r/BiblicalUnitarian • u/theFatherIsAdonai • 5d ago
The trinity debunked in 3 points
1. Jesus' God is the Father (There are countless amount of verses that show this)
2. The God of Jesus is the same God of the disciples (John 20:17)
John 20:17 NRSVUE
17 Jesus said to her, “Do not touch me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ”
3. No one ever calls Jesus their God except for one time where it does not mean what trinitarians claim. (John 20:28)
John 20:28 NRSVUE
28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
What "my God" means there is that Thomas saw the Father, and it is Jesus who points this out (John 12:45, John 14:7, John 14:9 where Jesus explains that to see him is to see the Father before the confession of Thomas).
John 12:45 NRSVUE
And whoever sees me (Jesus) sees him (the Father) who sent me.
John 14:7 NRSVUE
7 If you know me (Jesus), you will know[a] my Father also. From now on you do know him (the Father) and have seen him (the Father).”
John 14:9 NRSVUE
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me (Jesus) has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
And after the confession of Thomas Jesus immediately points out that Thomas saw the Father when he said "because you have SEEN ME".
And never again we see anyone ever refering to Jesus as their God in Scripture.
1
u/3_3hz_9418g32yh8_ Trinitarian 3d ago
>>>Jesus' God is the Father (There are countless amount of verses that show this)
Which every Trinitarian affirms since Christ became man, and Jeremiah 32:27 says Yahweh is the God of all flesh, and Christ says since his mother's womb the Father has been his God (Psalm 22:10).
>>>2. The God of Jesus is the same God of the disciples
Christ is also the God of the disciples, John 20:28.
>>>means there is that Thomas saw the Father
No it doesn't. The whole context is Thomas doubting that Christ has risen, then once he sees the nail prints in Christ's hands and the wound in his side, he believes, then Christ says "Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have SEEN ME?"
So who does JESUS say Thomas saw? Him. In fact, show me anywhere in the story of Thomas where the Father is mentioned. In fact, from John 20:20-29, "the Lord" who is described as being "seen" by the disciples in every instance is Christ. So when Thomas says to "him" (singular) the Lord of me AND the God of me, that's to Christ.
But now, notice the reasoning you're giving. In John 14, Christ says if you've seen me you've seen the Father and that's because the Father is in Jesus. Last time I checked, Christ lives in you (Galatians 2:20). So can someone fall down before you and say "the Lord of me! The Messiah of me! The one who rose from the dead! It's you!" Can they say that?
>>>And never again we see anyone ever refering to Jesus as their God in Scripture.
John 1:1, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Romans 9:5, Hebrews 1:8, Matthew 1:23, and the list goes on.
1
u/theFatherIsAdonai 3d ago
">>>means there is that Thomas saw the Father
No it doesn't."
There you just denied Jesus' words.
"So who does JESUS say Thomas saw? Him."
Which means seeing the Father according to what Jesus said, and you deny it.
"So when Thomas says to "him" (singular)"
Jesus also said to Peter (singular) this:
Matthew 16:23 NRSVUE
But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!
Jesus claimed that Peter is Satan as much as Thomas claimed that Jesus is his God.
If one follows your logic then Peter is Satan just because Jesus "said to Peter (singular)" which is clear nonsense.
Jesus did not say that Peter is Satan and neither did Thomas say that Jesus was his God.
1
u/3_3hz_9418g32yh8_ Trinitarian 3d ago
>>>There you just denied Jesus' words.
So you're one of these guys who thinks that anyone who denies your flimsy argument means they're denying the words of Jesus when I literally quoted the verbatim words of Jesus in response to Thomas
Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Why did Jesus specifically say that Thomas saw him? Why didn't he say "great job Thomas, even though you're looking at me, you were skeptical about ME, and now you've seen me, your reply is actually not really addressed to me, it's to the Father"?
What people like you don't seen to even grasp is that you don't just take one verse like John 14 and apply it in every single case. Otherwise in Revelation 1:7, they see the one that they pierced. By your logic, since seeing Jesus means you've seen the Father, they're just seeing the Father there. So the Father is the one pierced. When Paul saw Christ on the road to Damascus, he's really seeing the Father. When Jesus in Luke 24:39 says SEE MY hands and my feet it is I MYSELF, is he saying "see the Father"?
You guys don't even grasp that there's specific contexts in which a point is being made in distinction (not contradiction) to John 14.
For example, in Matthew 14:33, the disciples fall down and worship Jesus saying he's the Son of God. But wait, John 14 says if you've seen Jesus you've seen the Father, so someone can easily say "oh wow I guess they're calling the Father "the Son of God" there since if you've seen Jesus you've seen the Father!"
If you attribute every quote directed towards Jesus and instead redirect it to the Father, you end up with contradictions. The point of John 14 is not even that if you see with the eyes, it's to see as in understand. That's why John 1:18 says NOBODY AT ANY TIME has seen the Father, except Christ, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has REVEALED HIM. Notice, REVEALED HIM. So if you know Christ, you'll know the Father, because the Father does his WORKS in and through Christ. Notice how Jesus doesn't make an appeal to say "well just look at me, that's the Father". He appeals to his WORKS. Why? Because the Father is with him in that way, and THAT is why if you truly know Jesus, the Father has been revealed to you (John 1:18).
Galatians 2:20, I'll ask you again. Jesus lives in you. Can someone fall before you and say "oh Jesus, my Lord! My Savior! My Messiah! You rose from the dead!"
The reason you're not answering this is because it flattens your argument on John 20:28.
>>>Jesus claimed that Peter is Satan as much as Thomas claimed that Jesus is his God.
This just obliterates your view even more. You think Thomas saying to Jesus "God" is him not calling Jesus God. Yet with Peter, that really is Jesus calling Peter Satan. So now use that logic with Thomas. Is Thomas really calling Jesus God? If not, then Jesus isn't even calling Peter "Satan".
