Tim: What about some of your best alleged counterclaims.  That Jesus said "My Father is greater that I" (Jn 14:28); Jesus claimed ignorance of the time of his second coming (Mk 13:32); Jesus said that neither he nor anyone else is "good" except God alone (Mk 10:18); Jesus prayed on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mk 15:34). On closer examination none of these passages is contradictory with Jesus' evident claims to Deity just discussed.  The Father was greater than Jesus - for Jesus in the incarnation was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death.  The Son also occupies lesser office than the Father.  His position is subordinate - but his nature is not.  You cannot conclude that just because the Father is positionally higher than the Son that therefore they are not one in nature.  This does not follow.  I am in a superior positon to my wife and kids by virtue of the divine decree that the man is the head of the home and the wife is to be submissive in all things - she is the weaker vessel but Paul catagorically states that "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave nor free, there is no longer male nor female; for you are all one in Christ" (Gal 3:28).  So, while this analogy is not a one to one correspondence -  none of the relationships are a Trinity - or two natures in one person - I think that the POINT I'm trying to make is clear - subordination in no way ever implies or leads to inferiority.  This is the point people are trying to make when using the president of the united states example - between MEIZON AND KRITTON.  The example you give in "Lies that Walter Martin Told Me" does not stand.  1 Jn 5:9 does not invalidate the point I'm trying to make between MEIZON AND KRITTON - the text says nothing to the effect that the tetimony of God is not better than man's.  It only says that God's testimony is Greater than man's - it comes from a higher office - and therefore deserve the respect and acceptence do it.  It is certainly true that God's testimony is also Better than man's for God posessess perfectness and total understanding - but the text here in 1 Jn 5:9 is not saying that.  The Greek here says greater - not better - but you cannot conclude that distiction between the words evaporates because the sentence does not say one or the other or both.  Your putting unnecessary stress on the text.  You are assuming falsely.

Heinz: Am I now? The point that you are trying to make above is kind of confusing, so let us take it from Ron Rhodes' perspective. In speaking of Heb. 1:4, Rhodes says, "He is higher than the angels in His very nature." Italics His
But what does the entire text say? "as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they". So Jesus had inherited a more excellent name (or Title/Williams), not a nature. In the Grimm-Thayer Lexicon, it says of John 14:28 that MEIZON "is used of those who surpass others-either in nature and power, as God"p. 395 Italics mine
On Heb 1:4, this same lexicon tells us that KREITTON means "more excellent." p. 359 See also BAGD page 449. So, lexically speaking, Rhodes is wrong. I find it amazing how normal language seems to change once a Trinitarian gets a hold of it. All of a sudden the words "greater",  "subordinate", "one" and "Son" do not have the same meaning as has come to be understood in dictionaries.
Since you touched on the headship issue, let me expand on it, Ron Rhodes has done. "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." 1 Corinthians 11:3
We know that God is not under the authority of anyone. Dan 4:35, 1 Chron 29:11 (which begs the question, "How can Jesus be God?") Ron Rhodes makes the following statement, "why does the Watchtower teach that the Fathers headship over Christ mean that Christ is inferior in nature?" p. 140,141
The Watchtower actually does not teach that this scripture has anything to do with with the nature of Christ and Jehovah. The BAGD (p. 430) says that the greek word KEPHALE, as used in 1 Cor 11:3 is used  "to denote superior rank." So Jesus and God are not equal in authority, just as the man is not equal to Christ in authority. The scripture says just exactly what we think it says. Again, thank you for bringing the Holy Spirit into this discussion;)
Nowhere does the Bible speak of the 2 natures of Christ, yet I know it is important to your theology. But you are relying too much on a man-made definition of God.
 

Tim: Besides, Jesus claimed equality with God in essense (Jn 5:18 - 10:30); it was only his function as Son that he was less than the Father.  Next, Jesus was ignorant of the time of his coming again as man, just as he was ignorant of whether the fig tree had fruit (Matt. 21:19).  As man, Jesus tired, hungered, and thirsted; but as God he never slumbered nor slept (Ps. 121:4).  Jesus the person possesed two distinc natures: one divine by nature by which he knew all things [which by the way he limited the indendent use of it while on earth - but restored it to himself after the resurrection when he resumed the glory he Had with the Father before Time Space Matter and Energy began], and one human which was finite in knowledge and grew in wisdom.  Since you have a copy of Rhodes' book, please read the section on Philps 2:6-9 on pp. 148-151.  This is a well written section of his book and demands you to refute any parts of the issues that you disagree with.  This one fundamental passage in perhaps the greatest stumbling block for JWs - there general lack of understanding especially of v. 6 where the Greek READS : WHO NEVER CEASING TO EXIST in the form of God.  The participle is in the present tense - you must deal with this FACT Heinz.  The present participle denotes continuous never ceasing action.

Heinz: As regards Phil 2:6, I cannot find a commentary or an interlinear that reads like the example you provided above, and I certainly can't find that in Rhodes' favorite, the NASB. There are of course some paraphrases that touch on it. But most references are unsure of how to translate it. "This verse has been the subject of much controversy" Adams Commentary. But if you subscribe to the renderings in the TEV and the NCV, "who always had the nature of God, then I really have to ask this...when Jesus was speaking thus in John 14:28 "The Father is Greater than I", how are we to know if he is speaking from his divine nature or his human nature. If he still had his divine nature while he had his human nature, why doesn't the Bible differentiate between the 2 natures, especially in statements where he expresses his inferiority to the Father. And since Jesus is the only member of your divine triumvirate that possesses 2 natures, doesn't that really make them a Quadrinity?
Now let us see what Jesus really said at John 5:18; 10:30. The Jews had no problem accepting a divine LOGOS, "The LOGOS served Greek Jews as the bridge to the remote, transcendent God in a way comparable to that served by angels in the thought of Palestine Jews." So where would the Jews object? Speaking of the term "Son of God", We Jews and Jesus  by Samuel Sandmel states, "To Jews this term, if used figuratively, would have raised no objection, for it is a frequent phrase in the Tanak;... If used literally or quasi-literally, Jews would have objected, and especially so limiting the sonship to Jesus." pp. 38, 41 , 42 So we have here a Jewish mindset of accepting the LOGOS of God on par with an angel, we also have "Son of God" as a term used in the Tanak of angels and even the Jewish nation, but the objection was the exclusivity of the Son in relation to Jehovah. Could there be some jealousy here? Hurtado also points out in Pre-Jewish Opposition to Christ-Devotion "Although it was acceptable to exalt a great figure of the past recognized by the Jewish tradition, such as Moses, to give equivalent treatment to Jesus, a figure of their own time who was regarded by some as a false teacher and who did not enjoy broad respect outside the circle of his followers, would have seemed silly and offensive, all the more so since these followers even put Jesus above the great figures of Israel's past." p.36
Perhaps this is why the Jews also said he was a Samaritan, he was a demon, and he had a demon at Matt 12:24, John 7:20; 8:48; 10:20.
Another point that we can allow is that the gospel writers gave a less than favorable view of the Jews, especially John. Gerald  Borchert also observes that "It has been stated by scholars, as J.A.T. Robinson has noted, that 'John is the most anti-Jewish of the four [Gospels].' "
But Borchert goes on to point out that "The reason that I would agree with Robinson in resisting the charge of anti-Semiticism against John is multidimensional, but several facts can be stated here in brief . . . The stern polemic in chaps. 5-11, therefore . . . as I have argued at length in the commentary, is not basically a battle waged against all Jews by outsiders but a battle by Jews against an institutional Judaism that had rigidly defined its borders to exclude Jesus, as the Messiah, and his followers" (_John_ (NAC). Gerald Borchert, P. 71-73. Cf. 81 also).
 
