Does God have eyes?

Well, the father is God...If you think Thomas was calling Jesus God then he must believe Jesus is the father.
Absolutely not. You clearly haven't yet picked up on what I have been discussing with JM, which is the applicability of John 10:34-36 to Thomas's remarks.

So you think Thomas believes Jesus is both God and Lord?
1 Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
See above. In the Old Testament, "God" could be used of men without any confusion with the Father himself.
You did not say anything about what Divine means...You said... Divine status = from God. Now I am asking you what "Divine" means.

So you know this but ignores it?
If something is divine, it is "of God" or "from God" dependent on whether we are talking about the jurisdiction of heaven ("of God") or earth ("from God").
 
This is what sometimes happens when two different titles (which, by the way, aren't functional equivalents for proper names) are used in reference to a single person. This is what occurs in John 13:13 and John 20:28. Your analysis is inaccurate, and your assertions are false.
As I said you are arguing from the fringes. It is highly unlikely that John 13:13 is an example of a TSKTS construction since at least one of the substantives is likely the functional equivalent of a proper noun. You are making the extraordinary claim that Jesus is being called God here, yet all you can muster is a dubious example (John 13:13 )to support your case, when there are literally dozens of clear and irrefutable verses from the bible where the TSKTS always denotes two referents.
 
Last edited:
When it is irrefutably clear the we two common nouns are in view , the TSKTS construction denotes two individuals or two different things . For example :

καὶ ἐπίστευσαν τῇ γραφῇ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ ὃν εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς.

John 2:22
 
Absolutely not. You clearly haven't yet picked up on what I have been discussing with JM, which is the applicability of John 10:34-36 to Thomas's remarks.
I certainly have and it is not applicable.
See above. In the Old Testament, "God" could be used of men without any confusion with the Father himself.
You are wrong...the problem is in translation. The generic term for God is Elohim in Hebrew, not God. Translators refuse to write YHWH or Adonai leaving a lot of confusion in the OT. The NT is just as bad since they translated it from a Greek standpoint when it is rooted in Hebrew history.
If something is divine, it is "of God" or "from God" dependent on whether we are talking about the jurisdiction of heaven ("of God") or earth ("from God").
Is there a reference or is that your own reasoning? Divine
 
I got it from Lee Magee's profile. At least I think so unless it was a glitch in the system.
I can accept this. Your writing styles are different enough. That was a very strange thing to post with no context, especially since it pertains to an entirely different person. Sorry for the confusion Steven Avery.
 
I can accept this. Your writing styles are different enough. That was a very strange thing to post with no context, especially since it pertains to an entirely different person. Sorry for the confusion Steven Avery.
It was intended for Lee Magee... Not for you. I asked if it was him...You grabbed it and ran it to make me look bad.
 
As I said you are arguing from the fringes. It is highly unlikely that John 13:13 is an example of a TSKTS construction since at least one of the substantives is likely the functional equivalent of a proper noun. You are making the extraordinary claim that Jesus is being called God here, yet all you can muster is a dubious example (John 13:13 )to support your case, when there are literally dozens of clear and irrefutable verses from the bible where the TSKTS always denotes two referents.
It's not fringe. It is the standard opinion on both texts. There's nothing dubious about either of them.
 
