Posted on 12/23/2013 5:14:49 AM PST by Kevmo
John 20:
26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
Not really the thread topic is it? However, please present the witness accounts to the age of the earth.
Sir, the thread article presents the evidence you are seeking.
Perhaps if we put that portion into context with the rest of the passage you wouldn’t need to ask that question. First however you have to belief that Jesus was both fully God and fully man.
1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
You will notice that Paul was talking about Jesus the man. Jesus the man already has His glorified body and will soon reign as King over all the world. Once death itself has been conquered Jesus the man will turn over the whole of creation to the Godhead.
Steve Jones book, "Darwin's Ghost ... the Origin of Species updated." From page 195 ..."We live not a hundred million but four thousand five hundred million years since the Earth was spun from dust and rock around the sun. The evidence comes not from our own planet, but from its satellite. The Moon flew off its parent after a great impact. Because it stayed small, cold and undisturbed it gives a better picture of the past than does its parent. A quick trip by the Apollo XI mission was enough to date it. The Earth's turmoil makes it harder to trace its own origin. its oldest rocks, found in Greenland and Western Australia, are just under four billion years old."
You may want to investigate what they call the “gap theory”.
Steve Jones was there? Or does he have access to eyewitness accounts? Was it observable?
“Does that mean that have no scripture to substantiate your claim?
You seem to be angry. Why is that? Are you angry with me for asking a direct question, or are you angry that you can’t answer it?”
Quit trolling, what you want is already in the article presented.
So what is your take on the Nature of Jesus Christ? Everyone who says Jesus Christ “is not God” never reveals what they think He really is. Is Jesus Christ to you a “demigod” of some sort? A higher “created being?”
***I would prefer not to have these discussions on this thread because it is a caucus thread, not an ecumenical one. You’re inviting someone to promote their views that would qualify as heresy.
Here is a more appropriate thread for such activity
Is Jesus Christ God?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3104329/posts
Steve Jones book, “Darwin’s Ghost ... the Origin of Species updated.”
***Please take this kind of discussion elsewhere. This is a caucus thread.
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.”
—C. S. Lewis, “Mere Christianity”
Acknowledged.
“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. - Philippians 2:5-7”
This scripture is actually a powerful argument against the Trinity and is describing Christ’s Godly behavior and appearance, not Christ being God. The word “form” in the term “form of God” derived from the Greek word “morphe” is simply describing Christ’s outward appearance of God. Otherwise the scripture would simply say “Christ Jesus, who, though he was God”. Christ obeyed God, did God’s will and behaved in a Godly manner. The scripture clearly shows here that Christ has no intention of trying to grasp being equal to God, but instead humbled himself as God’s Son and faithful servant.
“Was Thomas wrong? Was he rebuked for calling Jesus Christ God? John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
Here the word “God” derived from the Greek term “Theos” had broader usage than what is customary today, and was used to describe a range of authorities, and was not limited to a personal name for the supreme Deity.
Note the term was used to describe the Roman Governer in Acts 12:22, and even Satin in 2 Corinthians. 4:4, and Moses in Exodus 7:1.
At the time “God” was also a commonly used term for authority.
That is a nice internet site answer but replacing words in the lexicon with others is a sure fine sign of a cult trying to justify a spurious claim or trying to deflect.
Thomas said "theos" which is God everywhere else meaning God. In John 1 "theos" is God. Everywhere in John's Gospel "theos" is God. There is no precedence to change the meaning of "theos" to other than God in this passage.
Unless it is your position that Thomas is stating Jesus is a demigod. Is that your position? Because that is the only explanation for another use of "theos" within the context.
In Acts 12:22 the context is Herod had a voice as a "god." So not a very good retort to an emphatic "My Lord AND my God!" I mean for Thomas there was only One God, or perhaps I missed the portions of the NT where they discuss a pantheon of sorts.
You may want to go to the site where you dug up this 'answer' and tell them to keep trying. Changing meanings using Jedi mind tricks of the lexicon is unconvincing and quite a signal there is no response to Thomas saying "My Lord and my God." The disciples used several other honorifics when addressing Jesus, and "theos" in the manner of other than God is never used. As with Peter's confession in Matthew 16, we see here in John 20 a disciple reveals a Truth about the Son of God is Truly God and truly man.
When was the Son of God begotten? Did the Son always exist or is He a created being like the angels?
“Thomas said “theos” which is God everywhere else meaning God.”
Wrong. Read another example of “theos” where the term is used for men in Psalm 82.
Again you have to manipulate the lexicon to draw a different conclusion. What Bible version are you using? I ask because "theos" is not in the OT Hebrew.
If you are using what the Eastern Orthodox use in the LXX the "gods" of Psalm 82 is plural. If you are making a corrolation between the use of "my God" and the "gods" of Psalm 82, then explain your version of the pantheon of Christianity.
When Thomas said "My Lord and my God" it was not 'my Lord and one of the gods; or a god." To apply your example, it would result in Thomas calling Jesus "his" 'god' therefore going against the knowledge Thomas had of the Law which says there is only "One True God." So you have to change the Hebrew and Greek lexicons everywhere else in Scriptures to fit your excuse that Thomas did not mean God, but "gods." Makes no sense at all and seems to be a "hail Mary pass" to explain away an actual profession by Thomas that Jesus Christ is Lord AND God.
Which brings us to the point again if Jesus is not Truly God and Truly man, then what Nature does He have? Is He a demigod, a god with a small 'g', or just a man who for a time had the Presence of God? Using your selection of verses and associated lexicon, then when should a translator use "God" for "'elohiym"? Of course each literal translation which employs multiple Greek and Hebrew scholars must determine when to use "God" vs. "angels" or "divine ones" or "judges" for "'elohiym" based on the context. The very same for "theos" in singular for "God" and the plural "gods."
And to be clear on the matter, we do not have any apostle or believer using "theos" outside of it referring to God Almighty. And that was exactly what Thomas knew and proclaimed. He said "My Lord and my God." So again, if Jesus was not God with a capital "G" then what is He? Was the Son of God created or the Creator? If God Created all things and the Bible tells us Jesus, The Word created the World, then you have a problem explaining that.
Finally, John 20:28 is only one verse and passage in so many other posters have posited here to include the original poster. So like the prederists et. al. you like to argue points others present without presenting your own polemic.
Excellent answers, dude. Merry Christmas. I know you will celebrate the fact that Jesus was born humbly in a manger and that when He is called Immanuel, you know the true meaning and can appreciate it deeply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.