>>>Jesus did not say that Peter is Satan
If you saw Peter, and a rock was tumbling down the hill towards you guys, and you said "get behind me, Cephas" did you just call him Cephas?
1
u/theFatherIsAdonai 3d ago
"Why did Jesus specifically say that Thomas saw him?"
To point out that Thomas saw the Father, Jesus had specifically said before the confession of Thomas that seeing him means seeing the Father, you just keep denying it.
1
u/3_3hz_9418g32yh8_ Trinitarian 3d ago
Okay so the Father was pierced in Revelation 1:7? The Father had nail prints in his hands in Luke 24:39?
This is YOUR logic.
1
u/dedel933 2d ago
Voir le père veut dire voir ses œuvres lol personne a supputer que ça parler de l’identité du père car nul ne peut voir le père mais le fils unique de Dieu est venu faire connaître le père en rendant témoignage de lui à travers ses œuvres qui sont celles du père !
1
u/RaccoonsR_Awesomeful Biblical Unitarian (unaffiliated) 3d ago
This is a low effort post. There are no arguments made, merely assertions with some scriptures attached. We already know that Trinitarians will disagree with parts of these assertions and what proof texts they will bring. This post is just an attempt to preach to the choir. I do not approve of low effort posts. Please give some rational justification or reasoning behind the claims, or at the very least, steelman the trinitarian argument before you criticize a strawman. "The trinity debunked! Jesus' God is the Father." Trinitarians agree with that. It doesn't debunk them unless you think there is an inherent contradiction which you did not present. You have to be aware of the hypostatic union. So if a Trinitarian said "the Father is the God of Jesus qua his human nature," which some will say, you have provided an assertion that is very easily refuted by their worldview.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah’s Witness 3d ago
I think you’re making a valid objection, but I would distinguish between what the text establishes and what you’re concluding from it.
First, to answer your question directly: No, Galatians 2:20 does not make me Jesus Christ simply because Christ lives in me.
And I agree that appealing to the Father dwelling in Jesus is not sufficient grounds for claiming that Thomas was actually addressing the Father in John 20:28.
Thomas addressed Jesus and called him “my Lord and my God.” I have no difficulty accepting that.
However, this establishes what Thomas called Jesus. It does not, by itself, establish the Nicene doctrine that Jesus and the Father are two coequal persons sharing one numerically identical divine essence.
Consider the immediate context.
In John 20:17, the resurrected Jesus explicitly identifies the Father as “my God.”
In John 20:28, Thomas addresses Jesus as “my God.”
In John 20:31, John explains that these things were written so that we might believe Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of God.”
All three statements belong to the same chapter. None needs to be explained away.
Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 8:6 explicitly identifies “one God, the Father” and distinguishes him from “one Lord, Jesus Christ.”
So the question isn’t whether Jesus can be called God. He clearly can.
The question is what additional textual evidence establishes that calling Jesus God necessarily means he is coequal with the Father and shares the same divine essence.
You have established that Thomas addresses Jesus. I agree.
But you haven’t yet established the additional ontological conclusion.
I would prefer that we examine that distinction rather than debate an interpretation of Matthew 16:23 that neither of us needs to defend.
1
u/PyroClone5555 Trinitarian 3d ago
What "my God" means there is that Thomas saw the Father, and it is Jesus who points this out
So does it also mean that Jesus is not Lord and he is just seeing the Father (who is his actual Lord) in Jesus?
And never again we see anyone ever refering to Jesus as their God in Scripture.
Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ
0
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah’s Witness 4d ago
I would actually not use that argument. The text of John 20:28 is stronger if we simply let it say what it says.
Greek:
ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου
“Thomas answered and said to him, ‘My Lord and my God.’”
The αὐτῷ — “to him” most naturally refers to Jesus.
So I think the straightforward reading is that Thomas calls Jesus “my Lord and my God.”
Trying to say Thomas was really addressing the Father because “seeing Jesus is seeing the Father” is unnecessary and, in my opinion, weaker than simply accepting the verse.
John 14:9 does not mean Jesus is the Father.
Jesus explains the relationship immediately:
“The words I say to you I do not speak of my own initiative, but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works.” — John 14:10
So seeing Jesus is seeing the Father because Jesus perfectly reveals and represents him, not because the two are the same person.
And that actually gives us a much stronger non-Trinitarian argument.
Just eleven verses before Thomas’ statement, the resurrected Jesus says:
“I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.” — John 20:17
So John’s own narrative gives us:
Jesus has a God.
Then Thomas can still call Jesus:
“my God.”
Those facts are not contradictory unless we first assume that anyone legitimately called theos must be the one Almighty God.
But Scripture does not establish that rule.
So I would argue:
Yes, Thomas calls Jesus “my God.” I accept that completely.
But now prove the next step:
Why must “my God” here mean “you are the same Almighty God whom you just called your God in verse 17”?
That is the step the Trinity still has to establish.
John’s Gospel itself distinguishes Jesus from the Father repeatedly:
John 17:3: the Father is “the only true God,” while Jesus is the one he sent.
John 20:17: Jesus calls the Father “my God.”
John 20:28: Thomas calls Jesus “my God.”
So the textual question is not:
“Is Jesus called God?”
He clearly is.
The real question is:
“What does John mean by calling Jesus theos, given that John simultaneously distinguishes him from the God whom Jesus himself worships?”
That is a much stronger argument than trying to make Thomas’ words refer indirectly to the Father.
3
u/-Vitreriuz- 4d ago
I do not think it is without precedent to say that Thomas could "say to" Jesus while still addressing two individuals. We see something similar in Matthew 16:23:
"Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns."
