Nr. 440: Bible Verses that are customized for Jesus to be similar to the one true God of the Trinity is based on the bible forgery and lies!

Nr.440:

Bible Verses that are customized for Jesus to be similar to the one true God of the Trinity is based on the bible forgery and lies!

I have taken a part of Arne Jordly his type of error Bible translation that shows that the trinity doctrine is based on falsehood, customized truth and falsehood. Illustration picture shows Satan as fundamentally Trinity ancestry and who is a liar and that is a lie. By standing lie as it shows that he is on the same line as the Trinity that remains faithful against him by faith in a triadegud, Katolikere has now expanded to an additional person as "Virgin" Mary is also now a fourth person in the Godhead, too bad it can go by believing the stranger learn!

MAT 28:17 - And when they saw him, they fell down - KJV: "And when they saw him, they fell down and worshiped him: but some doubted. ' NKJ: "When they saw him, they worshiped him, but some doubted. ' NPV: '- and when they saw him, they bowed respectfully, but some doubted.' SHG: Eidos proskuneo ho distazo Trans.: See reverent some doubt PACT: When they saw him, they bowed respectfully to him. But there were some who doubted. COMMENT: We see again that proskuneo translated as worship. And that recur throughout the Bible, although those who translate, know better. Why is it done? It's simple: It was part of Luther's teaching that Jesus should be worshiped, and for the vast majority of Lutherans are Luther preferred over a correct understanding of God's word. Catholics align God Speech by pope, Witness for the Watchtower, Adventists by Ellen G. White, etc, etc. almost indefinitely. NB! The basic meaning of the word proskuneo is 'licking his master's hand like a dog.' It can In no case mean to worship either in forold to God or Christ, even if it is translated as in most Norwegian translations. And here's a clear example of how important it is to keep consistently to the language, and not to an even believe or want others to believe.

MAT 28:18 - Meg is given all power in heaven and - KJV: Then Jesus came up and spoke to them: "Meg is given all power in heaven and on earth. ' NKJ: "And he stood up and spoke to them, saying: Meg is given all power in heaven and on earth. ' NPV: 'And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given me. ' SHG: iesous proserchomai laleo lego pas Exousia didomi ouranos ge Trans.: Jesus approaching voice saying all authority gain the high ground PACT: Then Jesus stood up, spoke and said: "I will be given all authority in heaven and on earth. COMMENT: The correct translation is 'to get.' And in keeping with both the text and reality. First the text: future perspectives is in flexion of the verb didomi. Moreover, Jesus has not yet received all power on earth. Just look around you, you have the proof. For if all the devil this world is full of, are of Christ, then he died in vain! Mark writes in 12:36, after a quotation from Psalm 110:1, PACT: For David himself said by the Holy Spirit: 'Jehovah said to my Lord: Sit at my right until I put your enemies for your feet? 'PSA 110:1 For someone who is thoroughly familiar in Bible prophecy, and counted them out, it will be clear Jesus today has taken over all authority in heaven, cf. REV 12:7-12. And he cast out Satan of the heavens and down to earth. And where Satan will continue to exert its activity to evil has reached its full measure. Then God will intervene, through Christ and eradicate all devilry also from earth. Then it was 'new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness will live.' (2PE 3:13) The word means Exousia authority and clearly shows that Jesus does not exercise his power by itself, but through God's authority. (PACT, MAT 3:17. Check basic text! Oudokeo = approve = insert with authority.)

