John 20:28 and the Trinity

[Rosenritter]

Greetings again The distinction between God the Father and His Son the Lord Jesus Christ can be seen in the following:
Acts 2:22–36 (KJV): 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Please note that an important reference here, is that Peter quotes and expounds Psalm 110:1, where it speaks of Jesus the Son of God being invited to sit down at the right hand of the One God His Father.

Kind regards
Trevor

That doesn't establish distinction in being. The use of different roles and in the keeping some concealment of those roles for a time brings with it the use of metaphor, or "speaking in the third person."

I'll use an analogy. Imagine a scenario where the owner of a company sent a newly-hired assistant to go to one of his new factories and explain how things were to be run. The assistant has credentials in order and is chosen by the the owner with signed papers and everything. That which is not immediately revealed until the end is that the assistant is the owner, and by taking that guise he gets to see how they will react when they don't think they are being observed.

But let's but a twist into this story. At the end when the assistant identifies himself, there is one person (or even a small group) that declare that there is only one owner for the company, and they know that the owner is called Owner, or Mr. Smith, therefore this "Jason" is not the Owner. As proof they point to the signed papers from the owner authorizing Jason the Assistant to act in his behalf as his representative. Nothing makes a dent in this belief, as they always point back to the SIGNED PAPERS FROM THE OWNER identifying Jason as his assistant from when he introduced himself to the factory foreman. "See? Incontrovertible proof... " and nothing from the Owners letters or lawyers and his official statements or from Jason will convince them otherwise.

That's where we are right now. Do you at least understand why references to the promised Messiah as "my Holy One" and the like aren't being persuasive? Or why continually citing the names "Father" and "Son" fail to make your point? Concealment and metaphor are expected and thus are not those "proofs" that you think they are or want them to be.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Rosenritter,

That doesn't establish distinction in being. The use of different roles and in the keeping some concealment of those roles for a time brings with it the use of metaphor, or "speaking in the third person."
Do you at least understand why references to the promised Messiah as "my Holy One" and the like aren't being persuasive? Or why continually citing the names "Father" and "Son" fail to make your point? Concealment and metaphor are expected and thus are not those "proofs" that you think they are or want them to be.

I appreciate your attempt to explain your perspective, but I am not willing to agree with your view, neither willing to go down your path of thought on this. In response I will state my position. I believe that there is one being, One God, God the Father and he gave birth to and developed a son, the Son of God, a separate being, a man, our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus has now been exalted and given immortality and is seated at the right hand of God. He is still a man, and God the Father is still the only One God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[6days]

I believe that there is one being, One God, God the Father

Yes there is one God...That is Scriptural

and he gave birth to and developed a son

No... That is NOT scriptural

Here is what Scripture says

1.“The LORD our God, the LORD is one!” Dt 6:4 (God is one)

2. “Our Father in Heaven…” Matt. 6:9 (The Father is God)

3. “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form…” Col 2:9 (Jesus, the Son, is God)

4. “…why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?...You have not lied to man but to God!” Acts 5:3–4 (The Holy Spirit is God)

5. “I (Jesus) came from the Father…” John 16:28 (The Father is not the Son)

6. “I (Jesus) will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you forever — the Spirit of Truth.” John 14:16–17 (The Son is not the Spirit)

7. “…the Spirit of Truth who goes out from the Father…” John 15:26 (The Spirit is not the Father)

 

[john w]

Greetings again john w, I assume you are alluding to a concept that Trinitarians seek to impose on the OT in order to fit their theory. I doubt whether you have seriously considered this for yourself, but simply repeated what is generally held. I believe that the meaning of “echad” is “one”, revealing that there is One God, the Father, Yahweh. Do you really think that when Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:4, that Jesus is teaching the Trinity?
Deuteronomy 6:4–5 (KJV): 4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: 5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Mark 12:28–34 (KJV): 28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. 32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: 33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

I suggest that you have not properly considered Psalm 8:5.
Did you read the summary that is given in Barnes’ Notes, available at Bible Hub? I could quote other Commentaries if this will help.