 

Tim: Just like when the Bible tells us to "be filled with the HS."  This "filled" is also a present participle - "Never stop being filled by the HS" the verse could be translated.

Heinz: Are you saying that we should "Never stop being filled by the HS" i.e. God? Are then also part of this Triune God? Since you look for similar expressions between the Jesus and Jehovah to prove a 3-way God is true (which is really bitheism isn't it?), tell me where the Son and the Father can both be poured out just like your 3rd person of the trinity (Acts 2:17,18). The Scriptures indicate that the H.S. is inferior to the Father, subservient and obedient in all things; it can speak nothing of itself (Jn 16:13). Indicating a  position of subordination, it is promised, sent
(Jn.14:26; 15:26), and given (Jn.11:13; 14:16). But it does nothing of or on it’s own.

For instance, some texts say that the spirit "spoke," but other passages make clear that this was done through angels or humans. (Acts 4:24, 25; 28:25; Matt. 10:19, 20; compare Acts 20:23 with Acts 21:10, 11.)

"The majority of NT texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God. When a quasi-personal activity is ascribed to God's spirit, e.g., speaking, hindering, desiring, dwelling (Acts 8.29; 16.7;
Rom 8.9), one is not justified in concluding immediately that in these passages God's spirit is regarded as a Person; the same expressions are used also in regard to rhetorically personified things or abstract ideas (see Rom 8.6; 7.17).--“New Catholic Encyclopedia” (Vol. 13, p. 575)
 
 

Tim: So, hear we have a certain statement to the eternality of the Son.  Next, upon careful examination Jesus did not deny that he was good or that he was God to the rich young ruler [do you think Jesus is absolutely good, Heinz, the kind of good that he was talking about in this passage - what are the consequences of answering yes to this question - what about answering no to this question].  The bracketed question is key - you are stuck here my friend.  Jesus was saying to the rich young ruler, "Do you realize what you are saying?  Are you calling me God?"  Jesus' reply left only two alternatives:  either he was good and God or else he was bad and only human - which of these two do you think friend?

Heinz: "And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit
eternal life?  And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, [even] God.(Luke 18:19) Now why did Jesus say this? The Bible clearly shows that others are called Good(Tit 2:3, Ro 5:7). Vine's Expository Dictionary also gives a list of scriptures where it applies to "certain persons". But it also refers to God as "essentialy, absolutely and consummately good".  It is you that is putting unnecessary an strain on the word.
Certainly if imperfect men could be called "good", Jesus would qualify even more so as such. Nor would he object to the term "teacher"; he accepted that designation. (John 13:13) Then why did he answer this young man as he did? It seems that the rabbis of Jewry affected this title, which would explain Christ's rejection of it. When this ruler addressed him thus it amounted to classing him with the rabbis. Jesus wanted no rabbinical titles, and by this rebuke Jesus showed the impropriety of using such titles. (Job 32:21, 22; Matt. 23:7-10) Christ had no objections to being properly identified as the teacher or master or leader, as he said it was well that they called him such, but when designations were linked in a title-setting commonly used to address rabbis in a flattering way he did protest. He drove the point home forcefully by taking the extreme and highest view of the matter, spotlighting Jehovah God as the one deserving of such title. Incidentally, this shows Jehovah no part of the trinity with two others equal with him, and trinitarian attempts to offset this by referring to Matthew's wording of this meeting do not erase the two accounts by Mark and Luke.-Matt. 19:16, 17.
That the rich ruler was using "Good Teacher" as a formalistic title rather than as expressing his honest conviction concerning Jesus is shown by his rejection of Jesus' advice. Apparently he did not consider Jesus such a good teacher in reality, for he went off without following Christ's counsel. He deserved the rebuke he recieved.
 

Tim: Next, Jesus's examples of God talking to God (or, better, one Person of the Godhead speaking to another person of the Godhead) are not strang to the Bible.  Ps. 110:1, "The LORD said unto my Lord, sith thou at my right hand..."  Likewise, in the OT the LORD sometimes speaks to the Angel of the Lord (cf. Zech 1:12) who also is Deity (cf. Ex. 3:2 f.; Judges 13:15 f.).  These so-called counter claims for Deity turn out to be not only completely congruous with the uniform claim of Christ to be equal with God, but in at least one case a closer examination of them evidences a convert claim to Deity.

Heinz: You are using a Lawyers device here. You are taking my arguments and trying to use them to your end. But can you really do that? Ps 110:1 is a mistranslation, but rather should read, "Jehovah said to my Lord."(ASV, Jerusalem Bible etc) Regarding the use of the word LORD here, the Jerusalem Bible calls it a tautology. As to it being "congruous", are you saying that the angels also represent a Trinity with God. How else can it correspond to your view of Deity? All it shows is that Jesus  represented the invisible God (John 1:18 1Tim 2:5), just like the angels (Ex 3:2) and the prophets of old (Heb 1:1-3).
 