LUK 22:70 - You say that I am. DNB: 'They asked everyone: "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied: "You say that I am." NKJ: 'Then they all said, "Are you then the Son of God?" Then he said to them: "Yes, you say that I am." * * Greek: ego eimi, I am God's name NPV: 'Then they all said, "Are you thus Son of God?" He said to them: "You say that I am." NB! In addition please refer to the footnote in the NKJ and the claim that Jesus here says he is God Almighty. It is a gross misconception in relation to Jesus' confirmation that he was the Son of God. SHG: a pas de phemi oun huios theos epo lego eimi Trans.: Please verify all about being the son of God respond to PACT say: "So confirm for us that you are the Son of God!" He answered, "I tell you, it's me." COMMENT: First, the actual translation: DNB writes: 'You say that I am.' NPV has the exact same wording. NKJ writes: "Yes, you say that I am. 'Check the basic text then you see that it's not true. Jesus confirmed clearly that he was God's Son. They could the Ikka have sentenced him to death for something they claimed. So this fableriet that Jesus says he is God Almighty in this verse is nonsense, yes, almost blasphemy. What they wanted to know was whether he could confirm that he was God Son, the promised Messiah, whom they had waited for hundreds of years. It was clear that Jesus and clearly confirmed! And that was what provoked them. Yes, it provoked them so strongly that they sentenced him to death for that statement! NB! Be aware that if Jesus once had alleged that he was God Almighty, the Jews according to the law of Moses was completely in the right when they executed him, it came under term gudspespottelse and were lawfully subject to the death penalty! So I am philosophy: It has nothing to do with the Bible. It is a man-made philosophy without any coverage in the word of God. Moreover, in the Greek text, you can now verify Jesus did not even say ego eimi, but only eimi. In Greek, there is the personal pronoun I concealed in flexion of the verb. So when Jesus says eimi means that in itself I am. What about ego eimi? Is not it used in Greek? Yes, but only when the self should be emphasized, that is not you, but I do. But Jesus never emphasized herself and does not use a single time expression ego eimi. The term ego eimi's not a single time in the entire Bible! As said the word ego used only in Greek when the self should be emphasized. And hence the expression an egoist!

JOH JOH 1:01 and 1:02 - In the beginning - DNB: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' NKJ has similar translations, but ESE writes 'and the Word was a god.' It is clear that the belief in the Trinity, the doctrine that Jesus is God Almighty, and rejection of the Trinity, the belief that Jesus is God's son, that distinguishes these translations. And it is also clear that the KJV and NKJ defends Pope and Luther's teaching that Jesus is God Almighty. Norwegian clergy, men and women, says in his devotions in the churches and the NRK that "God came down to earth, let himself into the Virgin Mary's belly and let himself be born Jesus Christ. 'Is it the Bible? JOH 1:01 SHG: arche logos logos logos theos theos Trans.: Beginning words words words God god PACT: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was of God, and the Word was God. COMMENT: Here we just landed in a minefield before we did get properly started, the way this verse is translated in, distinguishes between a Trinitarian understanding of God and a superb God's understanding. But as you can see from the Greek text does not say it ourselves so much, for the is open to interpretation - unless we have an adequate understanding of Greek grammar. First, the ancient Greek flash not used prepositions. That is why in Greek only beginning but if we get usable Norwegian by it, we must put the preposition at the beginning. Then, as You see, it is not used auxiliary verbs in Greek, therefore the auxiliary be inserted in the past, was. And in the next paragraph the words were and from, an auxiliary verb and a preposition, inserted to make translation into readable Norwegian, and also the auxiliary will, or in most translations var. When it comes to the word theos, God, they insert in capitals where Trinity advocates believes that God and Christ. The word also is Christ. But those who adhere to Bible's message that Jesus is the Son of God writes about God the Almighty, and god Jesus. Covenant understanding of the Bible is not Trinitarian. Remember that the word God means powerful, which makes one hundred percent correct translation of this verse: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was from the powerful and the Word was powerful. In the next verse , He was in the beginning with God. And it effectively turns to death the claim that Jesus is God Almighty, because had it not been that 'he was in the beginning with God.' It's not a shred of doubt that DnB and NKJs translations of this verse is rough and quite conscious bible fakes! SHG: houtos arche theos Trans.: This beginning God. PACT: He was from the beginning with God.

Fred Vidar Hjortland also writes about the wrong translation and meaning with Tomas that says My Lord and my God:

This simple fact is a strong indication that Jesus never preached any treenighetstro! What we see everywhere in the Gospels is that Jesus' friends and disciples confess Jesus as the Messiah - and nothing more! How is Peter's confession (Matt. 16:16), so the confession of Nathanael (John 1:49), so is Martha confession (John 11:27), as is the Samaritan woman's faith (John 4:1-42) and so is believing the walk to Emmaus is strengthened (Luke 24:13-35). Confession of Jesus as the Messiah seems to be a general pattern in all four Gospels. Such confession testimony of Jesus as Messiah fits like a glove with what we have previously seen, that Jesus never preached any Trinitarian doctrine, never said of himself that he was God, never mentioned God's spirit as a separate divine person, etc. Jesus' friends and disciples 've never heard him preach such doctrines, therefore, they of course never come to believe such a thing! There, however, they heard him say, that the Father is the one and only God (John 5:44 + 17:3), and that the Father is both their God and his own God (John 20:17). And they have heard, and that they believe in! Their religious beliefs are and remain therefore Jewish in character. They profess Shema when they visit the temple and synagogues - as they always have done and like their Master and hero also did it. They have not come to believe in a new God. What is new is only that they have understood and believed that Jesus is the promised Messiah! Above all, we see that it is Jesus as the Messiah in the case of the Gospels. It is Jesus Christ angels proclaiming to the shepherds, and that is Jesus Christ, the Apostle John concludes his whole gospel! Jesus never talked to anyone about that he was God or the existence of a trinity. However, he tried to lead people to believe that he was the Messiah (see eg. Account of the Samaritan woman in John 4 and the story of the walk to Emmaus in Luke 24). And when people come to such a realization, when Jesus was happy! He praised them and expect nothing more. To Peter he said and that it was God himself who had shown him this truth (Matthew 16:16-17). The picture that emerges clearly for us, in short, that Jesus never tried to change the Jewish disciples' belief in God, and that the disciples never confessed anything other than a Jewish belief in God! For the disciples, Jesus was always the promised Messiah, never a god, a mysterious person in the Trinity!

But what about John 20:28, some of us will ask. Switch not Thomas confession radically with the through confession pattern we see elsewhere in the Gospels? Personally I do not think so. Although it may look at first glance, I think there are good reasons to assume that neither Thomas moved outside the sphere of the gospel messiah confessions. Strong indications suggest that neither he had received no new faith in God! In the following I will present two understandings of models each of which takes away all the difficulties associated with this verse. I think understanding both models are good, and I do not know which of them I should prefer. It, however, I am convinced, is that no matter which of these two models one goes, so both are better than the usual Trinitarian way to understand this verse! The first model is simply out that when Thomas exclaims, "My Lord and my God ', it is not these words directed against Jesus, but the Father. Some might interest immediately wrinkle on the forehead of such an explanation, but there are actually several factors that suggest that this may be a good and proper understanding. Firstly carries the entire episode reflects the fact that Thomas was greatly surprised. He was initially very skeptical and refused to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead before he could see the nail marks in his hands and sticking his finger in his sårsiden. Such was his mood. Then suddenly one day Jesus standing there alive right in front of him! Most of us can probably live envisioning how he felt totally surprised and in a way "struck by lightning"! In such a surprise situation it is very common that people come with some type of an outbreak, a eksklamasjon. And in a religious culture, such eksklamasjon often contain words that have to do with God. This is something we are including know from our own Norwegian culture. Many Norwegians want eg. could say, "My God!" or "Oh God!" when they are greatly surprised. I even remembers well how my grandmother used these terms. In the Oriental culture was and is similar religious-like eruption as usual. Very recently (October 2011) I heard such. on the news how people in Turkey said the word "Allah" when they are full of joy and surprise rediscovered surviving relatives after the earthquake. For an observer without knowledge of Turkish and Islamic culture, it could certainly look as if they called their relatives of Allah! But obviously that was not what they did. Their one word eksklamasjon was clearly nothing more than a condensed thanksgiving and praise to God.

That there was something similar that happened to Thomas, is in my opinion not only possible, but actually very likely! Here are some interesting statements and factors that support this assumption. First, a few words of an old connoisseur of oriental culture: It is clear from John 20:5 that Thomas doubted the resurrection of Jesus, without any thought of his deity, and that he, when he saw Jesus and nail marks, came to believe in the resurrection. In the surprising situation he came to, he exclaimed: "My Lord and God," in line with the fixed habit of Jews, Arabs and almost all other Asian nations have to come with outbreaks in their God's name when they become powerful surprised by anything. (Roy, Rammohun, Raja, Final Appeal to the Christian Public, in Defence of the "precepts of Jesus," Calcutta, India, 1823, p.594)