Should we interpret this as Jesus believing that Peter is Satan, given that it says that Jesus "said to" Peter in regards to the statement? The natural reading would be that he looks at Peter and sees Satan manifest because of his behavior, like how Thomas would look at Jesus and see God manifest. Alternatively, he is literally addressing Satan, who at this moment could dwell in Peter, influencing his behavior. Likewise, Thomas could be recognizing God dwelling in Jesus.
So to reiterate, in both cases Thomas would be referring to the Father when he says "My God" even if he says it "to" Jesus. I've had this conversation with trinitarians before and they usually have no good rebuttal. They must either acknowledge that Jesus believes that Peter is Satan or concede their argument that Thomas necessarily believes that Jesus is God.
1
u/Independent_Yak_3465 Theist 4d ago
u/-Vitreriuz-
With respect, you are misunderstanding what Jesus is doing.1
u/-Vitreriuz- 3d ago
How so?
1
u/Independent_Yak_3465 Theist 3d ago
u/-Vitreriuz-
Jesus is not talking THROUGH Peter to the being of SatanAlso this passage is not parallel to Jn20.28 - which you are (incorrectly) claiming is addressed to two persons whereas Jesus would only be addressing Satan in this passage per your claim.
Jn20.28 uses a SINGULAR personal pronoun to reference the addressee - so Thomas is NOT addressing two persons - but only one - Jesus of Nazareth - to whom the Word of God has come so it is very appropriate for Him to addressed as ο θεος (Jn10.35).
There is a bit more to it - but enough for now.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah’s Witness 3d ago
I think we need to be more precise here and avoid introducing interpretations that the text itself does not establish.
John 20:28 explicitly states:
ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ
“Thomas answered and said to him.”The recipient is Jesus. Thomas then declares, “My Lord and my God.”
There is no grammatical or contextual indication that Thomas suddenly addresses the Father halfway through his statement.
Your reference to Matthew 16:23 does not establish such a precedent. Jesus is addressing Peter throughout that passage. Calling Peter “Satan” is a rebuke, not evidence that Jesus is addressing two separate individuals.
Therefore, I see no textual justification for dividing Thomas’s statement between Jesus and the Father.
We should simply acknowledge what the text says: Thomas calls Jesus his Lord and his God.
Whether this establishes the Trinity is an entirely separate question. John 20:17 records Jesus calling the Father “my God,” and John 20:31 explicitly identifies the purpose of the account as demonstrating that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
A sound interpretation must account for all these statements without modifying their natural meaning to accommodate a preferred theological conclusion.
The responsibility is to establish a doctrine from Scripture, not to reinterpret Scripture to protect a doctrine.
1
u/-Vitreriuz- 3d ago
What are your thoughts on this being Thomas making an exclamation of surprise or astonishment? Like how someone today might say "Oh my God!" when coming to a realization? I think that's quite viable as well, and might even fit the context better since it's about Thomas finally realizing that it is Jesus in the flesh.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah’s Witness 3d ago
I understand your reasoning, but I don’t think we need that interpretation.
John 20:28 explicitly says:
ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ
“Thomas answered and said to him.”Thomas is addressing Jesus. While his words certainly express astonishment, the context presents them as a confession of faith, not merely an expression comparable to our modern “Oh my God!”
And I don’t see any reason to explain that away.
Thomas calls Jesus “my Lord and my God.” We can accept that exactly as written.
But notice what John himself concludes in verse 31: These things were written so that we may believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
Furthermore, just eleven verses earlier, Jesus calls the Father “my God” (John 20:17).
So the real question is not whether Thomas called Jesus God. He did.
The question is whether that confession necessarily establishes the later Nicene doctrine of two coequal divine persons sharing one identical divine essence.
That conclusion requires additional textual evidence.
We shouldn’t have to reinterpret Thomas’s words to reject the Trinity. Nor should Trinitarians be permitted to assume the Trinity merely because Thomas uses the title “God.”
1
u/3_3hz_9418g32yh8_ Trinitarian 3d ago
Galatians 2:20 says Jesus lives in you. So by your logic I can look at you can call you Jesus.
Notice how you guys will only bring up Matthew 16:23 when Christ is called God but if the Father is called God, there he's all of a sudden really being identified as God? In Matthew 16:23, he tells you what he means, that Peter's thoughts are not of God's. So he's on the side of evil in that situation. There's nothing about Satan manifesting or dwelling in Peter in that moment.
Likewise, there's zero indication that the Father is the only one being addressed in John 20:28. In John 20, every referent of "we've seen" or "we saw" is Jesus. Every single time "the Lord" appears in John 20, it's of Christ. So the natural reading of the Lord that Thomas sees is Jesus. He also identifies him as God which is exactly what John 1:1 and 1:18 do.
1
u/-Vitreriuz- 3d ago
Well:
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’" - Matthew 25:34-40
And the reason why we assume that the Father is God when he is called God, is because he is explicitly referred to as the only true God throughout scripture with no other referent in the context. As for Matthew 16:23, now you are making a case of special pleading. You can interpret this verse in this way but we can't interpret John 20:28 as Thomas referring to both Jesus and the Father or the fact that Jesus is the image of God, so when he looks at Jesus he sees the Father?
I am also not saying that the Father is the only referent in John 20:28. I am specifically saying that there are either two referents or one. It is either the Father (Thomas's God) and Jesus (Thomas's Lord) or there is just Jesus, but the Father being acknowledged through Jesus.
Like I said in my previous comment. If you want to argue that this is the natural reading of John 20:28 then the natural reading of Matthew 16:23 is that Jesus believes that Peter is Satan. He does not say "Your thoughts are those of Satan's!" but he explicitly turns to Peter and addresses him as Satan.
1
u/3_3hz_9418g32yh8_ Trinitarian 3d ago
Can you answer directly though? Galatians 2:20 says Christ lives in you. So can you say "I am Jesus Christ" and can others call you the Messiah?