Tim: THE CLAIM OF JESUS' DISCIPLES THAT HE WAS GOD
  It is one thing for a first century Jew to claim to be God, but it is quite another to get monotheistic Jews to believe it.  Both Jesus and the diciples knew the Jewish Shema very well: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Mk 12:29).  Paul stated the Jewish belief well when he wrote, "For although there are many so-called gods in heaven or on earth...yet for us there is one God..." ( 1 Cor. 8:5-6).  Both polytheism and idolatry were abhorrent to a Jew, and yet these first century Jewish diciples of Jesus found it necessary to atribute Deity to Jesus of Nazareth in many ways.

Heinz: My Thayers attributes the "For though there be that are called gods" in 1 Corinthians to angels. This is interesting, but more than likely Paul was referring to the myriads of pagan gods that monotheistic Christianity had to be distinguished from. I notice that you cut part of your quotation off...let me finish it for you, "yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him." So it is the Father alone that we view as the One God. This is in keeping with Paul's letters. "You simply simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the Bible. St Paul has the highest view of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself explicitly claim to be the second person of the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly Father." -- For Christ's Sake by Tom Harpur (Anglican Priest).
 

Tim: JESUS WAS GIVEN THE NAMES OF DEITY
    John called Jesus First and Last in Rev. 1:17 - a name reserved for Jehovah alone (Isa. 44:6; 41:4; 48:12).  Now as I recall - ah yes - here is your letter that responded to this claim.  You wrote "It is true that when the angel speaks for Christ, at Rev. 1:17 (NWT), he states:'I am the First and the Last.'  But a check of the context shows this 'First and Last' was with definite limitations, was relative to just the matter of Christ Jesus' death and resurrection, as verse 18 shows.  Christ was the First one raised in the first resurrection, and the last one who will be raised directly by Jehovah God.  Others who follow in that resurrection will be raised by God through Christ."  This is terrible eisogesis and a complete misrepresentation of the text.  Verse 18 DOES NOT SPEAK ABOUT THE KIND OF FIRST AND LAST IN V 17, rather V 18 IDENTIFIES THE ONE WHO CLAIMS A TITILE RESERVED ONLY FOR DEITY.  Look at it this way:  John's response to the vision was to fall at the feet of Christ as though dead.  Similar responses are found in Josh. 5:14; Ezek. 1:28; Dan 8:17; 10:15; Matt. 17:6; Acts 26:14; and 1 Enoch 14:14.  But to call the response "sterotyped behavior in such apocolyptic trances" [Moffat] would incorrectly imply that John was playing out a role rather than experiencing a supernatural phenomenon of such magnitude that to stand as an equal would be tantamount to blasphemy.  It could even lead to death (cf. the OT belief that for a sinful person to see God was to die; Exod. 19:21; 33:20; Judg 6:22-23).

Heinz: There is no need to scream Tim. I had warned you about getting too emotional. As we have seen above, a "falling to the ground" happened also to the angel of Jehovah in Judges. There is no reason to suspect that the Angel must be Jehovah himself. This is where trinitarians again change the meanings of words to fit their theology. Did it ever occur to you that an Angel might just mean angel? Are only "sinful" people hindered from seeing God? No! "No man may see me and live", "No man hath seen God at any time" (Ex 33:20, Jn 1:18). As we have seen above, the
bible repeats over and over again the invisibility of God. Judges does say that you will not die, but then the context shows that it was an angel. Now let us examine what it is I said: It is true that when the angel speaks for Christ, at Revelation 1:17 (NWT), he states: "I am the First and the Last." But a check of the context shows this "First and Last" was with definite limitations, was relative to just the matter of Christ Jesus' death and resurrection, as verse 18 shows. Christ was the first one raised in the first resurrection, and the last one that will be raised directly by Jehovah God. Others who follow in that resurrection will be raised by God through Christ. (John 6:40; 1 Cor. 6:14) In fact, this limitation is also shown that the Alexandrinus Codex used the word FIRSTBORN here. Christ was the firstfruits of those asleep in death. (1 Cor. 15:20) When "First and Last" is again applied to Christ Jesus, at Revelation 2:8, note that again it is with respect to death and resurrection. But when it speaks thus of Jehovah no limitation is set on the meaning. I suspect it is because of this limitation that made some unscrupulous scribe add the words Alpha and Omega at Rev 1:11. The Good News Bible inserts the name Jesus at Rev 22:12 to make it appear that Jesus is again the Alpha and Omega. So you see, they can only make Jesus the Alpha and Omega if they distort scripture to do so.
Incidentally, Hebrews 3:1 calls Jesus an APOSTLE, whereas elsewhere in the Bible it refers to some of his followers. Does that make them the same person or equal because the share the same title? Of course not." This is not poor exegesis. Why? Let us take a look?  "I am the first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead" Rev 1:17,18 "These things saith the first and the last, who was dead, and lived [again]" Rev. 2:8 "Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead" Rev 1:5 See also Romans 14:9 and Col 1:18. Can you really believe that God can die? I cannot. Hab 1:12, (before the scribal changes/ Tiqqune Sopherim) reads, "Art not thou from everlasting, O Jehovah my God, my Holy One? you do not die." see also New Jerusalem Bible. I believe that almighty God cannot be confined by his own creation. Since God created life, and death is a by-product of life, this would be included. The bible never speaks of only Jesus' human-self/human nature/second nature dying. This is a 5th century Cappadocian thought read back into the scriptures. As one Catholic apologist puts it, "The Bible does not anywhere  use the word Trinity or define the nature of the Triune God.  Rather,  the use of the word "Trinity" and the definition of the Triune God are  part of the Tradition of the Catholic Church not found directly in  Scripture.  This is one major reason why the Tradition of the Church is necessary to fully comprehend the message of Christ." Are you a Catholic in drag Tim?
 

Tim: Further in this section, both Jesus and Jehovah are viewed as the author of eternal words (cf. Matt. 24:35 and Isa. 40:8).

Heinz: Jesus is the spokesman for God, the Word OF God. "And I know that his commandment is life eternal: the things therefore which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak. John 12:50 Not a TRIUNE relationship.
 

Tim: The Psalmist wrote, "Jehovah is my light" (27:1) but John claimed that Jesus was the "true Light" (Jn 1:9).

