ECT Our triune God

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
"You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God."



The Man Jesus is Raised "Life-making Spirit."

When Jesus rose bodily from the dead, John's Gospel tells us how his disciple Thomas doubted that he had risen. But when he finally saw Jesus he said, "My Lord and My God."1 Thomas had said is the context of seeing and believing.2 We are here to be reminded of Jesus' earlier teaching about seeing and believing. Jesus had taught that to see him was to see the One who had sent him, the Father.3 And again he taught his disciples that to see him, Jesus, was to see the Father.4 And then Jesus explained that the manner in which they seen the Father is by the works he had done from the Father who was in him.5 It was the Father at work in Jesus.6 But now in his resurrection glory the Father was not just dwelling inside Jesus, the Father was in Jesus bodily. The Father was at work making Jesus' resurrection body immortally alive and in glory. The Father had clothed the man Jesus with his glory, His own divine nature, His own Holy Spirit. And so now where the man Jesus is the Father also is because he is bodily clothed in His Father's Spirit.

Thomas actually said, "The Lord of me and the God of me." In the Greek language, if you wanted to refer to one person, you would say, "The Lord and God of me."7 But Thomas did not say this. He used the language which you would use to refer to two people, "The Lord of me and the God of me."8 And so true to Jesus' teaching to him, Thomas no longer doubted but affirmed Jesus' earlier teaching to him, "If you have seen me you have seen the Father." And indeed, the Father was present right there before Thomas in Jesus' glorified body which was clothed in the glory of the Father, the Holy Spirit of his Father."

Jesus rose from the dead. He was a man crucified in weakness but who now lives out of the power of God.9 He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the Spirit.10 Paul explains what the resurrection body is like.11 Jesus rose in a "Spiritual Body."12 The crucified man became "Life-making Spirit."13 Angels are spirits and so they are immortal and cannot die.14 Jesus explained that those who are worthy of the resurrection and the age to come cannot die anymore because they are like the angels and sons of God being sons of the resurrection.15

"Flesh and blood" cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.16 Our bodies must be changed, not replaced, but changed.17 God breathed the neshamah of life into the formed dust He called Adam and then that dust, Adam, became a living soul.18 A soul is by definition dust which is alive, dust which breathes.19 A soul is dust which is kept alive by a life-breath spirit.20 But describing the resurrection body, Paul tells us how the first man, the dust of the earth, became a living soul but the last Adam, Jesus, became "Life-making Spirit."21 A living soul is "flesh and blood" which cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. To enter the Kingdom of God we cannot be flesh and blood, that is, we cannot be living souls. Rather we must be something else; we bodies must be changed. Our earthly bodies, these living souls, this flesh and blood, must be changed to inherit the Kingdom of God. We cannot inherit the Kingdom of God bearing the earthly image; we can only enter if we bear the heavenly image.22 They must become heavenly bodies, Spiritual bodies.23 We souls of dust who are kept alive by a life-breath spirit within us, must be changed so that our bodies themselves are life-making, immortal, eternal. And the way this happens is that our bodies must become Spiritual bodies, bodies which are life-making or life-giving and the only way that can occur is if these selfsame bodies become united with the Holy Spirit, our bodies becoming one with the Spirit of God, a new creation, a new kind of being, a new kind of humanity, immortal, heavenly, eternal, Spiritual.

continued--
 

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Paul explained that the resurrection body is a body which has been clothed.24 And when the resurrection body is clothed man is not found naked.25 He says that the perishable body is clothed with the imperishable; the mortal body is clothed with immortality.26 The Holy Spirit is life;27 the Spirit is life-making28 and it is the Holy Spirit which enclothes the resurrection body. The resurrection body is that which is clothed and swallowed up, consumed, by the Spirit of God. Death, the mortal body, is swallowed up in victory, mortality swallowed up by Life, that is, consumed by the Spirit, the power of life.29 This is all colorful language to describe how the mortal dead body is consumed by the Holy Spirit which gives Life. And this is what makes the human body a "Spiritual Body" and "Life-making Spirit." Spirit and the physical body, the two become one new creation without horizon. Jesus' risen body is not body and Spirit but Spiritualized body, a Spiritual body, a divinized body. For this reason, Paul tells us that the Lord Jesus IS the Spirit.30 The resurrection body is a new creation, a new kind of humanity, an immortal humanity, divine humanity, and it is for this reason the risen Jesus is termed the second and last Adam, the heavenly man as opposed to the earthly mortal man.31