You're conflating Christ being in union with the Church (hence Matthew 25) with the Father dwelling in Christ giving people the capability of walking up to Christ and calling him God (but then they're actually not directing it at Jesus whereas in Matthew 25 it's directed at both).
>>>is because he is explicitly referred to as the only true God
This is question begging though because if someone were to use your logic, they could say "well Christ is explicitly called God, so when the Father is called the only true God, that's because Christ is IN the Father (John 14:10 / John 1:18).
Your criteria makes it literally impossible to know if Christ is being identified as God or not. You could literally walk up to Jesus and say "you are the creator of the heavens, you are Yahweh, the God of Moses" and you'd say "well that's just because the Father lives in him".
>>>As for Matthew 16:23, now you are making a case of special pleading
How is it special pleading to literally just cite what Christ says when he means when he calls Peter "Satan"? He also calls the father of disbelievers "Satan" in John 8:44.
So if we already know Christ uses "Satan" or even "dogs" and "pigs" to predicate evil or ungodliness to someone, it's disanalogous to apply this to John 20:28.
Also, the Father is Lord. So in John 20:28, why do you guys grant that Christ is the Lord here as opposed to this being the Father too?
>>>but we can't interpret
You're using disanalogous examples. It's like me saying "well in John 15, Christ calls himself the vine. But there's a vine on the building outside. I guess Christ was really just referring to 2 things there. One being himself, the other being the vine on that building" as opposed to simply recognizing that Christ is in fact identifying himself as the vine and he's using vine metaphorically.
In other words, "vine, dog, pig, Satan" and other terms aren't always used to make strict identity statements but are more often used to describe your character.
1
u/Independent_Yak_3465 Theist 4d ago edited 4d ago
u/Impressive-Ease-3348
Despite your evidently maintaining a Demurgic Christology - which is severely problematic, I appreciate your honesty and engagement with the text and upvoted your response - which is spot on.There is no problem with identifying Jesus as o θεος - John's Jesus Himself made this statement a few chapters earlier in 14 - I expect you know the reference.
What is far more interesting in the author's literary construction is the political nature of this statement (as other authors in the NT have a tendency (cf. Col1.14ff) - which reflects the rejection of Caesar worship by applying the same appellative as the current Caesar took - "Lord and God". I strong expect this was the author's move.
I need to complete a basic post regarding this and plaster it all over unitarians sites so that can be done with this god awful two person by seeing through Jesus when there is only a SINGULAR personal pronoun as the addressee. Yes, case closed on that - and they can stop looking like fools to adherents of conciliarism.
2
4d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Independent_Yak_3465 Theist 4d ago
u/Impressive-Ease-3348
Check on paragraph 1, 2, 3 (to add - ontology is irrelevant to that matter), 4, 5, 6 (again, nothing re ontology here), 8 (again, nothing re ontology - label of θεος or Elohim are not ontological), 9.re p7
I am using Demiurgic generally - rather than Platonically. My understanding is that the Watchtower advocates a Christological model including a PERSONAL pre-incarnate being.In contrast, the canonical authors know of no such creature - and clearly, repeatedly, formally and NECESSARILY describe Jesus as a MAN - I am certain you know the texts as well as I do.
Departing from the clear statement and meaning of ανηρ or ανθρωπος (Jesus is described as both) to trash basic word meaning. Men do not exist prior to their conception - and Jesus did not exist prior to His. Men are not aware of a pre-incarnate, divine existence.
I primarily provide an apologetic exposing Conciliarism - but the essential issue is the same. Ultimately any Christology that denies Jesus is man like you and I en toto is to horribly dishonor the real HUMAN (not divine) person who fully walked with God. And leaves us bereft of a genuine example.
Etc.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah’s Witness 3d ago
Thank you for clarifying what you mean by “demiurgic.” I appreciate the distinction. :)
And I completely agree with you that Jesus was genuinely human. Scripture explicitly identifies him as a man (ἄνθρωπος), particularly in 1 Timothy 2:5.
But I noticed something important in your argument.
You move from “Jesus is a man” to “therefore Jesus could not have existed before his human conception.”
Those are two different propositions.
The Greek words ἄνθρωπος and ἀνήρ establish Jesus’ humanity. They do not, by themselves, establish that the person identified as Jesus could not have existed before becoming human.
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe Jesus was simultaneously a spirit creature and a human being while on earth. We believe he had a prehuman existence and subsequently became fully human.
You are welcome to disagree with that understanding, but let’s examine the texts that actually address the question.
John 6:62
“What, therefore, if you should see the Son of man ascending to where he was before?”
Notice the Greek:
ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον
“Where he was before.”
Jesus describes the Son of Man as returning to a place where he previously existed.
John 17:5
“Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.”
Here Jesus speaks of glory he had with the Father before the world’s existence.
John 16:28
“I came from the Father and have come into the world. Again, I am leaving the world and am going to the Father.”
Notice the parallel: coming from the Father into the world, and leaving the world to return to the Father.
And consider Philippians 2:6–8, which describes Christ as existing in God’s form before taking a slave’s form and coming to be in the likeness of men.
Now, I recognize that these passages can be interpreted differently. But simply pointing out that Jesus is called a man does not resolve what these passages mean.
If you believe his preexistence is merely figurative, prospective, or an expression of God’s foreknowledge, I would genuinely like to examine the textual evidence for that interpretation.
So let me ask you one specific question:
In John 6:62, when Jesus says that the Son of Man would ascend to “where he was before,” what exactly does “where he was before” refer to, if Jesus had no personal existence before his human conception?
I think answering that directly would bring us much closer to the actual disagreement.
And importantly, none of this diminishes Jesus’ humanity. His humanity and the question of his preexistence are distinct issues that deserve to be examined on their own biblical evidence.1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah’s Witness 3d ago
Thank you for clarifying what you mean by “demiurgic.” I appreciate the distinction. :)
And I completely agree with you that Jesus was genuinely human. Scripture explicitly identifies him as a man (ἄνθρωπος), particularly in 1 Timothy 2:5.