Heinz: Jesus said of his followers, "Ye are the light of the world." Mt 5:14
Two scriptures later he says, "Even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. "After all, Jesus is the "the true light, which lighteth every man, coming into the world." Jn 1:9 All, like Jesus, will glorify the Father. Not a TRIUNE relationship.
 

Tim: Likewise, "Jehovah is out rock" is a common appellation of God in the OT (see Ps. 18:2; 95:1), but the diciples call Jesus their "rock" (1 Cor 10:4 or "stone" (1 Peter 2:6-8).  Jehovah was also a husband or "bridegroom" to Israel (Hos. 2:16; Is. 62:5), which is how the NT relates Christ to his church (Eph. 5:28-33; Rev. 21:2).  "Jehovah is my shepherd," David wrote and Peter called Christ "the chief shepherd" (1 Peter 5:4), ......

Heinz: Perhaps the following might help you: "There is none holy as Jehovah; For there is none besides thee, Neither is there any rock like our God." We know that there are other holy ones mentioned in the Bible, but they do not compare to the archetype, Jehovah. Many titles are shared by others, but it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called "king of kings" (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus' disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called "the light of the world." (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) Isaiah 43:10 says, "I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no saviour", but yet there were other saviours (see Judg. 3:9 and 15). Note that Othniel and Ehud were raised up by Jehovah God as saviors. They were merely the agents of the great Savior, God. Now look at Jude 25, "to the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord. If God is represented THROUGH Jesus, does it not make sense to refer to them both as Saviour. After all, isn't this what Jesus' name means?
I will let my friend Kazz explain the rest for me:
"Now let us consider how God accomplished his will, including our salvation, through his
son, using him as his agent, by focusing on the following texts:
Acts 2:22,23 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Naz·a·rene', a man publicly shown by God to YOU through powerful works and portents and signs that God did through him in YOUR midst, just as YOU yourselves know, this [man], as one delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, YOU fastened to a stake by the hand of lawless men and did away with."
The above verse shows that Jehovah showed great signs and portents by using his agent
Jesus Christ, for it was "through him" (Christ) that these portents were demonstrated.
Acts 15:12
At that the entire multitude became silent, and they began to listen to Bar'na·bas and
Paul relate the many signs and portents that God did through them among the nations.
Acts 19:11,12
And God kept performing extraordinary works of power through the hands of Paul, 12
so that even cloths and aprons were borne from his body to the ailing people, and the diseases left them, and the wicked spirits came out.
These two verses show that God used Barnabas and Paul as his agents to relate "many
signs and portents", and "extraordinary works of power," for he did these signs "through them". These verses are quoted tofurther show how Jehovah uses agents to accomplish his will.
Romans 1:4,5
but who with power was declared God's Son according to the spirit of holiness by means of resurrection from the dead--yes, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we received undeserved kindnessand an apostleship in order that there might be obedience of faith among all the nations respecting his name...
This verse shows that Christ is the agent "through whom" undeserved kindness has been
demonstrated.
Romans 2:16
This will be in the day when God through Christ Jesus judges the secret things of
mankind, according to the good news I declare.
This account shows that God is a judge, and that he judges through Christ Jesus; again,
Jehovah is the source of judgment while Christ is the agent used to judge.
Romans 5:1,2
Therefore, now that we have been declared righteous as a result of faith, let us enjoy
peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have gained our approach by faith into this undeserved kindness in which we now stand; and let us exult, based on hope of the glory of God.
Romans 5:8-11
But God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died
for us. Much more, therefore, since we have been declared righteous now by his blood, shall we be saved through him from wrath.
For if, when we were enemies, we became reconciled to God through the death of his
Son, much more, now that we have become reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11 And not only that, but we are also exulting in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Can there be any clearer statement than that which is quoted above? We are saved
through Christ, through his death and subsequent resurrection to life, and it is through Christ that we become reconciled to God.
Romans 7:25
Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So, then, with [my] mind I myself am a slave to God's law, but with [my] flesh to sin's law.
The above is quoted to demonstrate that, since our life and salvation are attained through
Christ, so our gratitude should be expressed to God through Christ. In this case we are the source of gratitude, while Christ is the agent through whom our gratitude is expressed to God.
1Corn 8:4-6
For even though there are those who are called "gods," whether in heaven or on earth,
just as there are many "gods" and many "lords," 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.
Did you notice the wording of the above verses? Jehovah is the source of "all things",
while Jesus is the agent through whom all things are (or came about).
1 Corn 15:54-57
"Death, where is your victory? Death, where is your sting?" 56 The sting producing
death is sin, but the power for sin is the Law. 57 But thanks to God, for he gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!
Here we see that God is the source, while Jesus is the agent through whom we can gain
victory over death by putting faith in his ransom sacrifice.
2 Corn 1:3-5
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of tender mercies
and the God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort those in any sort of tribulation through the comfort with which we ourselves are being comforted by God. For just as the sufferings for the Christ abound in us, so the comfort we get also abounds through the Christ. You will notice above that, not only is the Father the God of Jesus, but he is the God of comfort, and that it is through Jesus that God allows his comfort to abound in us.
2 Corn 5:18,19
But all things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us
the ministry of the reconciliation, namely, that God was by means of Christ reconciling a world to himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses, and he committed the word of the reconciliation to us.
This verse shows, once again, that we can be reconciled to God through Christ, for it is
by means of Christ that God reconciles a world to himself.
Ep 1:3-7
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for he has blessed us with
every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in union with Christ, 4 just as he chose us in union with him before the founding of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love. For he foreordained us to the adoption through Jesus Christ as sons to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, in praise of his glorious undeserved kindness which he kindly conferred upon us by means of [his] loved one. By means of him we have the release
by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of [our] trespasses, according to the riches of his undeserved kindness.
Here again the Father is called the God of Jesus Christ. Also, it shows that the
undeserved kindness of God is conferred upon us by means of his loved one (Christ), and
that it is by means of him that we the release by ransom.
Ep 2:13-18
And he came and declared the good news of peace to YOU, the ones far off, and peace
to those near, because through him we, both peoples, have the approach to the Father by one spirit. This reiterates that we have gained the approach to the Father through Christ.
1 Thess 5:6-11
So, then, let us not sleep on as the rest do, but let us stay awake and keep our senses. 7
For those who sleep are accustomed to sleep at night, and those who get drunk are usually drunk at night. But as for us who belong to the day, let us keep our senses and have on the breastplate of faith and love and as a helmet the hope of salvation; because God assigned us, not to wrath, but to the acquiring of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. He died for us, that, whether we stay awake or are asleep, we should live together with him. Therefore keep comforting one another and building one another up, just as YOU are in fact doing.
This verse clearly shows that we gain salvation from God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jehovah is shown here to be the source of salvation, making him our savior, and Jesus is the agent of our salvation, making him our savior.
2 Tim 4:16-18
In my first defense no one came to my side, but they all proceeded to forsake me--may
it not be put to their account- 17 but the Lord stood near me and infused power into me, that through me the preaching might be fully accomplished and all the nations might hear it; and I was delivered from the lion's mouth. The Lord will deliver me from every wicked work and will save [me] for his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.
The above is quoted to reiterate that Christ is not the only one through whom God
accomplishes his will, for it was through Paul that the preaching was fully accomplished.
Hebrews 1:1-4
God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, 2has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. 3 He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat
down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places. 4 So he has become better than the
angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.
Just as God used prophets to relate his sayings to mankind, he likewise used his son, for it
says that he spoke to us by "means of a son."
You will also notice that God appointed his son as heir of all things, and that he made all things through his son. Certainly if Christ were God Almighty he would not need to be appointed as heir. As a side note, you will notice that the son "became" better than the angels. Certainly if Jesus were both totally God and totally man he would not have had to become better then the angels, for that superior status would have been automatically attached to his supposed "divine nature".
Hebrews 7:18-25
Consequently he is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead for them.
Heb 13:15,16
Through him let us always offer to God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips
which make public declaration to his name. Moreover, do not forget the doing of good and the sharing of things with others, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.
1 John 4:9,10
By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his
only-begotten Son into the world that we might gain life through him. 10 The love is in this respect, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent forth his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins.
Rev 1:1-3
A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that
must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave John, who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, even to all the things he saw. These last four verses were added just for emphasis; however, there is an interesting side point that can be gleaned from Rev 1:1. Notice that God gave Christ a revelation, which is "a disclosure of truth, instruction, concerning divine things before unknown" (see Grimm-Thayer, 62). Obviously, even in heaven, Jesus has limited knowledge, which contradicts the notion that he is a co-equal member of the Godhead. This also emphasizes that Jehovah is the source of all knowledge and Jesus is the channel through whom knowledge appropriate for our edification is dispensed.
So the clear teaching of Scripture shows that God is the author and Christ the agent of
our salvation. Jehovah performed powerful works, signs and portents through his son; he created all things through his son; he demonstrates undeserved kindness to us, and comforts us through his son; he effected our released from sin and offers us victory over death through his son; and it is through his son that he will ultimately judge all of mankind, and reconcile all things to himself. May we, in return,show our gratitude and praise to God through his son.
End of Excerpt"
 