Kind regards
Trevor

You're a moron, Trevor, not following others' points/argument. And, you're not a bible believer; thus, slower....I do not engage bible correctors, generally-only bible believers.

I suggest you get saved, Christ rejector, as that fake "Jesus" of your mind, if not God, is not the "kinsman redeemer," and is in no position to buy back, save/deliver anyone.

So there.

 

[meshak]

Yes there is one God...That is ScripturalNo... That is NOT scriptural

Here is what Scripture says

1.“The LORD our God, the LORD is one!” Dt 6:4 (God is one)

2. “Our Father in Heaven…” Matt. 6:9 (The Father is God)

3. “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form…” Col 2:9 (Jesus, the Son, is God)

4. “…why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?...You have not lied to man but to God!” Acts 5:3–4 (The Holy Spirit is God)

5. “I (Jesus) came from the Father…” John 16:28 (The Father is not the Son)

6. “I (Jesus) will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you forever — the Spirit of Truth.” John 14:16–17 (The Son is not the Spirit)

7. “…the Spirit of Truth who goes out from the Father…” John 15:26 (The Spirit is not the Father)

How do you reconcile your trinity with Jesus' word of His Father is the only true God?

I know you cannot without twisting away like you just did in above post.

 

[6days]

How do you reconcile your trinity with Jesus' word of His Father is the only true God?

I know you cannot without twisting away like you just did in above post.

John 1:1-17, Matthew 28:18, Mattthew 18:20, Hebrews 1:8, Matthew 22:43-45, Revelation 19:16, Isaiah 9:16, Colossians 1:16, Luke 7:48, Philemon 2:10... and many more.

 

[meshak]

John 1:1-17, Matthew 28:18, Mattthew 18:20, Hebrews 1:8, Matthew 22:43-45, Revelation 19:16, Isaiah 9:16, Colossians 1:16, Luke 7:48, Philemon 2:10... and many more.

You are reading all of them to harmonize with your own doctrine, not with Jesus' simple and clear statements.

 

[Hawkins]

You are reading all of them to harmonize with your own doctrine, not with Jesus' simple and clear statements.

His Trinity is a bit analog to you and your right hand. A letter can be said to be written by you or your right hand. It's thus always correct to say that "the letter is written by you", however this won't reject the saying that "your right hand is part of you".

Similarly, it's always correct to say that Jesus' Father is the only true God. This however doesn't negate the truth that Jesus is part of God's Trinity.

 

[6days]

You are reading all of them to harmonize with your own doctrine, not with Jesus' simple and clear statements.

John 10:30

 

[Rosenritter]

Greetings again Rosenritter, I appreciate your attempt to explain your perspective, but I am not willing to agree with your view, neither willing to go down your path of thought on this. In response I will state my position. I believe that there is one being, One God, God the Father and he gave birth to and developed a son, the Son of God, a separate being, a man, our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus has now been exalted and given immortality and is seated at the right hand of God. He is still a man, and God the Father is still the only One God.

Kind regards
Trevor

You're lacking evidence of the items of "separate being" and "still a man" and as such you're not going to persuade myself (or likely any others) simply by restating your belief while proving that you have not considered other lines of thought. Aside from any concealment of his purpose initially, the New Testament states that Jesus is our Lord and Creator, the Old Testament links into the New Testament with confirmation that Jesus is the same LORD, and Jesus himself identifies himself with the unique titles that are only to identify the LORD.

So the standard I am using is if in doubt, trust what God tells us directly rather than deductions based on our own theories of metaphysics. But adding to this, I have never said that I am not willing to follow your path of thought.

 

[Rosenritter]

His Trinity is a bit analog to you and your right hand. A letter can be said to be written by you or your right hand. It's thus always correct to say that "the letter is written by you", however this won't reject the saying that "your right hand is part of you".

Similarly, it's always correct to say that Jesus' Father is the only true God. This however doesn't negate the truth that Jesus is part of God's Trinity.