The learned Jewish philosopher and author H.A. Wolfson sees in line with this oriental custom of "outbreaks in their God's name" for the possibility that it was precisely what happened in the case of Thomas: This outbreak of Thomas may have been directed against God and Jesus. (The Philosophy of the Early Church Fathers, p.181) At the famous Orthodox bishop and Church Father Theodor could admit and openly admitting that Thomas' words were a "forundringseksklamasjon directed toward God" - without being accused of heresy, or misinterpretation of some - speaks a clear and strong language! All his contemporaries realized that this was a good and natural interpretation. They knew very well in fact, based on the knowledge they had of their own oriental culture, that this was something that very likely could have happened when Thomas surprisingly met the risen. Theodor believed in the Trinity, but was still not tempted to take Thomas' words for the benefit of the doctrine. For him, it was apparently quite clear that these words had a different and more natural explanation:

Although some modern trinitarer want us to believe that such outbreaks only surprise is a modern phenomenon and not something that was used in ancient times, this is not correct. Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia (350-428 AD) was such. "An early Christian theologian and the most eminent representative of the so-called antiokenske school .... he was highly respected and took part in several synods, and had a reputation as orthodox as it was never questioned. This respected bishop of Mopsuestia was a very early Trinit and a friend of John Chrysostom and of Cyril of Alexandria. " (Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., Vol 22, p.58). This highly respected early trini kelp wrote 1600 years ago that Thomas' statement in John 20:28 was "a surprise outburst directed toward God." (Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament, (John), 1983, Hendrickson Publ., Vol.3, p.535). Another interesting relationship that underpins this understanding, what we find in the Greek grammar. In Norwegian we say "gentleman" Whether we're talking about someone or to some, but it is not so in Greek. Here, the words have different endings depending on what function they have in the sentence (the case). In the nominative example. word gentleman named "kyrios" but vokativ (prosecution) will have a different form, namely "Kyrie". It is eg. This form of address to use in the Norwegian Liturgy when you say "Kyrie eleison" (Lord have mercy). This grammatical pattern is followed quite consistently over everything in the entire New Testament. In all the 119 cases where someone is being prosecuted as men, it vokativformen kyrie being used! (Revelation 4:11 does not break this pattern. Every indication that in the critical text here has to do with something else, an apposition. Otherwise, The Received Text kyrie here too, so that the total number of occurrences is 120). Especially interesting is to see that the pattern followed until consistent in John's Gospel, for it tells us something about this particular author's writing habits. In all the 33 cases in which the word Lord is used in direct charge to anyone in this gospel, it vokativformen kyrie being used! (See John 4:11, 15, 19, 49; 5:7, 6:34, 68; 8:11, 9:36, 38; 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39, 12 : 21, 38, 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37, 14:5, 8, 22, 8:15 p.m., 21:15, 16, 17, 20, 21). In John 14:5 we have a particularly interesting case. Because now Thomas opposite Jesus and address him with the word master. Which case form is then used? Well, as usual and as expected, vokativformen kyrie! The Greek grammar are followed - even in the face of Jesus! If it is then that Thomas speaks directly to Jesus at 8:28 p.m., we should naturally expect to find form kyrie also here. But we do not! Thomas' words are not vokativ, but in the nominative! This is very interesting! Could it be that the Apostle here has deliberately chosen a different case form just to highlight that Thomas says there are no direct charges to Jesus! Is not this the most plausible explanation? What else could explain this special use case? Why the hell would not follow John the Greek grammar here too - as he does everywhere else - if it really is about a direct indictment? Some try to say that the statement still is a direct indictment even if the words are in the nominative, calling it an "attractive lens nominative". Although it must be admitted that such grammatical irregularities actually occurs in the NT, particularly in connection with the word God, we never see the word Lord is used in the "attractive lens nominative" anywhere! Even Stephen, when he appeals to the glorious and heavenly Jesus as Lord (Acts 7:59), speaking only to him vokativformen - not in the nominative! On this basis, it appears highly unlikely that the kyrios is used as a form of address in this one instance in John 20:28! Here is an interesting statement from Edwin Abbott that gives good support to our assessment that kyrie was the normal case and the supreme form that was used in the direct indictment: The Egyptian papyri use kyrie everywhere, but never, so far vitneprovene go, ho kyrios in vokativ importance. A large amount of testimony from all existing Greek manuscripts so that if the intention had been vokativ indictment, Kyrie would have been used. This is also confirmed by the early Latin versions, "Dominus". 1) (Edwin Abbott, Johan Nine Grammar, 94 sec., 2049) 1) "Dominus" is nominativformen. Vokativformen (form of address) in Latin is "dominant". The important early Latin versions (Vetus Latina) is not used form of address in Joh.20: 28 PS - We should not ignore the possibility that the above-mentioned Bishop Theodore arrived at his views on the importance of Thomas' words because he knew his Greek grammar! In keeping with the fact that Thomas' words do not look like any indictment of Jesus according to regular Greek grammar, we see neither his statements as a whole like something prosecution statement! What I think of here, is the fact that when someone starts a prosecution by saying either "master" or "God" in the Bible, then these people always something more to say that they want to say! It can be about many different things, such as. Questions, requests, confession or otherwise. The point is that they always say something more than just these words link or opening words! So it is in all cases in the Gospel of John where Jesus is addressed as sir. Here are a few examples: John 4:15 - Lord, give me this water John 4:19 - Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet John 6:34 - Lord, evermore give us this bread John 6:68 - Lord, to whom shall we go? Joh 11:27 - Lord, .... I think that you are the Christ, the Son of God When it comes to Thomas' words, he accordingly completed pattern eg. still have something like this after opening words: My Lord and my God, you have stood up and have come to us! Or: My Lord and my God, I believe you ..... But no such natural subsequent messages are not god. Thomas says only beginning keywords and nothing more! His statement resembles not a prosecution statement. However, it has all the characteristics of a short eksklamasjonsuttrykk.