Tim: JESUS WAS GIVEN POWERS POSSESSED ONLY BY GOD
The diciples of Christ not only gave him the titles of Jehovah or Deity but the also attributed to him powers that only God
possesses.  The NT writers declare that Jesus raised the dead (Jn 5, 11), and yet the OT declares, "Jehovah Killeth, and maketh alive" ( 1 Sam 2:6; cf. Deut. 32:39).  Isaiah pronounced Jehovah as "the everlasting God...the Creator of the ends of the earth" (4:9) and Jerimiah clalled him the "former of all things" (10:16); the NT writers speak of all things being created through Christ (Jn 1:2; Col 1:16).  Likewise, for the Jews "who can forgive sins but God alone?"; and yet without hesitation the NT writers attribute this power to Jesus (acts 5:31; 13:38).  Such attribution should removed all reasonable doubt as to whether they believed in the Deity of Christ.

Heinz: Elijah also raised the dead (1 Ki 17; 2 Ki 4) as did Peter (Acts (9:37-40) and Paul (Acts 20:9-12). Once someone had only to touch Elisha's bones to live again.
This brings to an interesting area. As we have noted above, others have, in the Bible, been favorably referred to as gods, but also as Jehovah. We have even seen angels accepting the divine name for themselves. The fact is, and representative of God bears his name and authority. Let's take a look a Moses and Aaron. Ex 16:2 says, "And the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron in the wilderness", but then at v. 6 it says, "Your murmurings are not against us, but against Jehovah." As representatives, Aaron and Moses could speak thus. Even in Christian times it was considered such. Speaking of the apostles, Acts 5 says, "And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown: but if it is of God, ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God." 38-40
This speaks of the close relationship God has with his servants. "For thus saith Jehovah of hosts...he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye." So his representatives have spoken for him, and as him. "In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets many times and in many different ways. But now in these last days God has spoken to us through his Son. God has chosen his Son to own all things, and through him he made the world. The Son reflects the glory of God and shows exactly what God is like. He holds everything together with his powerful word. When the Son made people clean from their sins, he sat down at the right side of God, the Great One in heaven." Heb 1:1-3 (NCV)
 

Tim: Some very important things we must now close with concerning the Deity of Christ.  The first is Jn 1:1, the second is Jn 1:18; 8:58; 20:20, the third is Jesus was considered to be the Creator of the universe, and last Jesus was obeyed and worshiped by angels. Why can we not accept "the Word was a god?"  On top of Hartley's great advise lies a very simple and concrete objection.  The theological context, viz., John's monotheism, makes this rendering of 1:1c impossible, for if a monotheist were speaking of the Deity he himself reverenced, the singular THEOS could be applied only to the Supreme Being, not to an inferior divine being or emanation
as if THEOS were simply generic.  That is, in reference to his own beliefs, a monotheist could not speak of THEOI nor could he use THEOS in the singular (when giving any type of personal discription) of any being other than the one true God whom he worshiped. On the other hand, when the polytheistic inhabitants of Malta affirmed that Paul was Theos, they were suggesting that he had or deserved a place among their owm patheon of gods. "They said that he was a god" is therefore a proper translation of Acts 28:6.