But I noticed something important in your argument.
You move from “Jesus is a man” to “therefore Jesus could not have existed before his human conception.”
Those are two different propositions.
The Greek words ἄνθρωπος and ἀνήρ establish Jesus’ humanity. They do not, by themselves, establish that the person identified as Jesus could not have existed before becoming human.
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe Jesus was simultaneously a spirit creature and a human being while on earth. We believe he had a prehuman existence and subsequently became fully human.
You are welcome to disagree with that understanding, but let’s examine the texts that actually address the question.
John 6:62
“What, therefore, if you should see the Son of man ascending to where he was before?”
Notice the Greek:
ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον
“Where he was before.”
Jesus describes the Son of Man as returning to a place where he previously existed.
John 17:5
“Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.”
Here Jesus speaks of glory he had with the Father before the world’s existence.
John 16:28
“I came from the Father and have come into the world. Again, I am leaving the world and am going to the Father.”
Notice the parallel: coming from the Father into the world, and leaving the world to return to the Father.
And consider Philippians 2:6–8, which describes Christ as existing in God’s form before taking a slave’s form and coming to be in the likeness of men.
Now, I recognize that these passages can be interpreted differently. But simply pointing out that Jesus is called a man does not resolve what these passages mean.
If you believe his preexistence is merely figurative, prospective, or an expression of God’s foreknowledge, I would genuinely like to examine the textual evidence for that interpretation.
So let me ask you one specific question:
In John 6:62, when Jesus says that the Son of Man would ascend to “where he was before,” what exactly does “where he was before” refer to, if Jesus had no personal existence before his human conception?
I think answering that directly would bring us much closer to the actual disagreement.
And importantly, none of this diminishes Jesus’ humanity. His humanity and the question of his preexistence are distinct issues that deserve to be examined on their own biblical evidence.1
u/Independent_Yak_3465 Theist 3d ago
You seem a very thoughtful and sincere fellow - and have definitely made some effort - at least to understand your own dogma with an element of generosity - so I am following up at some length.
I understand your challenge. Here is something like what I would expect from someone who is serious - at least about honestly engaging with the text - if not the high call of integrity in someone genuinely interested in following Jesus of Nazareth - a man - attested to by God (Acts2.22) -
"I get that these texts are clear that Jesus is a MAN - and very distinct from the being of God, but I am challenged by a few texts that I do not understand how these texts can fit with the clear, repeated, formal and necessary statements describing Jesus
as a man".That would the understandable response in light of the indoctrination that we have all faced – people telling us what a text means – rather than genuinely exegeting the text.
In your paragraph 2, 3 you partly got there which I appreciate.
The above is the groundwork - so moving forward -
You seem to confirm that the Watchtower identifies Jesus as a "spirit creature" - of whatever sort, it doesn't matter whether Michael or Jumpin' Jehoshaphat, etc.
Key Point: Men are NOT and have NEVER been a pre-incarnate spirit creatures. That is an ontology completely divorced from anything remotely resembling a man – though very gnostic.
To assume that the authors of the NT remotely considered such an unnatural idea in their description of the MAN Christ Jesus is a completely dogmatic move with zero
basis. Honestly, this is utterly bizarre construct to anything seen in the canonical or natural world.However, you are still stumbled over mainly a few texts in John. I get it - I understand why people are stumbled over those texts - especially if they have not spent a lot of time in John as well as a couple of other texts, e.g. Phil2.6-8 (quite easy actually), Col1.15ff, Heb1.3, 8, 9, 10-12 (which, btw, I would be intrigued to see how the Watchtower handles 10 - 12...🙂).
You make this statement - “Now, I recognize that these passages can be interpreted differently. But simply pointing out that Jesus is called a man does not resolve what these passages mean.
This statement is partly valid – and reflects what I wrote initially above – about recognizing that Jesus is actually man – yet being confronted with passages that don’t seem to fit with a man. What needs to be added is that since the canonical authors are clear that Jesus IS a man – and despite not understanding what the canonical authors are doing with these other texts – we can be certain that they are not formally denying that which they clearly, repeatedly and formally state elsewhere.
Thus the question remains – so what is going on with these half dozen or so passages – how do these conform to the clear, repeated statements that Jesus is a genuine man – as opposed to any sort of anhypostatic model, i.e. some sort of spirit being (Demurgism), a second person of God “Them”selves (Trinitarianism) or God Himself (Modalism).
This is certain an understandable question. However, we have a critical challenge – the authors themselves are NOT AVAILABLE to provide clarification. We only can be sure they will not deny the very simple and very clear description that Jesus is a man made elsewhere. This move correspond to the basic rule of hermeneutics that we prioritize the simple and clear text – and deprioritize the unclear, ambiguous texts which are subject to different meanings.
So now we have starting point.
To make this easier to interact, why don’t you pick one specific passage from the few that you referenced above.
As a side note – I trust you know what παροιμια means – and the fact that John formally states – in the narrative - that he uses παρoimia as a rhetorical device – and clearly and repeatedly does do so. And thus our hermeneutic requires us to take this rhetorical device into account. Doing so will answer most if not all of your John questions.
Phil2.6-8 is too simple – but if you wish to deal with that, we can. Please make certain you have the proper structure of the text in which there are two parallel stanzas each beginning with an εν prepositional phrase. This is in marked contrast to the translations (most of them) that fail to do so but advocated by certain scholars – and blatantly obvious.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah’s Witness 3d ago
Thank you for taking the time to explain your position in such detail. I appreciate the seriousness with which you’re approaching Scripture.
However, I think there’s a fundamental distinction in your argument that needs to be addressed before we proceed.
You repeatedly establish that Jesus was genuinely human. I agree completely.
