, 21; 9.16, 33; Ro 1.7, 17, 18; 1 Co 1.30; 15.10; Phil 2.11, 13; Titus 1.1

Conversely, the articular theos is not only applied to the Almighty, but it is also applied to even the pagan/heathen gods. Consider, for example,

“Will you not possess what Chemosh your god (ho theos) gives you to possess” - Judges 11.24 LXX

“You took up the tent of Moloch and the star of your god (tou theou) Rephan” - Acts 7.43
​

While the anarthrous theos can be used to describe heathen gods, angels, and men, it may be used to also describe the Almighty. In like manner, the articular theos, while it can be used to describe the Almighty, it may also be used in reference to heathen gods. To argue that the articular theos is only in reference to the Almighty is completely bogus, and false. Just because theos is anarthrous in some passages, it does not by default mean that it carries with it an indefinite semantic force. In fact, as pointed out previously, anarthrous nouns can carry three different semantic forces: qualitative, definite, and indefinite. To help portray this have a look at Matthew 22.32. It is here that the apostle uses the articular theos in reference to YHWH; however, that exact same passage is cited elsewhere wherein the definite article is lacking, (namely, the Gospel of Mark and the LXX) and yet they still carry the same semantic force,

“I am the God (ho theos) of Abraham, and the God (ho theos) of Isaac, and the God (ho theos) of Jacob” - Matthew 22:32

“I am the God (ho theos) of Abraham, and the God (theos) of Isaac, and the God (theos) of Jacob” - Mark 12:26

“I am the God (ho theos) of thy father, the God (theos) of Abraam, and the God (theos) of Isaac, and the God (theos) of Jacob” - Exodus 3:6 LXX
​

One could not ask for any clearer evidence that the use or nonuse of the article is irrelevant to the meaning of the word theos.

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

You can't just assume that because you see the theos it means almighty God , because it's also used in reference to Judges and angels. However Ho Theos is God Almighty.Jesus is never spoken of as Ho THeos ever!! Which brings me to these two points.




Jesus is not being referred to in this text . Thomas is praising the resurrection, two people are in involved in that Jesus (Thomas Lord) and Jehovah (Thomas God).

He is glorifying Jehovah through Jesus as Jesus taught him previously.

My Lord and My God are two seperate people

Thomas was doubting Jesus was resurrected

John 20:25 "The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, 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"

So as we Jesus appeared and gave him proof of the resurrection. Then Thomas believed Jesus had been raised from the dead and he was glorifying the resurrection. Two people involved in that Resurrection, Jesus as the one resurrected and Jehovah as the one who resurrected. Let&#8217;s back it up a bit and see what Jesus taught the apostles on the subject. We'll stick to John as this is where the account is mentioned.

John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me"

Jesus told the disciples here the ONLY way to approach Jehovah was through him.

He also taught them this, just before his death

(John 16:25,26) "These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father, At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you"

So Jesus was telling them here after my resurrection you cannot approach Jehovah without going through me, you can only address him through me and by me.

Then he said

John 17:1 "These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee"

So he says here to Jehovah bring me glory so I can bring you glory. He was talking about glory for both Jehovah and himself by his resurrection from the dead

Then he says

20 "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word"

I pray for these ones who believe I am your son and am your Messiah.

However the apostles didn't understand these particular words at this time

John 20:9 "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead"

Hence you get doubting Thomas who Jesus had to show the proof he was resurrected to. So Thomas recognized Jesus had been resurrected and Jehovah had glorified him by resurrecting him. Jesus resurrection had also glorified Jehovah. Thomas knew he could only glorify Jehovah through Jesus and he was moved to glorify both Jesus and Jehovah, hence you get these words to Jesus and these words to Jehovah through Jesus.

John 20:28

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

And John nicely sums it all up for us as he sums up the chapter

John 20:31 "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"

If you demonstrate you believe that Jesus is the "anointed one of God" THE SON OF GOD(not God)
You can have life THROUGH his name.