Both beings are not called God. If that is the case then we have two Gods...Do we have two Gods?
It is a possibility. When the Hebrew Bible says God is one, there is no reason to suppose that this must mean that numerically there is only one God.
As long as you are saying Jesus is God you either have two Gods or Jesus is his own Father.
This is a false dichotomy. For example it is possible that "God" in its fullest sense refers to the joint functioning of three ontologically identical beings either individually or as some type of unity that we humans don't, or perhaps even can't, understand.
John 8:42
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
John 16:27
For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
My remarks were about John 1:1, why are you talking about these verses? They aren't even contextually identical.
those are your words John The link proves it...
My words prove that you have tragically misunderstood what I wrote, even after I pointed it out to you.
It means the same thing when Jesus said he and his father are one. Two are one in agreement
You can't be serious. I hope "the Father" and Jesus have greater agreement than that!
U are claiming that Jesus is God. To us, there is but one God the father and one Lord Jesus Christ. If Jesus is God he is either a second God or he is his own father
It's what John wrote in Jn. 1:1 and 20:28.
There is nothing to grasp. You are claiming what the passage does not say.
They clearly do. Look at the underlined words and try harder.
He did not apply the term God to Jesus.....U are making an assumption. The author is trying to tell you where and what Jesus was before he was made flesh. You are assuming that he was another God. Or He was his own father. Either way you are wrong.
He applied the term "God" directly to Jesus when he quoted what Thomas said in John 20:28 and didn't mention it as another of Thomas's mistakes.
Well if Jesus is God and Mary is the mother of Jesus then Mary is the mother of God.
It depends upon what "God" means in the utterance, as I have explained above.
I have given you evidence... Jesus says God is his father and God said Jesus is his son. We believe there is one God.
It's not convincing argument. What I have been arguing is irrefutable: "John" referred to Jesus as "God".
That would go against...
1 Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
There's no reason why it must.
Since this is true it means that God is Jesus' father, so how can Jesus be God?
Do not sons typically have the same ontology as their parents?
You have not shown that in any way or form.
I have.
No, he did not you are assuming that he did.
He did. It's written in the gospel for all to see.
But you are not seeing how silly your position is. You just agreed that Jesus is the son of God, that would make God the father of Jesus. Since there is only one God, you are left in a hot seat. Because you said Jesus is God.
No. Your conception of this topic is too narrow for you to see the other possibilities.
rubbish, you gave your opinions not facts. The scripture gives the facts, Your opinion of what the scripture says is your opinion.
The scripture is what I'm using for my facts. You just don't see them for what they are.
No, it does not. You telling me why is your opinion. I don't care about your opinions. You cannot say, John said and then write what John did not say. That is my point.
And my point was that what you wrote was factually inaccurate and intellectually dishonest. You seem to be doing this out of ignorance rather than maliciousness, though.
You just proved that you don't understand.
You have proven throughout this post that your conception of this topic is shallow and your position hasn't taken into consideration other possibilities.
The passage tells you what Jesus calls himself. I did not interpret the passage or the whole book.
I was referring to Jn. 1:1 and 20:28. Your remarks about the context of another passage isn't going to change the words written in another place.
John Milton said:
Even then, I would expect those Jews to understand that life can only be granted from God, so if Jesus can give life through his (not God's) name...he would be God just like the author claimed in the very first verse.
You falsely claimed that life can only be granted from God.
I said that I believe that the Jews would think that. You lack either the ability or the desire to quote me or represent my arguments accurately.
so if Jesus can give life he would be God. I posted a passage that blows away your nonsense. And all you can come up with is Ah yes, the old interpret-the-whole-book-by-isolated-passages-in-other-contexts technique? Jesus himself says he is the son of God. So which God are you saying he is?
Your post didn't blow anything away. It can't change the words that John wrote.
It is what the scripture says John...deal with it...
I've not denied scripture does say that. I've said that it has no relevance to John referring to Jesus as God in Jn. 1:1 and 20:28.
 
I certainly have and it is not applicable.
You are not an authority
You are wrong...the problem is in translation. The generic term for God is Elohim in Hebrew, not God. Translators refuse to write YHWH or Adonai leaving a lot of confusion in the OT. The NT is just as bad since they translated it from a Greek standpoint when it is rooted in Hebrew history.
In the NT, Elohim translates to God (see John 10:34-36)., as does YHWH (e.g. God the Father is the same as YHWH the Father). Therefore you are wrong.

Is there a reference or is that your own reasoning? Divine
Shows you are not very bright: Merriam Webster "divine: " of, relating to, or coming directly from God" (exactly per my definition).

Not sure you are qualified to converse with me. You need to develop skills in rationality and discernment.
 
Back
Top