Is the Father called "my God" in John 20:28?

[Andreas]

What you could do is find 2-3 other occurrences of pros and see if you can sustain your argument. That is what A.T. Robertson did in the article I quoted above. FYI that is how real vs. wannabe scholars do it. That is what I would expect from someone truly interested in the truth.

But then you could also find references that don't support these minor shades of meaning. When you are at the level of understanding Greek that AT Robertson apparently was, you can be find shades of meaning if you need to support a preconceived narrative.

This is the challenge to AT Robertson (if he were still alive) and any other scholar in any field. You can reach a level of knowledge that gives you some credibility, but then one can use that knowledge to exaggerate. This is what evolutionists, climate scientists, CDC scientists, and other highly specialized people do. This is why it is important to allow for evidence and facts that don't agree with your narrative to be accepted. Look "pros" up in Strong's or another Greek dictionary and concordance and you will see lots of ways this word is used.

 

[Fred]

YHWH(Jehovah) alone is the most high over all the earth-Psalm 83:18-- alone is singular.

The same Hebrew word for "alone" in Psalm 83:18 is used in Job 9:8 and Isaiah 44:24. God alone is the Creator. Since the Lord Jesus was involved in creating demonstrates He is God (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17). Notice further that the same word for "alone" in Psalm 83:18 is also found in 1 Kings 8:39 - God alone knows the hearts of all people. Since the Lord Jesus possesses this same knowledge that God alone has demonstrates the Lord Jesus is God (Revelation 2:23).

Jehovah is also described as "my God" in Psalm 83:13. The fact that Thomas properly refers to the Lord Jesus as "my God" in John 20:28 demonstrates the Lord Jesus is Jehovah.


Psalm 83:18 and the "overseer" in 1 Peter 2:25 refer to Jehovah.
The Watchtower: God is therefore not a nameless “Something” but rather a Person with a name. Says Psalm 83:18: “That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” True, the Bible also uses titles or descriptive terms for God: “Almighty,” “King of eternity,” “savior,” “Shepherd,” “Ancient of Days,” “overseer,” “Grand Instructor,” “Grand Maker,” “Rock.” (Ruth 1:20; 1 Timothy 1:17; Isaiah 43:11; Psalm 23:1; Daniel 7:9, 13, 22; 1 Peter 2:25; Isaiah 30:20; 54:5; Deuteronomy 32:4) Such terms, however, reveal further facets of God’s personality, such as his almightiness, his loving concern for his people, and his infinite wisdom. (How We Can Get To Know God, April 1, 1987, pages 4-5)
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1987241

Since the "overseer" in 1 Peter 2:25 refers to Jesus demonstrates Jesus is Jehovah.
The Watchtower: Jesus' disciples were grateful for his fellowship. Though they called him Lord and Master, he proved himself to be a fellow worker. He was their overseer, but one who set the example for them by sharing right along with them in the work that was to be done. (1 Pet. 2:25) (Giving Encouragement to Others, July 15, 1963, page 434).
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1963523

 

[Lilel01]

Everyone knows that Jehovah alone is the Creator. The fact that he used his first creation to create the rest of things changes absolutely nothing: he is still the only Creator, so when He, Jehovah, says in the Scripture I ALONE, it means exactly what it says... You pervert it with your idea of the multiple god.

If you would accept from the Scriptures the clear, detailed and specific things that are said...you would not keep trying to complicate yourselves with vain theories, philosophies and verbiage, as if things were not clear enough:

Matt. 19:4 In reply he said: “Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’?

 

[Fred]

Everyone knows that Jehovah alone is the Creator.

The boldface above is mine.

Since the Lord Jesus was involved in creating demonstrates He is God (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17).

 

[Lilel01]

Trinitarians make up a concept of what "GOD" means... so they can get Jesus Christ into it.

GOD is a real person: the highest authority of the entire Universe, the Majesty, the Most High, the God of gods... not an idea that people want to invent.

Luke 10:21 (...) [JESUS] became overjoyed in the holy spirit and said: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth ..."

 

[Fred]

Unitarians make up a concept of

what "alone" means.

The boldface is mine.

 

[Lilel01]

Jesus is UNITARIAN:

John 20:17 Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’”

Paul is UNITARIAN:

Gal. 3:20 Now there is no mediator when just one person is involved, but God is only one.

... and all in heavens are UNITARIAN:

Rev. 5:9 And they sing a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, for you were slaughtered and with your blood you bought people for God out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, 10 and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth.”

Trinitarians are a weird and alien sect that is in extinction, because it is based on falsity.

