But the Athasanian Creed (a Trinitarian Creed) declares Jesus to be the Almighty God –
So likewise > the Father is Almighty> , the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty.
So i don’t think it is correct to say that option (A) forces you to choose Pentecostalism.
But the real context of Johannine theology is that > Ἰησοῦς θεός ἐστιν> .
θεός as in the θεοί of John 10:34, not as in the “Almighty” as the Athanasian Creed asserts. Also with John 20:28 we’re not dealing with “Johannine theology” per se but with finding out the contextual framework within which Thomas uttered the words Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου.
Πιστευω δη εν ἑνι θεω! “Ακουετε ω Ισραελ, ο Κυριος ο Θεος υμων, ο Κυριος εἱς εστιν!” Εγω πιστευω ο Ιησους εστιν ο Θεος αλλ’ ουκ εστιν ο Πατηρ ουδε το Αγιον το Πνευματι· Ο Πατηρ εστιν ο Θεος αλλ’ ουκ εστιν ο Ιησους ουδε το Αγιον το Πνευματι· Το Αγιον το Πνευματι εστιν ο θεος, αλλ’ ουκ εστιν ο Πατηρ ουδε ο Ιησους. Ετι ουτοι Τρια εισιν εις θεος.
Μαρκε, εχω λογον σοι· Πως συ νενικικας “Ακουετε ω Ισραελ, ο Κυριος ο Θεος υμων, ο Κυριος εἱς εστιν!”;
Ου δε θελω καταλογεις σοι, αλλα θελω γινωσκειν ὅ νομιζεις!
Feel free to translate if you like Isaac, it would be interesting to see how close I am to what I was actually thinking
To your question Isaac, I would say neither, if we were talking specifically about the context of the passage where Thomas made his statement, it appears the Thomas believed that it was in fact Jesus standing before him and that he had indeed risen from the dead.
we’re not dealing with “Johannine theology” per se
But we are, he is the Auther of the book (For the sake of the argument, if you don’t believe this please assume it) and undoubtly what he believes is gonna be in his book. I understand this is debatable, but if one sees Johns Gospel as showing Jesus as devine, then it makes perfect sense that Thomas would be calling Jesus his God.
Thanks for the permission Markos. So the question asked was Σε πιστευεις εν Υιω, Πατρι και Αγιω πνευματι;
In other words Do you believe in the Son,in the Father and in the Holy Spirit ?
Response: "Yes, especially so. Indeed, I believe in Jesus and in G-d. Truly I believe in the holy spirit, but I do not think that this [thing] is God. I believe that they are not three Gods, and he is not one, but two, Jesus and G-d the Father. And you ? What do you believe concerning these things ? What do you believe ? Either 1 or 2 or 3 ? "
Would it be correct to characterize your position as being “Binitarian” ?
Πιστευω δη εν ἑνι θεω! “Ακουετε ω Ισραελ, ο Κυριος ο Θεος υμων, ο Κυριος εἱς εστιν!” > Εγω πιστευω ο Ιησους εστιν ο Θεος αλλ’ ουκ εστιν ο Πατηρ ουδε το Αγιον το Πνευματι· Ο Πατηρ εστιν ο Θεος αλλ’ ουκ εστιν ο Ιησους ουδε το Αγιον το Πνευματι· Το Αγιον το Πνευματι εστιν ο θεος, αλλ’ ουκ εστιν ο Πατηρ ουδε ο Ιησους. Ετι ουτοι Τρια εισιν εις θεος> .
Μαρκε, εχω λογον σοι· Πως συ νενικικας “Ακουετε ω Ισραελ, ο Κυριος ο Θεος υμων, ο Κυριος εἱς εστιν!”;
Ου δε θελω καταλογεις σοι, αλλα θελω γινωσκειν ὅ νομιζεις!
Bold above is a wonderful articulation of the Trinity doctrine. I wonder why there is nothing remotely approaching such an articulation of the Triunity of God in the GNT ?
That is a very accurate translation, Isaac, of what I wrote, and yes I am a Binitarian. Although I prefer to think of myself as a monotheist with one exception. The Lord Yahweh is indeed one and there is no other god beside him. Except Jesus. I believe in two, and only two, Gods.
I understand that monotheism is an important strand in the Old Testament, although I think it is only with Rabbinic Judaism that monotheism became super-strict. Some have argued that the earlier strands of Israelite religion were more henotheistic than strictly monotheistic. I myself do not buy into this, because I reject the evolutionary approach to understanding the Bible, but there are some hints in the Old Testament that might prepare Christians for the adoption of two Gods. (One of these is the passage that Isaac mentions that Jesus mentions in John 10:34.)
Don’t get me wrong. I like the idea of monotheism. If possible, I would like to maintain it. But if I have to choose between Jesus and any doctrine, especially an Old Covenant doctrine, I go with Jesus every time. Jesus makes all things new. To adopt the Trinitarian mental gymnastics of “one God in three persons,” just in order to preserve monotheism, does not work for me. I’d rather simply say that there are two Gods, God and Jesus.
What is a god? A god is something you worship and a god is something that was not created. Jesus was not only not created, but John said that all things were created through Him. Jesus and God are clearly both Gods. And yet they are clearly distinct. The oneness Pentecostal idea, that Jesus is Yahweh, is, in my opinion, a better option than the Trinity, but it just does not hold up to the NT texts. On the other hand, the functions of Jesus and the Father overlap. In a sense they are one. Maybe they share the same spirit, what is called πνεῦμα ἅγιον. I don’t see this as a third God, just an element that maybe flows from both God and Jesus. I admit I sometimes pray to Holy Spirit (though more often I ask God or Jesus to SEND the Holy Spirit) but this is really for me a circumlocution for God and Jesus.
