Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Other Interpretations Of John 20v28, Etc?


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 mordecai

mordecai

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 02 June 2004 - 11:26 PM

Ok the claim is made that Jesus is God based on what thomas says in John 20.

28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may[1] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.


But then you have outright denials from Jesus's own mouth saying he isn't god (equal with god in goodness)

Mark 10:18-"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone.

Luke 18:19-"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone.


So which interpretation is being fudged and what is thomas really saying in John, is it proper to interpret John 20:28 as thomas saying "My lord and my god" in response to jesus or is there other valid interpretations from the original text, someone want to take a shot at it here?

#2 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 02 June 2004 - 11:50 PM

The word 'lord' is the Greek 'kurios', which commonly translates the Hebrew 'adonai'. The word 'God' is the Greek 'theos', which commonly translates the Hebrew 'elohim'.

Neither of these words mean 'God'.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/beliefs/basf.htm" target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Apologetics

#3 mordecai

mordecai

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 12:18 AM

The word 'lord' is the Greek 'kurios', which commonly translates the Hebrew 'adonai'. The word 'God' is the Greek 'theos', which commonly translates the Hebrew 'elohim'.

Neither of these words mean 'God'.


So how is the verse supposed to read then and what is "my lord and my GOD" really mean?

#4 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 12:20 AM

The word 'lord' is the Greek 'kurios', which commonly translates the Hebrew 'adonai'. The word 'God' is the Greek 'theos', which commonly translates the Hebrew 'elohim'.

Neither of these words mean 'God'.


So how is the verse supposed to read then and what is "my lord and my GOD" really mean?

Let's cut to the chase:

John 20:
31 But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.


Questions? :coffee:

Edited by Fortigurn, 03 June 2004 - 12:21 AM.

Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/beliefs/basf.htm" target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Apologetics

#5 Dave52

Dave52

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 156 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 12:47 AM

Anastasis wrote: “1 Cor 15v23-28 describes how all are made alive in Christ, starting with the church at the coming of Christ (thus this is physically speaking). Then follows the subjection of all creation. Then when all is subjected to the Son (him being a robe creation is clothed in), then the Son subjects himself to the Father. Gives up the reign, steps down from the throne, his task ended.”

Is this then the end of the son? Is it here where he rides off into the sunset? Or does the son continue in some other capacity?

1Co 15:28 When all things shall be subdued unto him (Son), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (Yahweh) that put all things under him (Son), that God may be all in all.

The Son “himself”! Paul is talking about a person not a role, a manifestation or a sonship.

1Co 12:6 There are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
Eph 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

what do you think the phrase “all in all” means?

#6 Anastasis

Anastasis

    Sigma

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,872 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 07:27 AM

The Son “himself”! Paul is talking about a person not a role, a manifestation or a sonship.


That sentence doesnt have to lead to that conclusion.
The Father is not one Person and the Son another, but ... they are one and the same.... The Spirit which became incarnate in the virgin, is not different from the Father, but one and the same.... That which is seen, which is man [is] the Son; whereas the Spirit, which was contained in the Son [is] the Father.... I will not profess belief in two Gods, Father and Son, but in one . . . for the Father, who subsisted [rested] in the Son Himself, after He had taken unto Himself our flesh, raised it to the nature of Deity, by bringing it into union with Himself, and made it one; so the Father and the Son must be styled one God, and that this person being one, cannot be two. (Callistus' statement of faith)

#7 Anastasis

Anastasis

    Sigma

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,872 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 07:29 AM

But then you have outright denials from Jesus's own mouth saying he isn't god (equal with god in goodness)


Could be that He expected to be recognized as God among his chosen :book:
The Father is not one Person and the Son another, but ... they are one and the same.... The Spirit which became incarnate in the virgin, is not different from the Father, but one and the same.... That which is seen, which is man [is] the Son; whereas the Spirit, which was contained in the Son [is] the Father.... I will not profess belief in two Gods, Father and Son, but in one . . . for the Father, who subsisted [rested] in the Son Himself, after He had taken unto Himself our flesh, raised it to the nature of Deity, by bringing it into union with Himself, and made it one; so the Father and the Son must be styled one God, and that this person being one, cannot be two. (Callistus' statement of faith)

#8 Anastasis

Anastasis

    Sigma

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,872 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 08:02 AM

The word 'lord' is the Greek 'kurios', which commonly translates the Hebrew 'adonai'. The word 'God' is the Greek 'theos', which commonly translates the Hebrew 'elohim'.