If you wan't to talk to God nowadays you do it through Jesus in prayer but what if Jesus was standing in front of you??? There's entirely no need to pray as we do now you can talk to Jehovah through Jesus. Just as Thomas did here.

Second point Cor 4:4 Satan is HO Theos OF a certain area - Of the system of things - So it uses Ho theos The God and then qualifies exactly what he is THE God of.

So as I meant to put it. The unqualified Ho Theos refers to Jehovah and Jehovah the Almighty ALONE.

John 20.28 - An Analysis

The interpretation you&#8217;ve set down for this text is not only untenable, but is special pleading at its very best. The verb &#949;&#7990;&#960;&#949;&#957; (eipen, &#8220;said&#8221 followed by the dative singular pronoun &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#8183; (auto, &#8220;to Him&#8221 indicates that Thomas&#8217; words were directed towards a specific individual, namely, Jesus of Nazareth, and this is undoubtedly why every English translation known renders the sentence to reflect as much. The phrase, &#8220;Thomas said to Him&#8221; is a vernacular method of presenting a response to the preceding speaker, which John customarily uses, always with the speaker&#8217;s words directed towards the person who had just previously spoken, see John 1.47-48, 50; 2.18, 19; 3.3, 9, 10, 27; 4.10, 13, 17; 5.11; 6.26, 29, 43; 7.16, 21, 52; 8.14, 39, 48; 9.11, 20, 30, 34, 36; 12.30; 13.7; 14.23; 18.30; 20.28.

The phrase &#949;&#7990;&#960;&#949;&#957; &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#8183; (&#8220;said to him&#8221 is used throughout the NT to denote direct address (e.g., John 1.47-48, 50; 2.18; 3.3, 3.9, 3.10, 3.26; 4.10, 4.13, 4.16, 4.17, 4.52-53; 5.14; 7.3, 7.52; 8.39, 8.48; 9.34; 13.7; 14.23; 18.30; 20.28; 21:17; 21.19). We cannot somehow imagine that what Nicodemus, Thomas (or anyone for that matter) was really doing when they conversed with Christ was directing their statements to anyone other than Christ. That said, if this text was meant to refer to two persons, then the verb would have been followed by &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#959;&#8150;&#962; (autois, &#8220;them&#8221, thus, the text would then read, "Thomas answered and said to them&#8221; (c.f. John 2.19; 5.11; 6.26, 29, 43; 7.16, 21; 8.14; 9.20, 30), not, &#8220;Thomas answered and said to Him.&#8221;

Additionally, there is an Old Testament correlative found in the Septuagint's rendering of Psalms 34:23 (also see Psalm 5.2 LXX, &#8220;ho basileus mou kai ho theos mou&#8221; [&#8220;My King and my God&#8221;]) which states,

&#7952;&#958;&#949;&#947;&#8051;&#961;&#952;&#951;&#964;&#953; &#954;&#8059;&#961;&#953;&#949; &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#960;&#961;&#8057;&#963;&#967;&#949;&#962; &#964;&#8135; &#954;&#961;&#8055;&#963;&#949;&#953; &#956;&#959;&#965; &#8001; &#952;&#949;&#8057;&#962; &#956;&#959;&#965; &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#8001; &#954;&#8059;&#961;&#953;&#8057;&#962; &#956;&#959;&#965; &#949;&#7984;&#962; &#964;&#8052;&#957; &#948;&#8055;&#954;&#951;&#957; &#956;&#959;&#965;

Awake, O Lord, and attend to my judgment, even to my cause, my God and my Lord.
​

In both, Psalm 34.23, as well as Psalm 5.2 there is only one referent in consideration, not two. Thomas&#8217; confession of Christ as God is unambiguous, and the translation is not in question. The only way around this explicit teaching is to engage in the most fanciful sorts of arguments in order to justify the unjustifiable.