Heinz: Murray Harris says that "the Word was a god" is grammatically possible, and W.E. Vine calls it the most literal rendering of the phrase, but both, like you, say it shouldn't be translated that way because it contradicts monotheism. Let us take a further look at this. The monotheistic Jews had no problem interchanging angel with god, and this can be proven by comparing the Masoretic Text with the LXX at Ps 8:5; 97:7; 138:1. The Jewish Christians has little problem with this either at Hebrews 2:7. Therefore the Jew had no problem with putting lesser being in this divine position. But what does this have to do with a Trinity? Nothing, in fact the opposite of what you like. Here is what one Jew has to say about it, " The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a Trinity is to be found there or even in any way shadowed forth, is an assumption that has long held sway in theology, but is utterly without foundation. The Jews, as a people, under its teachings became stern opponents of all polytheistic tendencies, and they have remained unflinchingly monotheists to this day. On this point there is no break between the Old Testament Scriptures and the New. The monotheistic tradition is continued. Jesus was a Jew, trained by Jewish parents in the Old Testament Scriptures. His teaching was Jewish to the core, a new gospel indeed, but not a new theology." L.L. Paine, A Critical History of the Evolution of Trinitarianism (Boston and New York; Houghton Mifflin and Co., 1902), 4.  stop
 

Tim: If you were to honestly look at Jn 1:1 you would find it clearly triadic:  each of the three clauses has the same subject (HO LOGOS) and an identical verb (ANE).  So far from being tautological, verse 2 gathers together these three seperate affirmations
and declares them all to be true EN ARCHN:  "This LOGOS who was THEOS was in the beginning with God."  Even though Jesus Christ is not explicitly mentioned until verse 17, the evangelist clearly assumes throughout the prologue that the Logos is none other than the "only Son" (monogenes, 1:14, 18) of the Father..  In the first proposition of the verse 1 John affirms that the Logos existed before all time and creation and therefore implicitly denies that the Logos was a created being.

Heinz: Again, it is only with you trinitarians that words change meanings, in this case EN ARCH/In the Beginning, no longer means in the Beginning, but "Before" the beginning. Most Bibles cross reference John 1:1 with Genesis 1:1 where "the beginning" is when God created the heavens and the earth. There is nothing in the scriptures that supports a "timeless" EN ARCH, and this is only building on Greek philosophy where time was created with the universe (see Timaeus/Plato). I have come to that conclusion by looking honestly at John 1:1. John 1:1 also parallels Prov 8 where Wisdom (i.e. the Word) is a created being. I also consider "Only Son" to be a poor translation of MONOGENHS QEOS or even UION TON MONOGENH as God also had other sons (Job 1:6; 38:7 etc).
 

Tim: In the second, he declares that the Logos always was in active communion with the Father and thereby implies that the Logos cannot be personally identifying with the Father, [thus illustrating the error in using Colwell's rule to argue for a definite reading of 1:1c].  In the third, he states that the Logos always was a partaker of Deity and so implicitly denies that the Logos
was ever elevated to divine status.  The thought of the verse moves from eternal preexistence to personal intercommunion to intrinsic Deity.  Verse 1c states the basis on which vv.1a and b can be said to be true:  only because the Logos participated inherently in the Divine nature could he be said to be already in existence when time began or creation occured and to be in unbroken eternal  fellowship with the Father.  This would justify regarding THEOS as emphatic, standing as it does at the head of the clause.
    Whereever you place the piviotal point in the prologue, verses 14 and 18 are of paramount importance.  Verse one stands in antithetical parallelism to verse 14 and in synthetic and climatic parallelism to verse 18.  The Logos who "existed in the beginning" (v.1a), "came on the human scene (egeneto)" in time (v. 14a) [notice Heinz the difference in word choice between NV in verse 1a and EGENETO in verse 14a - it is the difference between timeless and within time - just like I've been saying all along - why did the evangelist use NV in v. 1a and EGENETO in v.14a if it was not to make that very crucial distinction?].  The one who was eternally
"in communion with God" (v. 1b), temporarily sojourned among us" (v. 14b).  "The Word had the same nature as God" (v. 1c) is paralleled by the contrasting though that "the Word assumed the same nature as humans (SARKS EGENETO)" (v. 14a).  Verses 1 and 18 share references to timeless existence (NV ter, v.1; HO WV, v. 18c), intimate fellowship (pros tov theov, v. 1b; eis tov kolpov tou patros, v. 18c), and predicated Deity (THOES, vv. 1c; 18b).  Where v. 18 advances beyond verse 1 is in its grounding of the validity and accuracy of the Son's revelation (EXNGNSATO) of the Father in his oneness with the Father in nature (THEOS) and fellowship (EIS TOV KOLPOV).  And, as you will see shortly, this 1c verse is strategically placed.  It is the first of three stratigically placed verses to unveil the Nature of Christ in the fourth gospel (1:1c; 1:18; 20:28).  These three verses unequivocally affirm the essential Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Heinz:  Well Tim, you have alot of grammatical acrobatics above to prove...what is it exactly? A Trinity? Again, does any of the above really prove that Jesus is part of a Triune relationship? If John had wanted to place hO LOGOS prior to the beginning,. then he would have used the preposition PRO (before) instead of EN (in). If one is IN something,  be it a place or time, one is not necessarily before it. For example when the LOGOS in Jn 1:10 was in (HN) the world, he was not ALWAYS in the world, because as 1:9 shows us he was in the process of coming INTO the world before that point. You are assuming something not there. As someone else has put it earlier: "Consider John 1:10 EN TWi KOSMWi HN KAI O KOSMOS DI AUTOU EGENETO. Here we have a grammatical parallel to the EN ARXHi HN hO LOGOS with the preposition EN (IN) being followed by the dative. This dative is locative while John 1:1 is temporal, but the concept is still "in or in the realm of" ( see Porter's Idioms 156). Take note that even though the world EGENETO through the Word, that the HN does not indicate that the Word was "in the world" from all eternity. This verse simply means what is says. While it is true that the state is continuous it is equally true that the Word did not remain in the world for all eternity nor was he there from eternity. The period of time is made visible by the writer even though the aspect is continuous. Now let us look at John 1:3-4 hO GEGONEN EN AUTW ZWH HN KAI H ZWH HN TO FWS TWN ANQRWPWN . This example is a bit of an enigma, however when one takes a look at the syntax of the phrase which includes both GINOMAI and HN one can see that it does not necessarily prove a difference between what "was made" and what "was." Using the punctuation as accepted by most modern scholars, we find that what came into existence (hO GEGONEN) is said to enter into the state of HN, which happens to be the complete opposite of the Trinitarian theory that beings with these properties are mutually exclusive." Others have come to the same conclusion that the LOGOS is not eternal, like Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 21; Moses Stuart, Exegetical and Theological Examination of John 1:1-18, who himself says, "To say, as some have said, the NV[was] of itself denotes timeless existence....seems not to be well founded in the laws of grammatical usage."
We know also that the angels were present at the beginning of creation (Gen 1:26, Job 38:7), but to say that "in the beginning were the angels/EN ARCHE ESAN HOI ANGELOI means that the angels are eternal is just ridiculous. In the part of the LOGOS, this is a desperate attempt to try to put 4/5th century philosophy into the plain reading of scripture.
I will let AT Robertson finish this off nicely, "The Greek runs: KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS. The so-called Authorized Version has: 'And the Word was God.' This would indeed suggest the view that 'Jesus' and 'God' were identical and interchangeable. But in Greek this would most naturally be represented by 'God' with the article, not QEOS but hO QEOS. But, equally, St. John is not saying that Jesus is a 'divine' man, in the sense with which the ancient world was familiar or in the sense that Liberals spoke of him. That would be QEIOS. The Greek expression steers carefully between the two. It is impossible to represent it in a single English word, but the New English Bible, I believe, gets the sense pretty exactly with its rendering, 'And what God was, the Word was.' In other words, if one looked at Jesus, one saw God--for he who has seen me, has seen the Father . . . Through him, as through no one else, God spoke and God acted; when one met him one was met . . . by God" (Robinson 70-71).
Since the scriptures do not speak of Jesus/LOGOS as having existed from eternity, we must rely on what IS revealed. What is revealed is that Jesus/ LOGOS is described with temporal terms such as Son, only-begotten Son/god (John 1:18, 3:16 MONOGENHS), firstborn (Col 1:15), and beginning (Col 1:17, Rev 3:14). Since the bible describes the LOGOS with these  temporal terms, this is strong evidence that he has not existed from eternity. To do so one needs to redefine the term "begotten," which indicates a beginning, the opposite of eternal begetting! In view of the bible's use of this kind of language regarding Jesus, we must consider this strong evidence of the Son's temporal origin. John 1:1c distinguishes the godship of the LOGOS from HO QEOS because the LOGOS was *with* hO QEOS. They are not presented as two equal gods. In fact, John 1:18 adjectivally modifies the godship of the LOGOS by calling him the *only-begotten* god, rather than QEOS in an unqualified sense. This subordinate only-begotten god had a beginning ("only-begotten"), which is in perfect harmony with the monotheism of the first century. Even if you prefer "unique" for MONOGENHS, it raises the question of how the godship of the LOGOS is "unique" in comparison with HO QEOS.
 