 

[Fred]

Jesus is

God because God alone is the Creator and Jesus was invloved in creating.

 

[Lilel01]

Keep playing ... Jesus is watching you.

 

[Fred]

Jesus is watching you.

Yes, Jesus being God sees all.

 

[OldShepherd]

But then you could also find references that don't support these minor shades of meaning. When you are at the level of understanding Greek that AT Robertson apparently was, you can be find shades of meaning if you need to support a preconceived narrative.
This is the challenge to AT Robertson (if he were still alive) and any other scholar in any field. You can reach a level of knowledge that gives you some credibility, but then one can use that knowledge to exaggerate. This is what evolutionists, climate scientists, CDC scientists, and other highly specialized people do. This is why it is important to allow for evidence and facts that don't agree with your narrative to be accepted. Look "pros" up in Strong's or another Greek dictionary and concordance and you will see lots of ways this word is used.

Now let us examine this waste of band width screed which does not address anything specifically.

But then you could also find references that don't support these minor shades of meaning.

Which "minor shades of meaning" specifically are you referring to?

But then you could also find references that don't support these minor shades of meaning. When you are at the level of understanding Greek that AT Robertson apparently was, you can be find shades of meaning if you need to support a preconceived narrative.
This is the challenge to AT Robertson (if he were still alive) and any other scholar in any field. You can reach a level of knowledge that gives you some credibility, but then one can use that knowledge to exaggerate. But then you could also find references that don't support these minor shades of meaning.

How does referring to vague unidentified possibilities address anything I posted? Could be this, might be that, perhaps something else.

But then you could also find references that don't support these minor shades of meaning. This is what evolutionists, climate scientists, CDC scientists, and other highly specialized people do. But then you could also find references that don't support these minor shades of meaning.

Vague accusations with no, zero, none credible evidence of any kind.

But then you could also find references that don't support these minor shades of meaning But then you could also find references that don't support these minor shades of meaning But then you could also find references that don't support these minor shades of meaning. This is why it is important to allow for evidence and facts that don't agree with your narrative to be accepted. But then you could also find references that don't support these minor shades of meaning.

What is preventing you? Bring it on, dood!

But then you could also find references that don't support these minor shades of meaning. Look "pros" up in Strong's or another Greek dictionary and concordance and you will see lots of ways this word is used. But then you could also find references that don't support these minor shades of meaning.

Strong's has been found to have about 15,000 errors or omissions. Also Strong's is not a lexicon. Strong's only show how words were translated in the KJV. Looking it up in other credible sources is your job.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Yes, I know the definition of Logos. But, you're getting off track. What is John 1 teaching about this one with the title Logos? The one with the title Logos always existed. The one with the title Logos was with God, the one with the title Logos was God. This one with the title Logos made all things that were made. This one with the title Logos became flesh, and this one with the title Logos reveals the Father.

And the Logos was God. Don't you see that John doesn't distinguish "persons" in a Godhead? It's just "God". Simply "God".

Yes, John teaches the Logos is just "God", simply "God", after recognizing that the Logos was with God, aka distinct in some way from God the Father.

Did I say I didn't agree my physical body is me? I was being very precise with my wording. Perhaps, you shouldn't read too much into it.

If you body is you, then how is it not personal? You are going down a rabbit trail and I know to you it sounds sophisticated but like other empty philosophy it is losing touch with reality.

Because it isn't inherently personal. A dead body isn't personal; so, my body isn't inherently personal.

Seriously, who was walking with Abraham by the oaks of Mamre? Was it a manifestation of the Father, denying John 1:18, or was it the Word making the Father known?

This makes me think that you have a "Father is body constrained" God concept. What is it going to take for you to fully accept that the Father is everywhere present?

You are wrong to think I have a "Father is body constrained" God concept. Seriously, who was walking, AS A MAN, with Abraham by the oaks of Mamre? Was it a manifestation of the Father, denying John 1:18, or was it the Word making the Father known?

I'm not talking about the second half of John 1:18. Why bring 1 Timothy 6:16 up if your solution is that there is another way to see the same God? John 1:18a says "No one has ever seen God." No qualification. 1 Timothy 6:16 says "whom no one has ever seen or can see." No qualification. But, your solution to Isaiah seeing "the King, YHWH of Hosts" is Isaiah saw the visible expression of God. Seriously? That's a direct contradiction to John 1:18a and 1 Timothy 6:16.

I brought up John 1:18 because you love to quote your preferred version of it. But, you seem to totally overlook that it says that "the only God has" made him known. So right in the same verse you are saying no one has seen God but then it says God has made him known. Ever according to your version of that verse you have a qualification.