God the Father is spirit, Holy Spirit.32 Our Holy God is Holy Spirit. His divine nature is Spirit. People are filled with the Spirit of God and the Spirit is the fullness of God, the fullness of deity dwelling in them.33 And because Jesus' resurrection body is a Spiritual body, a body characterized by the Spirit of God the Father, a body clothed in the Father's deity, the Holy Spirit, we read that all the fullness of deity dwells in the risen man Jesus bodily.34 His crucified and resurrected body is clothed in divinity, deity, the divine nature of God, the Holy Spirit. In this way, the risen man Jesus is the image of God.35 God is spirit; Holy Spirit, and the risen man Jesus is also "Life-making Spirit"; "the Lord is the Spirit." And we are even now being transformed into the very same image36 and when we are raised from the dead we will bear the image of the heavenly man who is "Life-making Spirit."37 The resurrection body is a glorified body, a body of glory and so we also read that the risen man Jesus is the radiance of God's glory.38 It is God's glory because it is God the Father's Spirit which clothes the resurrection body and glorifies that resurrection body, God's Holy Spirit, God's divine nature. The resurrection body is the inheritance of God's divine nature, the Holy Spirit, and this is the inheritance of all the servants of God. It is what makes one a true son, a true child of God.39 To be a true son one must share their Father's nature. And so even now, the servants of God are given the Holy Spirit in their hearts as a pledge of the inheriting the divine nature of the Holy Spirit.40 Those who are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.41 And in this way, the Spirit testifies to our spirit that this is really who we are: children of God, partakers of the divine nature,42 those who will inherit the Spirit of God in the resurrection of the body. So we who have the Spirit dwelling in us have the fullness of God dwelling within us, the fullness of deity, the fullness of deity that now dwells in the risen Jesus the firstfruits, Jesus the firstborn son. We have the Spirit of Jesus Christ,43 the Spirit of God's Son,44 the Spirit the man Jesus dwelling in us, the first divinized man. Jesus is a man with a new human nature, a divine humanity, a humanity that is characterized by the Spirit, a Spiritual body. He is "Life-making Spirit." "The Lord is the Spirit." And now the man Jesus who rose into glory comes to dwell in our hearts.

Until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because the veil is removed in Christ. But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.... we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord. (2 Corinthians 3:14-4:5).
___________________________________________________________

NOTES:

1. John 20:28.
2. John 20:25-2,29.
3. John 12:44-45.
4. Hebrews 1:4.
5. John 14:10
6. See Acts 2:22
7. Granville Sharp First Rule of Greek Grammar. This particular rule has absolutely no value without demonstrating that a Greek speaker would speak differently and use a different sentence construction if he wanted to rather refer to two persons and not one. Hence, Granville Sharp was compelled to show that Greek speakers were in the habit of using a different sentence structure to refer to two persons instead of one.
8. Granville Sharp Sixth Rule of Greek Grammar.
9. 2 Corinthians 13:4.
10. 1 Peter 3:18.
11. 1 Corinthians 15:35.
12. 1 Corinthians 15:44.
13. 1 Corinthians 15:45; cf. 2 Corinthians 3:17.
14. Luke 20:36.
15. Luke 20:35-36.
16. 1 Corinthians 15:50.
17. 1 Corinthians 15:51-52.
18. Genesis 2:7.
19. At Genesis 2:7 the dust itself becomes a living soul. The Hebrew word nephesh implies the idea of a "breather."
20. James 2:26.
21. 1 Corinthians 15:45.
22. 1 Corinthians 15:45-50.
23. 1 Corinthians 14:44,48-49.
24. 1 Corinthians 15:53-54; 2 Corinthians 5:2-4.
25. 2 Corinthians 5:3; see Revelation 3:18; 16:15; 19:8 (cf. Matthew 22:12). The idea here is that God work in his servants by the Spirit in them and the works that they do are worked in the Holy Spirit.
26. 1 Corinthians 15:53-54.
27. Romans 8:10-11.
28. John 6:63.
29. 1 Corinthians 15:54; 2 Corinthians 5:4; 13:4 (cf. Romans 1:4).
30. 2 Corinthians 3:17 (the preceding context and following context make it quite clear that the 'Lord" here is Jesus. See especially verse 4:5.
31. 1 Corinthians 15:45-49.
32. John 4:24; cf. Matthew 10:20; Luke 4:18 (cf. Matthew 12:28). Jesus is anointed by his Father's Holy Spirit. Also notice at Luke 1:35 that the Father conceives Jesus by His Holy Spirit.
33. Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 2:10.
34. Colossians 2:9; see 1:19.
35. 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3.
36. 2 Corinthians 3:17-18. Continue reading to 4:4.
37. 1 Corinthians 15:45,49.
38. Hebrews 1:3.
39. Luke 20:36; Romans 8:14-25.
40. 2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5; Ephesians 1:13; 4:30; see also Romans 8:23-25.
41. Romans 8:14.
42. 2 Peter 1:4.
43. Romans 8:9; Acts 16:6-7; Philippians 1:19.
44. Galatians 4:6; cf. Romans 8:14-25 esp. 8:15.