Tim: Let's move to Jn 1:18, for the way you understand the translation and the way that I understand it is quite different.  Well, let's start with thing one thing that we do agree with.  The most probable out of the four textual variants is MONOGENES THEOS.  Let
us now consider its meaning.
  In compound adjectives, YEVNS refers to derivation or decent in general, rather than to birth in particular or to species. Etymologically, it is related to GI(G)VESTHAI, not GENASTHAI.  The idea of birth, although congruous with MONOGENES, is in no whay an essential part of its meaning.
  If the first element in compounds involving -GEVNS is a noun, the SOURCE of the derivation is thereby indicated (thus GNGEVNS, "sprung from the earth") (F. Buchsel, TDNT 4:738).  Accordingly, MONOGENES could mean "he who proceeded from the Unique One (=MOVOS)" or "deriving from a single begetter" (where MOVOGEVES = EK MOVOU GEVOMEVOS).
But there is no evidence that MOVOS was a first-century title fo God that might have been used by Christians or borrowed by John, or that by employing the termMOVOGEVES John was combating attacks of some description on the virgin birth of Jesus or else asserting the descent of Jesus from the one true God of Israel.
   If, on the other hand, the first component in a GEVNS compound is an adverb, the NATURE of the derivation is thus shown (so EUGEVNS, "of noble decent") (F. Buchsel, TDNT 4:738).  To this category the adjective MOVOGEVNS rightly belongs.  It means "of sole decent," referring to the only child in a family, a meaning attested in the secular Greek literature [Hesiodius, Op. 376;
Plato, Critias 113D; Aeschylus, Ag. 898], the LXX [Judg. 11:34; Tob. 3:15; 6:11; 8:17; Ps. 21:21; 24:16; 34:17; Wisd. Sol. 7:22] and other Jewish literature [Josephus, ANT 1:222, 5:264.  Israel is called MOVOGEVNS in Pss. Sol. 18:4;  cf. 4 Ezra 6:58], and the NT [Lk 7:12; 8:42; 9:38.  In Hebrews 11:17 Isaac is given this term of Abraham, not as the onaly son he fathered (cf. Ishmael, Gen 16:15) but as the only "son of promise" or his "beloved son."  [Behind the use of movogevns in later Hellenistic Jewish writings and in the NT outside John, de Kruijf finds the theme of paradoxical divine intervention to save an only child who is in a critical situation, intervention that calls for the utmost trust and fidelity.]  So, for example, Tobit 3:15: "I am my father's only daughter (MOVOGEVNS) and he has no other child (ETEPOV TEKVOV) to be his heir."
   Some, however, find the  -GEVNS element isignificant - and that the word mean solely unique, just a more fuller form of Movos.This is true specifically of nonpersonal objects but it is less clear that this is the predominant or primary sense of the word.  The meaning "without siblings" does not result from the application to the spere of the family of the catagory of "singularity of kind." Rather, from the personal application of MOVOGEVNS to "the only member of a kin" there developed a nonfarmiliar and nonpersonal use in reference to "the only member of a kind."  Certainly in Johannine usage the conjunction of MOVOGEVNS and UIOS shows that it is not the personal uniqueness of Jesus in itself that John is emphasizing but his being "of sole descent" as the Son of God.