So, you are so fixated on the phrase "the only God" that you can't even interact with anything I say? That's just irrational. Use the KJV. Ignore John 1:18 and just go with 1 Timothy 6:16. Either way, my argument is still the same. Deal with the text; don't just try to protect your dogma.

Do you have a problem with God being both visible and invisible at the same time? What exactly is your limitations you are artificially trying to put upon knowing God?

No, I don't. Because, "No one has ever seen God" means no one has ever see the Father. "The only God" is not the Father, he is the Son. So, no problem.

Yes, but Jesus was praying as a man to the omnipotent and everywhere present God doesn't make any sense outside of at least a personal distinction.

Using the standard definition of "person" doesn't fit with making Jesus a second person because of his humanity.

Did I say using the standard definition of person? Keep the relational distinction while ignoring any physical/ontological implications.

The unique incarnation by the omnipotent creator and Father of all, defies your petty categories. Jesus is the manifestation of God the Father. In taking on the form of man he was not God the Son, or even God the Father with human window dressing on. He became a real man.

Nice job dodging my point. You didn't say anything meaningful, but it feels like you you said something.

Who's holding a body-centric view of three persons in the Godhead as depicted in Trinitarian stained glass windows? I'm not Catholic; I'm not Orthodox. I find those depictions as heretical. Whho are you talking to?

Your concept that you express betrays you.

Or, this is a figment of your imagination.

God Bless

 

[johnny guitar]

Trinitarians make up a concept of what "GOD" means... so they can get Jesus Christ into it.

GOD is a real person: the highest authority of the entire Universe, the Majesty, the Most High, the God of gods... not an idea that people want to invent.

Luke 10:21 (...) [JESUS] became overjoyed in the holy spirit and said: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth ..."

So The ONE Lord praised His Father, Lord of heaven and earth.
And..................

 

[johnny guitar]

Everyone knows that Jehovah alone is the Creator. The fact that he used his first creation to create the rest of things changes absolutely nothing: he is still the only Creator, so when He, Jehovah, says in the Scripture I ALONE, it means exactly what it says... You pervert it with your idea of the multiple god.

If you would accept from the Scriptures the clear, detailed and specific things that are said...you would not keep trying to complicate yourselves with vain theories, philosophies and verbiage, as if things were not clear enough:

Matt. 19:4 In reply he said: “Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’?

IOW NO ONE assisted, or worked along side God in creation.

 

[Lilel01]

IOW NO ONE assisted, or worked along side God in creation.

That is false, since the Scripture says explicitly that there were many sons of God when he created the earth:

Job 38:4 Where were you when I founded the earth?
Tell me, if you think you understand.
5 Who set its measurements, in case you know,
Or who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 Into what were its pedestals sunk,
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?

Do you think that being alone means that there was no one with him working or watching what he was doing? Because if that's what you believe, you misunderstood Scripture. When He said He "was alone ..." He means He took the initiative, made the decisions, put his own power to work and finally approved and blessed what had been created. ... NO ONE ELSE.

 

[101G]

To see Jesus is to see the Father. Since the disciples always see Jesus, they always see the Father. Scripture also said that the disciples did not only see Jesus but they also heard Jesus and touched Jesus. Does that also mean the Father has been heard and the Father has been touched by the disciples too? It is mostly likely that the vision of the Father in Jesus is not referring to the literal physical outward appearance of Jesus but to Jesus' actions based on context ("the Father who dwells in me does his works"). It is the works of the Father that is seen in Jesus and that is how the Father is seen in Jesus. It is also evidence why Jesus is "equal with God" in John 5:18 because in context in verse 17 it says that Jesus works and the Father works. They are both working simultaneously and that's how they are said to be equal (Grk. ison) in the text. And in verse 19, John limits the abilities or works which Jesus can do: Jesus can do only what the Father does. For instance, creating all things (John 1:3).

To say something to Jesus is not to say something to the Father because when someone speaks to Jesus, they speak to Jesus (not the Father). When Thomas said to him (to Jesus alone): My Lord and my God. It does not mean Thomas said to the Father. Both grammar and context affirm that Jesus alone is the antecedent of the singular pronoun "him" in v. 28.