http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/articles/BibleJesus12.html
 

Lon

Active member
Read it. There really wasn't anything specific to our conversation but a general arian pow pow. Mr. Buzzard's 'honorary' doctorate doesn't quite have the same earned respect with the ad hoc nature of his paper and discussions. He's all over the map, random.

However, you did provide a link so I was able to look up his John 1:1 treatment but it the same as has been discussed on TOL with no further import or anything substantial added. We reject his view because the text says plainly "was with and was God."
There is nobody on the face of the planet that could make that verse say anything differently than what it does.
 

Lon

Active member
Just the link here LA. We aren't supposed to post large quotes on TOL. Such is against the rules. We can just as easily read it from the link if there is interest.

He does a poor job of John 20. He is looking for some kind of logical problem with Thomas' words to Jesus "My Lord and My God." He really doesn't have a grasp of Greek language to try and make it anything else. Rather, his English understanding of the word for word structure of the Greek has led him to a false conclusion. If you ever wonder what a closer translation nearly word for word is supposed to be, look to the KJV or other word for word translation.

For the most part, if somebody tries to say the original language says something else, you can nearly always double-check/find out by reading a word for word translation like the KJV. It is a good working rule of thumb for most considerations.
 

Omniskeptical

New member
Just the link here LA. We aren't supposed to post large quotes on TOL. Such is against the rules. We can just as easily read it from the link if there is interest.

He does a poor job of John 20. He is looking for some kind of logical problem with Thomas' words to Jesus "My Lord and My God." He really doesn't have a grasp of Greek language to try and make it anything else. Rather, his English understanding of the word for word structure of the Greek has led him to a false conclusion. If you ever wonder what a closer translation nearly word for word is supposed to be, look to the KJV or other word for word translation.

For the most part, if somebody tries to say the original language says something else, you can nearly always double-check/find out by reading a word for word translation like the KJV. It is a good working rule of thumb for most considerations.
A good working rule of thumb is the interlinears. But you are correct. Buzzard doesn't know any greek. He can't say "and the God was a word" without someone else to help him, or say the Thomas words are not vocative; which they aren't, for example. One can defend it on its hellenistic meaning. "A lord of mine, and A god of mine..." But being in the Nominative case by itself, it isn't even a complete sentence. Exclamation points are used to disguise this.

Edit: Any simple study of a Strong's concordance will reveal the KJV is not a "word for word" translation.
 
Last edited:

Lon

Active member
Buzzard doesn't know any greek. He can't say "and the God was a word" without someone else to help him, or say the Thomas words are not vocative; which they aren't, for example. One can defend it on its hellenistic meaning. "A lord of mine, and A god of mine..." But being in the Nominative case by itself, it isn't even a complete sentence. Exclamation points are used to disguise this.
I agree with you concerning Buzzard, but this particular quote, I believe, was from LA's second link.