Neither of these words mean 'God'.


So how is the verse supposed to read then and what is "my lord and my GOD" really mean?

Let's cut to the chase:

John 20:
31 But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.


Questions? :coffee:


Alright! now who is the Son Jesus;

1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Oh yes. The Father became the Son (Isa 9v6). There's too much evidence to ignore on account of rationalism Fortigurn. Amen.
The Father is not one Person and the Son another, but ... they are one and the same.... The Spirit which became incarnate in the virgin, is not different from the Father, but one and the same.... That which is seen, which is man [is] the Son; whereas the Spirit, which was contained in the Son [is] the Father.... I will not profess belief in two Gods, Father and Son, but in one . . . for the Father, who subsisted [rested] in the Son Himself, after He had taken unto Himself our flesh, raised it to the nature of Deity, by bringing it into union with Himself, and made it one; so the Father and the Son must be styled one God, and that this person being one, cannot be two. (Callistus' statement of faith)

#9 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 08:17 AM

The word 'lord' is the Greek 'kurios', which commonly translates the Hebrew 'adonai'. The word 'God' is the Greek 'theos', which commonly translates the Hebrew 'elohim'.

Neither of these words mean 'God'.


So how is the verse supposed to read then and what is "my lord and my GOD" really mean?

Let's cut to the chase:

John 20:
31 But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.


Questions? :coffee:


Alright! now who is the Son Jesus;

1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Oh yes. The Father became the Son (Isa 9v6). There's too much evidence to ignore on account of rationalism Fortigurn. Amen.

Sorry, but John doesn't say that these things are written that you might believe that the Father became the son, or that the son is the Father.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/beliefs/basf.htm" target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Apologetics

#10 Anastasis

Anastasis

    Sigma

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,872 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 08:36 AM

Nor does John say "that these things are written that you might believe that Jesus existed". He already knew that the general perception of Jesus was that he made himself God (John 5v18).

Besides we already know how John understood the term in relation to Jesus - 1 John 5v20....

Edited by Anastasis, 03 June 2004 - 08:38 AM.

The Father is not one Person and the Son another, but ... they are one and the same.... The Spirit which became incarnate in the virgin, is not different from the Father, but one and the same.... That which is seen, which is man [is] the Son; whereas the Spirit, which was contained in the Son [is] the Father.... I will not profess belief in two Gods, Father and Son, but in one . . . for the Father, who subsisted [rested] in the Son Himself, after He had taken unto Himself our flesh, raised it to the nature of Deity, by bringing it into union with Himself, and made it one; so the Father and the Son must be styled one God, and that this person being one, cannot be two. (Callistus' statement of faith)

#11 Anastasis

Anastasis

    Sigma

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,872 posts

Posted 04 June 2004 - 07:41 AM

Anastasis wrote: “1 Cor 15v23-28 describes how all are made alive in Christ, starting with the church at the coming of Christ (thus this is physically speaking). Then follows the subjection of all creation. Then when all is subjected to the Son (him being a robe creation is clothed in), then the Son subjects himself to the Father. Gives up the reign, steps down from the throne, his task ended.”

Is this then the end of the son? Is it here where he rides off into the sunset? Or does the son continue in some other capacity?

1Co 15:28 When all things shall be subdued unto him (Son), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (Yahweh) that put all things under him (Son), that God may be all in all.

The Son “himself”! Paul is talking about a person not a role, a manifestation or a sonship.

1Co 12:6 There are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
Eph 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

what do you think the phrase “all in all” means?


It's easily proven that Paul speaks of being made alive in Christ in two meanings;

1. Spiritually - 2 Cor 5v17

2. Physically - 1 Cor 15v22-23


I like manner - "all in all" has more than one fullfilment.

1 Cor 12v6 is amazing, as it makes you think of Job 34v14-15. Surely everybody and everything are filled with the Holy Spirit=God=Christ in one sense.
The Father is not one Person and the Son another, but ... they are one and the same.... The Spirit which became incarnate in the virgin, is not different from the Father, but one and the same.... That which is seen, which is man [is] the Son; whereas the Spirit, which was contained in the Son [is] the Father.... I will not profess belief in two Gods, Father and Son, but in one . . . for the Father, who subsisted [rested] in the Son Himself, after He had taken unto Himself our flesh, raised it to the nature of Deity, by bringing it into union with Himself, and made it one; so the Father and the Son must be styled one God, and that this person being one, cannot be two. (Callistus' statement of faith)

#12 Dave52

Dave52

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 156 posts

Posted 04 June 2004 - 02:23 PM

Anastasis wrote: “"The Father became the Son.”