I appreciate your analogy and have used it myself, but for the record that is not Trinity doctrine. 6days was stating Trinity doctrine more correctly with his insistence that "The Son is NOT the Father" and so on and so forth (which is one of the reasons why it breaks.)

 

[meshak]

John 10:30

Is that the best you got?

Of course They are one in unity.

Jesus does everything what His Father commands Him to do.


Do you know that Jesus says His Father is His God and His followers His brethren, His God is our God also?.

You conveniently dismiss all Jesus' clear statements.

sad friend.

 

[Rosenritter]

Is that the best you got?

Of course They are one in unity.

Jesus does everything what His Father commands Him to do.


Do you know that Jesus says His Father is His God and His followers His brethren, His God is our God also?.

You conveniently dismiss all Jesus' clear statements.

sad friend.

The context shows that the meaning of the statement was not mere unity.

John 10:30-33 KJV
(30) I and my Father are one.
(31) Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
(32) Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
(33) The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings 6days,

Yes there is one God...That is Scriptural. No... That is NOT scriptural
Here is what Scripture says
1.“The LORD our God, the LORD is one!” Dt 6:4 (God is one)
2. “Our Father in Heaven…” Matt. 6:9 (The Father is God)

Yes, I agree with items 1 and 2.

3. “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form…” Col 2:9 (Jesus, the Son, is God)

No, Jesus is the Son of God. The fullness that was revealed in Jesus was the moral glory John 1:14, Ephesians 4:10,13. There are many Scriptures that teach that Jesus is the Son of God including the detailed explanation by Jesus of the following which most Trinitarians ignore:

John 10:30

John 10:30-36 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Rosenritter,

You're lacking evidence of the items of "separate being" and "still a man" and as such you're not going to persuade myself (or likely any others) simply by restating your belief while proving that you have not considered other lines of thought. Aside from any concealment of his purpose initially, the New Testament states that Jesus is our Lord and Creator, the Old Testament links into the New Testament with confirmation that Jesus is the same LORD, and Jesus himself identifies himself with the unique titles that are only to identify the LORD.

So the standard I am using is if in doubt, trust what God tells us directly rather than deductions based on our own theories of metaphysics. But adding to this, I have never said that I am not willing to follow your path of thought.

We most probably are in a different environment and thought process, and I am not particularly interested in following additional reasoning that you used, as the situation is difficult enough as it is. You used the word “owner” and this reminds me of the Parable of the Husbandman or Landowner in Matthew 21:33-41 where God the Father is the owner Matthew 21:40 and Jesus the Son of God is the heir Matthew 21:37-39.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[meshak]

The context shows that the meaning of the statement was not mere unity.

John 10:30-33 KJV
(30) I and my Father are one.
(31) Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
(32) Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
(33) The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

so you take Pharisees' word over Jesus' word?

sad.

 

[Rosenritter]

Greetings 6days, Yes, I agree with items 1 and 2. No, Jesus is the Son of God. The fullness that was revealed in Jesus was the moral glory John 1:14, Ephesians 4:10,13. There are many Scriptures that teach that Jesus is the Son of God including the detailed explanation by Jesus of the following which most Trinitarians ignore:
John 10:30-36 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Kind regards
Trevor

Psalm 82 (and other passages) should define "Son of God" rather than the argument that his usage of "Son of God" means "not God." The Psalm to which he refers to identify himself as the Son of God places him as the Judge of all men that will inherit the earth.

John 5:22 KJV
(22) For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

Psalms 82:8 KJV
(8) Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Ecclesiastes 3:17 KJV
(17) I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.

If you are trying to defend your stance and belief as rational, then you need to why the argument that "it says the Son of God" is invalid. Right now you are invoking circular logic, using the existence of the phrase "Son of God" as its own proof that "Son of God" means "not God." Or in other words, you are assigning your own meaning rather than letting the bible define its meaning.