Heinz: There is few in the above that I will disagree with. In none of the examples above do we have someone (Isaac etc) sharing the same essence as his begetter. Since when do any of the above examples share a consubstantiality with his Father. Jesus was the only-begotten of the Father in that he was the first thing created directly by the Father himself. Everything else was made through him..."All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made
that hath been made" John 1:3( see also Col 1:16). Jesus is also referred to as the firstborn[PRWTOTOKOS], which is usually referred to as being a separate,  subordinate, and most of the time the actual FIRST BORN member of a family. See my page on PROTOTOKOS.
It should be noted too,  that Jesus, unlike Ephraim, Jacob and Israel, was never GIVEN the title of "firstborn". He was simply spoken of as firstborn in the temporal sense in passages like the ones at Col. 1:15, 18, Heb. 1:6, Rev. 1:5 and Romans 8:29.
When this changes, "the firstborn of" is used as part of a group. If it is "the firstborn of" Israel(Ex. 6:14), it is one of the sons of Israel, if it is "the firstborn of" Pharoah(Ex. 11:5) it is a member of the house of Pharoah, if it is "the firstborn of" beasts(Ex. 13:15) then it is an animal also. This should not change as it applies to "the firstborn of" creation. Obviously Jesus is a created being, as he was historically always thought to be the created Wisdom of Proverbs.
   We all know that Trinitarians don't like the translation "Only-begotten". John Dahms, in his The Johannine Use of Monogenes Reconsidered says, "It seems clear the monogenes, when used of persons, was always understood to include the idea of generation. This understanding did not have its beginning at the time of the Arian controversy." p.228 Dahms further asserts that the modern use of MONOGENHS QEOS has little support, especially from the ANF like Philo, Tertullian and Justin. In fact Justin would often refer to the Father as un-begotten, hence not something that "God begat before all creatures." Dialogue with Trypho, ANF 1, 227
 Yes, I am quite aware of the efforts made to downplay "Only Begotten" by you Trinitarians. Athanasius did the same thing. The way Athanasius reasoned in some instances is as follows: We know that LOGOS (Jesus) is not a creature but God. Therefore, if we find passages in the Bible saying that he is created, the words do not carry the usual meaning, but the divine OUSIA (LOGOS) changes the meaning of the words, so"created" therefore becomes "begotten", and one begotten is eternal (hence eternally begotten). see "Four discourses against the Arians", Discourse II, from "The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers", IV, pp 349,350
 

Tim: What is more likely is that Jn 20:28 is a vocatival, addressed to Jesus.  This passage is an exclamation actually addressed to Jesus.  This is the view held by the greatests grammarians, lexogreaphers, commentators that have ever walk earth.

Heinz: Are these men not Trinitarians? Of course they are.
 

Tim: A good question to ask at this point is: what does KURIOS AND THEOS MEAN in this passage?  The first must mean more than "sir" or "master," as the conjuction with THEOS conclusively indicates.  Thomas was addressing JEsus as one who shared YAHWEH's authority and functions and exercised YAHWEH's rights.  It was a case of KATHWS ....HO PATNP, K'AGW (cf. Jn 20:21).  Jesus deserved human worship as the one in whom was vested the ultimate authority to forgive sins (Jn 20:23; cf. Mk 2:5-10), the one who dispensed the HS to his followers (Jn 20:22) and commissioned them to divine service (Jn 20:21), the one
who by virtue of his resurrection possessed "the keys that unlocked death and HADES" (Rev 1:8 Moffat), and the one who was to climax his resurrection by assention to the Father (Jn 20:17).  For Thomas, in this text, KURIOS was an exalted and confessional title of address far different that that of MAry in the garden.  The difference was RESURRECTION.  It was nothing less than
worship of Jesus by calling him Lord.

Heinz: "In John 20:28 Ho kýrios mou kai ho theós mou [that is, My Lord and my God], it is to be noted that a substantive [like God] in the Nominative case used in a vocative sense [in address to Jesus] and followed by a possessive [of me] could not be anarthrous [that is, without the definite article the] . . . ; the article [the] before theós may, therefore, not be significant. . . . the use of the article [the] with a virtual Vocative (compare John 20:28 referred to above, and 1 Peter 2:18, Colossians 3:18ff.) may also be due to Semitic idiom."—Pages 116, 117, of An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, 1953 edition, England.
For instance, to show that a vocative in Greek usually has the definite article before it, we can see that in 1 Peter 2:18; 3:1, 7 the literal word-for-word translation reads: "The house servants, be subject . . . In like manner, [the] wives, be . . . The husbands, continue dwelling." in Colossians 3:18 to 4:1: "The wives . . . The husbands, . . . The children . . . The fathers . . . The slaves . . . The masters."
The translator Hugh J. Schonfield doubts that Thomas said: "My Lord and my God!" And so in a footnote 6 on John 20:28 Schonfield says: "The author may have put this expression into the mouth of Thomas in response to the fact that the Emperor Domitian had insisted on having himself addressed as 'Our Lord and God', Suetonius' Domitian xiii."—See The Authentic New Testament, page 503.
This is interesting, though I doubt it.
Thomas was also familiar with certain expressions found in the OT by his forefathers. Not to belabor the point Tim, but on many occasions when individuals were visited or addressed by an angelic messenger of Jehovah, the individuals, or at times the Bible writer setting out the account, responded to or spoke of that angelic messenger as though he were Jehovah God. (Compare Ge 16:7-11, 13; 18:1-5, 22-33; 32:24-30; Jg 6:11-15; 13:20-22.) This was because the angelic messenger was acting for Jehovah as his representative, speaking in his name, perhaps using the first person singular pronoun, and even saying, "I am the true God." (Ge 31:11-13; Jg 2:1-5) Thomas may therefore have spoken to Jesus as "my God" in this sense, acknowledging or confessing Jesus as the representative and spokesman of the true God. Whatever the case, it is certain that Thomas' words do not contradict the clear statement he himself had heard Jesus make, namely, "The Father is greater than I am."—Joh 14:28.
All in all, here was an excellent  opportunity for John to explain John 1:1 and say that Jesus Christ, who was the Word made flesh, was God himself, that he was "God the Son, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity." But is that the conclusion that John reached? Is that the conclusion to which John brings his readers? Listen to the conclusion that John wants us to reach:
 "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye might believe." That we might believe what? "That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."—John 20:29-31, KJV.

All of the above do NOT prove a Trinity. I asked Tim to prove a Trinity from the bible, all he has done is blow his horn about the Deity of Christ, something, which I hold myself, though I might have a different outlook on the Deity myself. There was very little mention of the spirit, but that is not unusual, since the holy spirit doesn't really fit as a 3rd person of the Godhead.
Parts of the above were snipped for brevity (and some for being too repetitive), and I apologize for that,  but the main ideas and theme of Tim's thoughts were present. But then again, none of the above had nothing whatsoever to do with a Triune Godhead.
On to Page 3

Back to Main Page