My God, and My Son are only Identifiers of the ECHAD.

when the Lord Jesus says, "My Father", he is simply referring to himself in a diversified form .... in "Spirit". simply put, My "Spirit" which is in HEAVEN,
and the Spirit in Heaven, states "My Son", he is simply referring to himself in a diversified form .... in "Flesh" .simply put My "Body" which is in the EARTH.
supportive scripture,, John 3:13 " And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." at the same time the Lord Jesus was on EARTH, (in a "BODY" of flesh and blood) he was in Heaven in "Spirit". supportive scripture, Philippians 2:6 " Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

here "BEING" is present tense, and the form of God, or his nature is Spirit, per John 4:24a. and this one Spirit G2758 κενόω kenoo himself while shared in flesh on EARTH, Philippians 2:7 " But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:" Philippians 2:8 " And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." BINGO.

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[johnny guitar]

That is false, since the Scripture says explicitly that there were many sons of God when he created the earth:

Job 38:4 Where were you when I founded the earth?
Tell me, if you think you understand.
5 Who set its measurements, in case you know,
Or who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 Into what were its pedestals sunk,
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?

Do you think that being alone means that there was no one with him working or watching what he was doing? Because if that's what you believe, you misunderstood Scripture. When He said He "was alone ..." He means He took the initiative, made the decisions, put his own power to work and finally approved and blessed what had been created. ... NO ONE ELSE.

But these sons of God had NOTHING to do with creation.
God ALONE created with help from NO ONE.

 

[Andreas]

Yes, John teaches the Logos is just "God", simply "God", after recognizing that the Logos was with God, aka distinct in some way from God the Father.

In some way yes... other than being a second eternal person which would make God a team call "WE ARE" and not I AM.

Because it isn't inherently personal. A dead body isn't personal; so, my body isn't inherently personal.

Your definition of personal includes a requirement of immorality. Interesting, but arbitrarily defined. This is a good example where empty philosophy has trained you into denying reality and practicality.

You are wrong to think I have a "Father is body constrained" God concept. Seriously, who was walking, AS A MAN, with Abraham by the oaks of Mamre? Was it a manifestation of the Father, denying John 1:18, or was it the Word making the Father known?

So you don't believe the Father is constrained to a body? Then it should follow that you have no problem with the Father being in heaven while he simultaneously manifests visibly in some form to Abraham. I suspect you have a problem with the notion of the Father being in more than one place and doing more than one thing.

So, you are so fixated on the phrase "the only God" that you can't even interact with anything I say? That's just irrational. Use the KJV. Ignore John 1:18 and just go with 1 Timothy 6:16. Either way, my argument is still the same. Deal with the text; don't just try to protect your dogma.

It's not just the KJV and your preferred version doesn't say "God the Son", so the bottom line is you don't have a text to support the Trinity here.

No, I don't. Because, "No one has ever seen God" means no one has ever see the Father. "The only God" is not the Father, he is the Son. So, no problem.

So you are putting your own qualifications on John 1:18 by assuming different persons but these persons are not literally mentioned.

It seems like Trinitarians make a huge deal out of the term "person" while not being able to actually give a clear definition of such as it relates to the Trinity.

 

[Andreas]

Now let us examine this waste of band width screed which does not address anything specifically.

Which "minor shades of meaning" specifically are you referring to?

Your polytheistic "face-to-face" eternal persons in heaven. If two eternal bodies face to face is not polytheistic then what is?

How does referring to vague unidentified possibilities address anything I posted? Could be this, might be that, perhaps something else.

Vague accusations with no, zero, none credible evidence of any kind.

I assumed you have access to a Greek dictionary to look up "pros" and a concordance. No?

Strong's has been found to have about 15,000 errors or omissions. Also Strong's is not a lexicon. Strong's only show how words were translated in the KJV. Looking it up in other credible sources is your job.

Your education was either lost or forgotten. AOC was an economics major. So Strong's is wrong when it gives Biblical references to various NT scriptures that use the word "pros"? Are you kidding?

 

[johnny guitar]

In some way yes... other than being a second eternal person which would make God a team call "WE ARE" and not I AM.



Your definition of personal includes a requirement of immorality. Interesting, but arbitrarily defined. This is a good example where empty philosophy has trained you into denying reality and practicality.



So you don't believe the Father is constrained to a body? Then it should follow that you have no problem with the Father being in heaven while he simultaneously manifests visibly in some form to Abraham. I suspect you have a problem with the notion of the Father being in more than one place and doing more than one thing.



It's not just the KJV and your preferred version doesn't say "God the Son", so the bottom line is you don't have a text to support the Trinity here.



So you are putting your own qualifications on John 1:18 by assuming different persons but these persons are not literally mentioned.

It seems like Trinitarians make a huge deal out of the term "person" while not being able to actually give a clear definition of such as it relates to the Trinity.

God is singular, thus always I, NOT WE.