Even where the nominative is still formally distinguished from the vocative, there is still a tendency for the nominative to usurp the place of the vocative (a tendency observable already in Homer)....Attic used the nominative (with article) with simple substantives only in addressing inferiors...The NT (in passages translated from a Semitic language) and the LXX do not conform to these limitations, but can even say ho theos, ho patêr, etc., in which the arthrous Semitic vocative is being reproduced by the Greek nominative with article....Jn 20:28 (cf., Rev 4:11) (BDF, pp. 81-82). About sixty times in the New Testament a nominative case noun is used to designate the person being addressed. The nominative functions like a vocative....The nominative of address is usually preceded by an article (Young, p. 12). -For an Answer
Edit: Any simple study of a Strong's concordance will reveal the KJV is not a "word for word" translation.
Sorry, nope. It is. Admittedly order is changed from Greek to English in some places, but it is definitely a word for word translation wherever possible (some words are translated into several for it to be correct English syntax), as such, an English translation phrase, may represent one Greek word or vise versa, but that is yet considered word for word, nor is such the rule of thumb.
 

Omniskeptical

New member
I agree with you concerning Buzzard, but this particular quote, I believe, was from LA's second link.
Let me just say: I know who set Buzzard up to be dumb.

Sorry, nope. It is.
There is no sentence structure after the Nominatives. But it is obviously an incomplete sentence in greek. Vocative is neither singular nor plural, but it is still possible the nominatives were interjections in an incomplete sentence. Worse yet is the kai and two μου's which seperate both nouns. But I am sure scholars have made an exceptional rule for this case, which "demonstrates the deity of christ".
 

Lon

Active member
Let me just say: I know who set Buzzard up to be dumb.
:up: Hadn't even heard of him until LA brought him up.

There is no sentence structure after the Nominatives. But it is obviously an incomplete sentence in greek. Vocative is neither singular nor plural, but it is still possible the nominatives were interjections in an incomplete sentence. Worse yet is the kai and two μου's which seperate both nouns. But I am sure scholars have made an exceptional rule for this case, which "demonstrates the deity of christ".
The English is equivalent: "My Lord and My God" (both mou's and kia).
It should be no surprise to any of us that the LXX and NT would of necessity take liberty with Greek to emphasize spiritual points. We do so with English as well. It is, therefore, important as the article stated to note the # of times such was a biblical case for precedence. If you want to call that 'special pleading,' you'll have to do much better where such is a demonstrable pattern firmly established. Isn't it really a factor that your theology is driving your deductions, rather than your inductions driving your theology? At least give it the credence it deserves.

(whew, almost mispelled Creedence CCR) :)
 

Omniskeptical

New member
:up: Hadn't even heard of him until LA brought him up.


The English is equivalent: "My Lord and My God" (both mou's and kia).
It should be no surprise to any of us that the LXX and NT would of necessity take liberty with Greek to emphasize spiritual points. We do so with English as well. It is, therefore, important as the article stated to note the # of times such was a biblical case for precedence. If you want to call that 'special pleading,' you'll have to do much better where such is a demonstrable pattern firmly established. Isn't it really a factor that your theology is driving your deductions, rather than your inductions driving your theology? At least give it the credence it deserves.

(whew, almost mispelled Creedence CCR) :)
You do realize that one interjection is still two objects.
 

Lon

Active member
You do realize that one interjection is still two objects.
Greek has a good way of distinguishing if such were desired. Kia ties two ideas together here that are phrased the same with kia. The arians have given the alternative: either he was saying this to Jesus or he was exclaiming the names as surprise. To me, such is antithetical in that Jews were and are extremely careful in uttering the Name or breaking the command. It is absolutely crazy postulation! You can jump through ring after ring, and the answer is still the same: wishful thinking for only one thing: to support a supposition rather than having it drive your theology. There is no other reason to double-think this plain text.
 

godrulz

New member
Hall of Fame
You do realize that one interjection is still two objects.

Jesus is being called Lord and God. The view that says Thomas addressed Jesus as Lord and Jehovah as God is not the grammatically/theologically correct one (nor is Thomas saying something like 'Oh my God' in surprise credible...lame JW arguments).
 

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/articles/mygodjesusgod.html


My God & Jesus' God: The Inescapable Trinitarian Dilemma


Jesus was a Jew born under the Law. As a Jew he was obligated to keep the Law. He was required to abide by the words, "YHWH our God, YHWH is one." He was required to abide by the words said about YHWH his God, "there is no other but HE" just as Jesus and the Jewish scribe agreed at Mark 12:28-34. They agree the words, "the LORD is one" mean "there is no other but HE. While Trinitarians like to claim this single "HE" is the Triune God, it is impossible for this "HE" to be any other than the Father alone since Jesus is talking about HIS God, HIS Yahweh, and the God of the Jewish man Jesus was not a Trinity but his Father alone.