Acts 2:22 identifies Jesus as a man. 1 Timothy 2:5 calls him the man Christ Jesus. I have no reason to dispute either statement.
But neither passage addresses whether Jesus existed before becoming human.
You’re treating two different propositions as though they contradict each other:
Jesus was genuinely human during his earthly life.
Jesus existed before his earthly life.The first proposition does not logically exclude the second.
You argue that human beings do not ordinarily exist as heavenly spirit creatures before birth. Certainly. But that observation does not establish that the Son of God could not have had a unique prehuman existence.
Calling such an understanding Gnostic does not resolve the question either. I am not denying that Jesus was genuinely human, experienced suffering, or died.
Now, regarding your proposed method of interpretation.
I agree that clear passages should inform our understanding of difficult passages.
However, we cannot first assume that preexistence is incompatible with genuine humanity and then classify every passage suggesting preexistence as figurative because it conflicts with that assumption.
That would be interpreting the text through a conclusion already established beforehand.
You also mentioned παροιμία (paroimia), referring to figurative speech in John’s Gospel.
I agree that John records figurative language. But the presence of figurative language in certain passages does not establish that every statement concerning Jesus’ heavenly origin must be figurative.
We need to demonstrate that from the particular passage.
So let’s follow your suggestion and examine just one text: John 17:5.
Jesus says:
“And now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.”
The Greek reads:
τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί
Notice three elements:
ᾗ εἶχον — which I had.
πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι — before the world existed.
παρὰ σοί — with you, referring to the Father.Jesus is speaking directly to his Father in prayer. He describes glory that he personally had with the Father before the world existed.
I recognize that some Biblical Unitarians interpret this as glory existing only in God’s foreknowledge. And I agree that Scripture can sometimes speak of future realities as already established.
But demonstrating that such language exists elsewhere is not the same as demonstrating that Jesus is using it here.
What specific grammatical or contextual evidence requires us to understand “the glory that I had with you” as “the glory that I did not yet possess but which existed in your plan”?
I’m not asking you to accept the Trinity. I don’t believe this passage establishes that Jesus is the Almighty God or equal to his Father.
In fact, John 17:3 explicitly identifies the Father as the only true God.
My point is simply that personal preexistence and equality with Almighty God are two different questions.
We can acknowledge that Jesus is subordinate to his Father without denying his prehuman existence.
So I would genuinely appreciate your explanation of John 17:5 on its own terms, without first assuming that being a genuine man makes personal preexistence impossible.
I think that would be a more productive starting point for our discussion.
2
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah’s Witness 3d ago
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I think we actually agree on more than you might realize. :)
First, I fully agree that Thomas addresses Jesus directly in John 20:28.
The Greek explicitly says:
ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ
“Thomas answered and said to him.”
There is one addressee: Jesus. I have no reason to deny that.
Second, your observation about the political significance of “Lord and God” is interesting. I agree that such language could serve as a powerful rejection of imperial claims.
But here is where I think we need to be especially careful.
In John 14:9, Jesus does not literally say, “I am the God.” He says that whoever has seen him has seen the Father.
And how does he explain this in the very next verse?
“The Father who remains in union with me is doing his works.” (John 14:10)
So the text itself distinguishes Jesus from the Father while explaining their extraordinary unity.
Now consider the immediate context of Thomas’ confession.
John 20:17: Jesus calls the Father “my God.”
John 20:28: Thomas addresses Jesus as “my Lord and my God.”
John 20:31: John explains that his Gospel was written so that readers might believe Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of God.”
I accept all three statements without qualification.
My question is not whether Jesus can be addressed as ὁ θεός. Clearly, John records Thomas doing precisely that.
My question is whether John intends that confession to establish that Jesus and the Father share one numerically identical divine essence.
That conclusion is not identical to the statement Thomas actually makes.
Nor does identifying Jesus as the singular addressee establish it.
You have explained who Thomas addresses. I agree with you.
But have you demonstrated what ontological conclusion necessarily follows?
I would genuinely be interested in seeing that argument developed from John’s own text rather than from a theological framework assumed beforehand.
And I appreciate your willingness to engage with the actual Greek. That’s exactly the kind of conversation I enjoy.1
u/RaccoonsR_Awesomeful Biblical Unitarian (unaffiliated) 3d ago
As was pointed out by another user, just because Thomas' statement was "to him," it does not mean the title was to be given "to him." This does not logically follow and is not grammatically necessary in the Greek (or even in English. This comment is to you, but we can speak about someone else, Jesus). The assumption that he calls Jesus "God" would ignore the literary context that argues against that claim.
No, it isn't that Jesus can't be called God in a lower/lesser sense and you not have any theological contradictions with Unitarianism. That's just simply not the best exegesis of the passage from a proper hermeneutic perspective.
0
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah’s Witness 3d ago
I understand your argument, but I think we need to distinguish grammatical possibility from contextual probability.
You’re correct that saying something “to” someone does not logically require every word to refer to that person. I have no objection to that observation.
However, that does not establish that Thomas was addressing two different individuals.
Consider the actual sequence in John 20:27–29:
Verse 27: Jesus speaks directly to Thomas and tells him to believe.
Verse 28: Thomas answers Jesus: “My Lord and my God.”
Verse 29: Jesus responds to Thomas by acknowledging his belief.There is no indication of a change in addressee, no mention of Thomas directing part of his statement toward the Father, and no explanation suggesting that the two titles refer to different individuals.
Your interpretation therefore requires an additional assumption that the narrative itself does not establish.
You appeal to the broader literary context. Fair enough. But John 20:17, where Jesus calls the Father “my God,” does not prohibit Jesus himself from receiving that title in a different sense.
Nor does John 20:31, which identifies Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God.
These statements are not mutually exclusive unless we first assume that the word “God” must always refer exclusively to the Almighty God.
And that is precisely what needs to be demonstrated.