Some Oneness believe God became flesh (human body) so if the the body died so did God. Other Oneness believe God just possessed or put on flesh (body) and they describe it by saying “He robed himself in flesh.” This second group have only a body being sacrificed for our sins not a person and certainly not God.

Which group are you more inclined to follow?

Edited by Dave52, 04 June 2004 - 02:40 PM.


#13 Anastasis

Anastasis

    Sigma

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,872 posts

Posted 04 June 2004 - 03:04 PM

Anastasis wrote: “"The Father became the Son.”

Some Oneness believe God became flesh (human body) so if the the body died so did God. Other Oneness believe God just possessed or put on flesh (body) and they describe it by saying “He robed himself in flesh.” This second group have only a body being sacrificed for our sins not a person and certainly not God.

Which group are you more inclined to follow?


I think the truth is inbetween and I dont think you would get many Oneness to subscribe to any of those views you present. God did become man (Son) in both flesh and spirit (how relative, since his Spirit is in all things) and in that sense God died. However, God didnt cease to be Father and God didnt die as Father.

Im curious about your interest in Oneness. You have been around Oneness people perhaps?
The Father is not one Person and the Son another, but ... they are one and the same.... The Spirit which became incarnate in the virgin, is not different from the Father, but one and the same.... That which is seen, which is man [is] the Son; whereas the Spirit, which was contained in the Son [is] the Father.... I will not profess belief in two Gods, Father and Son, but in one . . . for the Father, who subsisted [rested] in the Son Himself, after He had taken unto Himself our flesh, raised it to the nature of Deity, by bringing it into union with Himself, and made it one; so the Father and the Son must be styled one God, and that this person being one, cannot be two. (Callistus' statement of faith)

#14 truthfinder_inc

truthfinder_inc

    Beta

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts

Posted 24 April 2012 - 05:01 AM

John 20:28

To fully understand why Thomas said, "My Lord and My God," we must study the events leading to his statement. When Thomas heard that Christ appeared to the other disciples, he could not just simply accept their statements by faith. He wanted physical proof: "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hands into his side, I will not believe it." (Jn. 20:25,NIV). In other words, Thomas doubted that Christ had really resurrected.

When the Lord Jesus Christ appeared again to His disciples after eight days, Thomas, being present, was challenged by Christ:

"Then He said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here, and look at my hands; then reach out your hand and put it on my side. Stop your doubting, and believe!" (Jn. 20:27, TEV)

Therefore, in the instance wherein Apostle Thomas uttered the statement, "My Lord and my God," the context was not concerning the nature of the risen Christ but the fact of His resurrection.

Obviously in this instance, Thomas was not preaching, but in a state of surprise and shock. This was also the state the other apostles were in when they supposed that they saw a spirit (Lk. 24:35-37). Christ also corrected them:

"Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, 'Peace to you'. But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. And He said to them, 'Why are you troubled? Behold My hands and my feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have'. When he said this, He showed them His hands and His feet." (Lk. 24:36-40, NKJV)

That Christ is not a spirit is clear proof that He is not God, because God is spirit having no flesh and bones. Christ Himself taught that He is man:

"As it is you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God." (JN. 8:40, NIV)

God is not man (Hos. 11:9; Ezek. 28:2; Num. 23:19).

Therefore, Christ is not God.

Then what about Christ's statement afterwards?

"Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed'." (Jn. 20:29, NIV)

Christ is not saying here that Thomas is blessed. True faith rest on the evidence or conviction of things not seen (Heb. 11:1). Those who are blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe that Christ was resurrected. They are those who do not need to touch the nail prints on Christ's hand. Therefore, Christ is chiding Thomas in this verse.

To accept Thomas' statement of surprise as doctrine would lead to the conclusion that there are two Gods – one who is spirit in nature and one who is man. The fact that Christ was resurrected means that he had died first, whereas the true God is immortal (1 Tim. 1:17).

Christ in the same chapter taught who the true God is when he said, "…Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and you Father, to my God and your God" (Jn. 20:17, RSV). The true God, therefore, of Christ and of the true Christians is the Father. If Christ were God, then there would be one God who is ascending to another God. Does this not constitute a biblical contradiction?

PASUGO/January 1999




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users