Trinitarians insist that you worship a different God if you do not have a three-person-God as they do. Therefore, by their own admission, they have a different God than Jesus did and Jesus' God was a different God than their God. Jesus' God was not a Trinity, a Triune being, a three-person-God. His God was a one-person-being, his Father alone. Will Trinitarians then confess that their God is a different God than Jesus' God?

Oddly enough, they implicitly do confess their God is a different God than Jesus' God. My God, for example, is exactly the same as Jesus' God. His God was the Father alone and my God is the Father alone. But since my God is not their three person God, Trinitarians insist that necessarily means I have a different God than they do.

But if I have a different God than Trinitarians do, then so did/does Jesus my Lord. My God is his Father alone and his God was, and is, his Father alone. They are identical.

What then does this tell you about the men who desire to persecute those who do not serve their God but rather serve the exact same God as Jesus?

Why would you want to have a different God than Jesus?

I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.
- Jesus my Lord


Jesus has made us to be kings and priests to His God and Father.
-John


You turned to the God from idols to serve a Living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come.
- Paul
Jesus has made his disciples to be kings and priests to who? To his God and Father. That's the God Jesus' disciples serve, the Lord's God, his Father alone, Jesus' God and Father.

Jesus served his Father alone as his only true God. He instructs his disciples that his God is their God. Yet Trinitarians claim that serving the Father alone is to have a "different God." And indeed, they will even claim that to have a different God than the Trinity means you cannot be a Christian and you will not be saved.

But Jesus had a different God than the Trinity. His God was not the Trinity but was the Father alone. Have Trinitarians then condemned Jesus for having a different God?
 

Omniskeptical

New member
Jesus is being called Lord and God. The view that says Thomas addressed Jesus as Lord and Jehovah as God is not the grammatically/theologically correct one (nor is Thomas saying something like 'Oh my God' in surprise credible...lame JW arguments).

This is what it looks like in greek --> ο Κύριός μου καὶ ο Θεός μου

It looks like an interjection and an incomplete sentence to me.
 

Omniskeptical

New member
Greek has a good way of distinguishing if such were desired. Kia ties two ideas together here that are phrased the same with kia. The arians have given the alternative: either he was saying this to Jesus or he was exclaiming the names as surprise. To me, such is antithetical in that Jews were and are extremely careful in uttering the Name or breaking the command. It is absolutely crazy postulation! You can jump through ring after ring, and the answer is still the same: wishful thinking for only one thing: to support a supposition rather than having it drive your theology. There is no other reason to double-think this plain text.
That was a waste of space.. what are you getting at by writing that drivel? You are the one double thinking the text.. reading into it what is not there, and never could be, given the way the interjection is structured.
 
Last edited:

Cross Reference

New member
That was a waste space.. what are you getting at by writing that drivel?

Indeed. Writing like that is the height of conceit. What normal person can even begin to understand would can only be understood to be, "drivel". By the time one deciphers it, he would have forgotten the question, if there was one, then would have had to re-read it a zillion times to find out if indeed there was one.
 

Omniskeptical

New member
Indeed. Writing like that is the height of conceit. What normal person can even begin to understand would can only be understood to be, "drivel". By the time one deciphers it, he would have forgotten the question, if there was one, then would have had to re-read it a zillion times to find out if indeed there was one.
And you suppose yourself to be any less conceited?
 

godrulz

New member
Hall of Fame
This is what it looks like in greek --> ο Κύριός μου καὶ ο Θεός μου

It looks like an interjection and an incomplete sentence to me.

The best grammarians, even non-trinitarians, disagree with your amateur understanding. Only cultish JWs who lack any credible scholarship might fall for this rationalization.
 

Wile E. Coyote

New member
This is what it looks like in greek --> ο Κύριός μου καὶ ο Θεός μου

It looks like an interjection and an incomplete sentence to me.
It is the nominative of address which is equivalent to the vocative. Thomas addressed Jesus saying to Him, "My Lord and my God."
 
Top