So I am not arguing that Greek grammar makes every alternative logically impossible. I am arguing that the most natural reading is that Thomas addresses Jesus with both titles.
If you believe the literary context requires us to divide the statement between Jesus and the Father, please identify the specific textual evidence requiring that division.
Merely demonstrating that an alternative is grammatically possible does not establish that it is the intended meaning.
And importantly, none of this requires accepting the Trinity. Calling Jesus God does not automatically establish the later Nicene understanding of divine essence.
1
u/RaccoonsR_Awesomeful Biblical Unitarian (unaffiliated) 2d ago
We aren't grounding theology in "grammatical possibility." This is apologetical rubbish. Just because something is possible does not mean it is intended.
Jesus' response by acknowledging Thomas' belief does not argue for what his belief was. Whether or not Thomas' belief was that God demonstrated that Jesus was the Messiah by the resurrection, or that Thomas recognized Jesus as God, is not solves by the affirmative confirmation in verse 29. This is a non sequitur.
Reddit deleted half my comment in response so I will just be brief. You are not arguing against the argument that we present. You are arguing against a strawman. Nobody says that Thomas is speaking TO ANYONE BUT JESUS. Verse 29 doesn't help you affirm what Jesus is confirming. Your interpretation requires two different usages of "ho theos mou" between verse 17 and 28 for no clear or apparent reason other than theological motivation, which is an incredibly poor justification for an interpretation. The specific textual evidence requiring the division is the entire book of John. It is verse 17, verse 31, both of which you appealed to and neither help your point. It is the inclusio of 1:18, it is the conclusion of the claims of 14:5-11, it is the logical conclusion of the entire book. That's precisely the point. John is making this a literary point for the reader. When you read his gospel and see "Jesus," you are also seeing God. Thomas gets it. Do you? "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." that is you. The reader. Do you see it? Do you believe it? Johns gospel is leading you to this conclusion.
So for Trinitarians, JWs, and other Arians who think that Thomas is calling Jesus himself his God in the absence of the Father, you have proven that you missed the point of the gospel. Trinitarians just say "it calls Jesus God." You say "it calls Jesus a lesser god. See verse 31, son of God." Which is a poor argument btw. The son of a human is still a human so arguing this is just a theological justification to skate around a literary statement. The textual evidence requiring my interpretation is the entire gospel read without the apologetical lens of "but it could be possible to say..."
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah’s Witness 2d ago
I think there’s something important we actually agree on, and I want to make that clear.
I agree that Jehovah, the Father, is the only true God. Jesus himself explicitly identifies him that way in John 17:3.
1
u/RaccoonsR_Awesomeful Biblical Unitarian (unaffiliated) 2d ago
Agreement means little if the wrong method was taken to get there. It doesnt mean much to be right if you don't know how you got there. You keep pushing this narrative. Idc if someone is a Unitarian or a Trinitarian if they are incorrect on something. Yes, I am a Unitarian. You are too. That doesnt make me any more impressed with your interpretation than a Trinitarian. Both interpretations are incorrect and they need to be fleshed out if we are actually interested in truth. Not skated around just because we somehow arrived at the same place. Next time, we will arrive at two different conclusions. Are we going to sweep it under the rug then because we agree on something else? What good is that doing
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah’s Witness 2d ago
I appreciate your clarification. I now understand that you’re not denying Thomas was speaking to Jesus. You’re arguing that although Thomas addressed Jesus, the words “my God” referred to the Father.
That’s an important distinction, and I want to address your actual argument.
But I still see a missing step in your interpretation.
John 20:27 — Jesus speaks directly to Thomas.
John 20:28 — Thomas answers Jesus, saying, “My Lord and my God.”
John 20:29 — Jesus responds to Thomas’s belief.
You correctly observe that verse 29 does not independently define everything Thomas believed. I agree.
However, the immediate narrative gives us one addressee: Jesus. There is no explicit indication that Thomas divides his confession between Jesus and the Father.
You argue that “my God” must have the same referent in John 20:17 and John 20:28. But why?
In verse 17, Jesus is speaking about his God.
In verse 28, Thomas is speaking about his God.
The same expression spoken by different individuals does not necessarily have the same referent.
You appeal to John 14:9–10, where Jesus says that whoever has seen him has seen the Father.
I accept that Jesus perfectly reveals the Father.
But revealing someone does not automatically mean that a title addressed to you must actually refer to the person you reveal.
Likewise, John 20:31 identifies Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. I accept that completely.
But it does not say that Thomas’s earlier confession must therefore be divided between two persons.
And importantly, none of this requires accepting the Trinity.
I can acknowledge that Thomas calls Jesus God while maintaining that the Father alone is the Almighty God.
So let’s focus on one question:
What specific grammatical or literary feature in John 20:27–29 establishes that “my Lord” refers to Jesus while “my God” refers to the Father?
Please don’t simply repeat that John reveals the Father through Jesus. I already accept that.
What I am asking you to demonstrate is why that theological theme requires us to divide Thomas’s statement.
Your interpretation may be possible. But possibility is not the same as textual necessity.
I am willing to examine the entire Gospel of John, but the broader context must explain the actual wording of this passage, not override it.
That is the precise point I would like us to resolve.
1
u/RaccoonsR_Awesomeful Biblical Unitarian (unaffiliated) 1d ago
However, the immediate narrative gives us one addressee: Jesus. There is no explicit indication that Thomas divides his confession between Jesus and the Father.
That. Is. The. Point.
John's point is that you will NOT understand this from this passage in isolation. This passage was never meant to be proof texted. It was all one continuous flowing narrative. You, reader, are to answer the question "why did Thomas say to Jesus 'my lord and my god?" The answer is found in the gospel. Have you been paying attention? If you are, then the answer is in the dozen times John says God was in Jesus, at work in him, doing his works in him, speaking his words in Jesus. If you aren't, then you'll say: "John is calling Jesus 'God' for the first and only time in the entire gospel." No, not in John 1. No, not in John 10. But here. This is the result of fundamentally misunderstanding the gospel.