 

[Rosenritter]

Greetings again Rosenritter, We most probably are in a different environment and thought process, and I am not particularly interested in following additional reasoning that you used, as the situation is difficult enough as it is. You used the word “owner” and this reminds me of the Parable of the Husbandman or Landowner in Matthew 21:33-41 where God the Father is the owner Matthew 21:40 and Jesus the Son of God is the heir Matthew 21:37-39.

Kind regards
Trevor

Yes, that is the applicable parable, and it brings an important aspect of the "Father" and "Son" metaphor to light. The caretakers of the vineyard knew that in a future day the current son would become the current owner. That's why they killed him, hoping that there would be none to inherit the vineyard otherwise.

In Hebrew culture, the son that represented his father's interests didn't say a son forever. He inherited the house and all its things and became the new master of the house. Jesus didn't say he was merely a servant, he said he was the Son, and that he had the same rights and privileges as the Father, even including eternal life of himself.

Hebrews 1:4-6 KJV
(4) Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
(5) For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
(6) And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

The begotten son receives the inheritance of the estate and becomes the new master. For Jesus to inherit the estate of heaven means that he is acknowledged as its rightful ruler. But if this is not the case then God did a terrible job of choosing the terms and analogies and parables to be used!

 

[Rosenritter]

so you take Pharisees' word over Jesus' word?

sad.

Jesus didn't deny the charge at all, he threw fuel on the fire. Show me where Jesus ever says "I am not God" then. Because he identified himself as the LORD four times in Revelation, and the LORD identifies himself as the one who is pierced on the cross in the Old Testament.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Rosenritter,

Psalm 82 (and other passages) should define "Son of God" rather than the argument that his usage of "Son of God" means "not God." The Psalm to which he refers to identify himself as the Son of God places him as the Judge of all men that will inherit the earth.
John 5:22 KJV For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
Psalms 82:8 KJV Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
Ecclesiastes 3:17 KJV I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.

If you are trying to defend your stance and belief as rational, then you need to why the argument that "it says the Son of God" is invalid. Right now you are invoking circular logic, using the existence of the phrase "Son of God" as its own proof that "Son of God" means "not God." Or in other words, you are assigning your own meaning rather than letting the bible define its meaning.

Jesus didn't deny the charge at all, he threw fuel on the fire. Show me where Jesus ever says "I am not God" then. Because he identified himself as the LORD four times in Revelation, and the LORD identifies himself as the one who is pierced on the cross in the Old Testament.

I suggest that the term “The Son of God” is not equivalent to “God” and this is part of Jesus’ summary in John 10:36 in answer to their false accusation, being an explanation of John 10:30 which they misunderstood. Another part of his answer is to quote Psalm 82:6 where the Judges are called “gods” or “Elohim”. I do not know if you have fully worked through what Jesus is saying, when he refers to this reference to the Judges, but a comparison of Exodus 21:6 KJV "judges" and some other modern translations which have "God" here, but this shows that the Judges were addressed as “Elohim”. I agree with Meshak, you seem to be aligning yourself with the Pharisees’ wrong accusation.

Yes, that is the applicable parable, and it brings an important aspect of the "Father" and "Son" metaphor to light. The caretakers of the vineyard knew that in a future day the current son would become the current owner. That's why they killed him, hoping that there would be none to inherit the vineyard otherwise.

In Hebrew culture, the son that represented his father's interests didn't say a son forever. He inherited the house and all its things and became the new master of the house. Jesus didn't say he was merely a servant, he said he was the Son, and that he had the same rights and privileges as the Father, even including eternal life of himself.

The begotten son receives the inheritance of the estate and becomes the new master. For Jesus to inherit the estate of heaven means that he is acknowledged as its rightful ruler. But if this is not the case then God did a terrible job of choosing the terms and analogies and parables to be used!

Jesus is the heir as he has been exalted to be both Lord and Christ. He is the Son of God. Jesus is the Lord who takes over where Adam failed Psalm 8:4-6.

Kind regards
Trevor