I do believe that Jesus is fully 100% divine. Maybe there is a sense in which Jesus is subordinate to Yahweh, but Jesus is more important in my life; He, even more so than Yahweh, is my Lord and God. If the Unitarians choose maintaining monotheism over fully embracing the full divinity over Jesus, then I of course reject this a million times more than the Trinity. But that’s not what you believe, is it Isaac? You say you are a Unitarian, but I’ve never heard you deny that Jesus is fully divine. τί καὶ τίνι πιστεύεις σύγε?
I wonder why there is nothing remotely approaching such an articulation of the Triunity of God in the GNT ?
There are some important individual elements that later were put together to form the doctrine of the Trinity. I agree it is not there, but I think one can in good conscious DERIVE it from Bible. I think it is not there because the first Christians, like Thomas, rejected their monotheism in favor of Jesus, and did not feel the need to preserve it via philosophical constructs.
Needless to say, from my perspective there is nothing wrong with believing in the Trinity.
Thanks for your response . I enjoy interacting with you as you are able to respect others’ contrary views without getting upset or excited. I am now getting a better inkling of your philosophy and though I dis-agree with it I thank you for sharing it. I hope that I have not opened the door for your persecution by openly discussing your minority view.
I do not believe in the “full Divinity” of Christ. I believe he was a man, nothing more, nothing less. To be sure he wasn’t a “mere” man,for he was without sin, for starters . So he was the greatest of men, a human being who always did his Father’s will, the son in whom a Father rejoices with all his heart.
Ok, it is now time to summarize all that has been said here:
Heresy, heresy, heresy.
Thanks for the attention.
On a more serious sidenote: Greek sometimes uses noun forms in the nominative in a vocatice sense. Thomas could have adressed Jesus in the nominative without doing something strange.
Anyhow, Jesus clearly is called God elsewhere in the NT.
The problem with this is that there is not a single instance of nominative for vocative ο Κυριος in the GNT. I think the betting average on this score is about 120 to 0.
Also, Jesus is never “clearly” called God in the GNT.
Really? You really can’t understand the meaning of this passage? Are you being serious? The syntax is simple, and these are clearly being used as vocatives, θεος is regularly used this way and in this passage the two are linked together. If they aren’t functioning as vocatives then what nominative case function are they performing? They aren’t part of a clause, there is no verb explicit or implicit, there is no adjective like in a nominal sentence. How are they functioning as nominatives and not vocatives? You are completely blinded by your theological agenda.
The nominative can be used for the vocative, not just with θεος but with any noun. You can’t say that it’s impossible for κυριος to function as a vocative. That’s pretty much what you’re asserting, so the onus probandi is on you. Cite a source that says κυριος cannot function as a vocative or you are simply in your own fantasy land.
I’ve pondered this issue deeply over the last few months , and have come to the conclusion that Thomas’ exclamation here is probably to be taken as two subjects with the rest of the sentence left omitted.
So this pretty much takes away the bogus [trinitarian] argument that with an expression like εἶπεν αὐτῷ those being referred to with the personal pronoun (αὐτῷ) are necessarily being “identified” by what follows. . As can be seen from Matthew 13:28 , although the men were addressed with the words ἔφη αὐτοῖς , they’re not even the topic of discussion, let alone being “identified.” Another instance is at Matthew 12:48 –
Again, the one being addressed ( εἶπεν αὐτῷ ) is not even the topic of interest, let alone being “identified” by the addressor. So Theodore of Mopsuestia (who attended the lectures of the Greek-speaking teacher of rhetoric Libanius) certainly knew what he was talking about when he proposed that the expression at John 20:28 was identifying the Father [in Jesus] even though it was addressed to Jesus. This is another distinctly viable understanding of the text, as I’ve already previously stated.
Hi Isaac, I know I said I’d avoid your threads, but I want to correct your misunderstanding without getting into a christological debate. No one has said “with an expression like εἶπεν αὐτῷ those being referred to with the personal pronoun (αὐτῷ) are necessarily being “identified” by what follows.” Of course that would be a bogus argument, in fact it would be ridiculous to say. Anything could follow εἶπεν αὐτῷ. No one with any knowledge of Greek would claim that whatever follows that phrase must be identified with αὐτῷ, that’s just silly. For instance, assume John asks Jim what Genesis is about and then εἶπεν αὐτῷ… and the whole book of Genesis follows word for word. Using grammar “rules” to prove things is bad anyway, context always trumps “rules” because human languages aren’t computer codes and they don’t work as neatly in reality as they do in grammar books.
The argument for John 20:28 is based upon the context. If it said ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου εν τη οικια εστιν, then it’d be quite possible that he was telling Jesus about someone else, but the context would determine that. And if the verb were plural εισιν, no one would argue against you. As it stands though, there is no predicate, and so it is not a clause. When someone says “dog!” or “John!” or “airplane!”, they are either calling that person/thing (vocative) or pointing out the person/thing to someone (nominative). You can add words to what Thomas said all you want, but no one will grant you that, and remember what Rev 22:18 says: Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπὶ ταῦτα, ἐπιθήσει ὁ Θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ· I would’ve hated being a scribe…