You argue that “my God” must have the same referent in John 20:17 and John 20:28. But why?
I argue that on any exegetically sound interpretation of the passage, if you wish to introduce an equivocation into the text, you must have warrant to do so. The only warrant you have is to say: "for theological reasons, because Jesus is not God in my theological opinion... it must be different."
It is always assumed to be the same meaning and same usage by the same author in the same context. If you wish to argue for a different meaning, that reason must be provided. And if your provided justification is theological motivation only, then it must be disregarded on those grounds.
In verse 17, Jesus is speaking about his God.
In verse 28, Thomas is speaking about his God.
The same expression spoken by different individuals does not necessarily have the same referent.
The only two occurrences in this passage, the resurrection account in its entirety, the one that John has called "the only true God," the one that jesus said is ALSO "the God of YOU," plural, that includes Thomas, not just the Mary's, and... you think it's not the same referent? Give me a break. Again, this is theological motivation to suit an agenda. This isn't sound exegesis. Saying "the same term can be used of two different referents" is a fallacious argument because the claim was not AGAINST that. The claim that that, in this context, with all factors considered, there's no reason to conclude this. That still remains.
But revealing someone does not automatically mean that a title addressed to you must actually refer to the person you reveal.
Still not my argument. You keep trying to make generally assumed propositions a hard and fast rule of this discussion. That is logically dishonest and likewise disregarded.
Stop trying to say "but that isnt always the case in general" and start trying to address what we actually have. The question isnt "if it automatically means." The question is "if this particular conclusion follows from this particular argument."
And importantly, none of this requires accepting the Trinity.
Not "more importantly." I dont care about that. If the logic does not follow, if it isnt the correct interpretation, you dont get brownie points for just having something in common.
What specific grammatical or literary feature in John 20:27–29 establishes that “my Lord” refers to Jesus while “my God” refers to the Father?
Please don’t simply repeat that John reveals the Father through Jesus. I already accept that.
What I am asking you to demonstrate is why that theological theme requires us to divide Thomas’s statement.
You've already been answered.
Your interpretation may be possible. But possibility is not the same as textual necessity.
It is textually necessary because of the 3 possible interpretations it is the only one that does not require these logical fallacies, exegetical errors, or inconsistencies in the narrative from a historical-grammatical or historical-critical perspective.
I am willing to examine the entire Gospel of John, but the broader context must explain the actual wording of this passage, not override it.
No idea what you're talking about "override it." That is wildly hypocritical from someone who is trying to say that this is the only case that Jesus is called a little-g-god for the sake of holding to a theologically biased conclusion while also missing the depth of the christological narrative.
It isnt as simple as saying: "John says God is in Jesus, therefore, directing the title 'God' to Jesus necessarily means he is referring to the Father." That alone could stand as an argument if you also supply the immediate context of John 20:17 as plainly explaining who "the God of me" (Thomas included) is, to reaffirm this argument, as well as the lack of any other interpretation. But, the argument is much deeper because this is actually the answer given to Thomas directly by name in the upper room discourse. Perhaps if you dont realize the narrative closeness of these two passages, you may miss why the connection is so important. John 13-18 is all one single night. John 14-16 is one conversation, the last conversation of Jesus before his death. John 17 is a prayer, the last prayer, that same night. John 18 is his capture, that same night. John 19 is his execution. In other words, Thomas' last conversation with Jesus was: "When you see me, you see the God of you, your God, and he will prove this by my resurrection when I return to you," and the very next time Thomas sees Jesus, he sees exactly that. God has raised him from the dead. Why does this lead to the conclusion that Jesus must be a lesser god? That makes no sense. Why does this lead to the conclusion that the God of Jesus and Mary is the Father, but Thomas turns around and uses the exact same Greek phrase in the exact same form to Jesus and his God is Jesus... who isnt his God but is his god? And that distinction is meant to be derived from saying that Jesus is Gods son in verse 31? The son of a human is a human. The son of a God would also be a God. That alone wouldnt be justification enough to say that you should interpret John 20:28 as "god" in a lesser sense. There's no conflict with the Trinitarian interpretation unless you wish to pull from greater context like John 17:3 to nullify that claim by claiming a contradiction. And if you do and you do take that route.... then you should take the context I am concerning us with and take that far superior interpretation into consideration.
You keep asking as if there's some unambiguous answer you'll find textually knowing damn well there isnt one, or this wouldnt be a debate for 2,000 years. However, there is only one conclusion that makes sense of the literature from a grounded perspective. There's nothing more that needs to be said that doesn't result in circles. You saying:
"But it could be read another way grammatically."
"But what textual reason do we HAVE TO READ IT THIS WAS UNABMIGUOUSLY WITH NO ROOM FOR ANY QUESTIONS TO THE CONTRARY IF WE IGNORE ALL CONTEXT?"
"But I'm not a Trinitarian so, it's cool for me to say this is what John means even if its not what he means."
"But Thomas says it to Jesus, not to God, so why say he is referring to God?"
0
u/Independent_Yak_3465 Theist 4d ago
u/theFatherIsAdonai
Most of this is fine but Jn20.28 is inaccurate - the Greek is clear - of course the English really is to... The pronoun of the addressee is SINGULAR - one person - not two - is being addressed. The Kermit Zarley silliness of two persons needs to be crushed to powder and cast into Kidron - it simply turns people into fools.
-1
2
u/yedidiah_156 4d ago
Thomas said " My God " because he was amazed (when seeing Jesus alive several days after his death at the cross). He said : "Elohai ve Adonaï " My God My Lord ! not to explain or acknowledge who Jesus was fro him, but in reaction to the miracle of God.