Another thing that indicates that it is appropriate to understand Thomas 'words as a short eksklamasjon directed to God the Father is Jesus' response to his statement. When Peter confessed Jesus as the Messiah, he received the praise of Jesus and an assurance that it was God himself who had given him this light in his mind. Should not then Thomas, more than any other, won praise and a similar assurance that it was God himself who had revealed this to him, if he is here realy came with a confession that stated the deepest truth about Jesus - that he was God! Should not Thomas received praise without equal to have known no other disciples had though? Should not Jesus have used the Thomas amazing confession and confirmed and elaborated on the truth about his own deity for the rest of the disciples? Should not Jesus have said to Thomas something similar to: "Blessed are you, Thomas. Finally you though who I am, This is the profession I'm always waiting for. I'm really your God." But all these things are absent in Jesus' reaction to what Thomas says! We find no praise, no talk of God's mighty revelation and no elaboration of their own deity! All Thomas hears, is rather a mild rebuke! Jesus rebukes Thomas actually to have had such an unbelieving heart that he has not been able to believe in the resurrection until he saw Jesus (see v.29). Jesus seems to be completely unaware that Thomas has just said something very important about who he is! The response he gives, shows that he attributes to Thomas' words have special importance or significance beyond showing that Thomas now believe in the resurrection. This response pattern fits like a glove that Thomas' words were a takksigelsesutbrudd addressed to God the Father, that is a short praise to God for Jesus now stood alive before him. Jesus subdued response without allusions to their own deity fit, however not at the Thomas here suddenly to have confessed Jesus as God! Such boundless confession is impossible to imagine that Jesus should have remained silent and passive? As far as I can judge, the matter must be Jesus 'response to Thomas' words constitute a very strong indication that Jesus was not God who confessed that day.

Another thing we can think of is the disciples' faith testimonies for this event. Changed it up? Thomas opened the door to a wonderful truth about Jesus, like all the other disciples immediately took it and began to confess? Followed immediately by the Peter Thomas footsteps? He stood up at Pentecost and preached that Jesus was God? Read Acts 2:14-41 and judge for yourself! Here is some of what Peter said this special day: Israel, hear these words! Jesus of Nazareth was a man of God to you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God gave him to do so among you. All this yourselves know. He was handed over to you, as God had previously determined and known, and by lawless hands you nailed him to the cross and killed him. But God raised him up and freed him from death factories. Death was not strong enough to hold him tight. (V.22-24) A selected man blessed and endowed by God! How is Peter Christ Testimony. Not one word that Jesus is God! Peter did not seem to have any influences from the incident with Thomas to begin to confess Jesus as God. And so it is generally throughout the early Christian church history. Jesus never preached or confessed to God in the book of Acts. There is therefore no evidence that the apostles taught something radically new that day! There is no evidence that Thomas said was something watershed in their life of faith! Again we have therefore an indication that there is a good and reasonable understanding reading Thomas word that a short takksigelsesutbrudd directed to God the Father - and nothing else!

Let me also take how two well-respected Bible translations render John 20:28. Note that Thomas here not being said to answer any questions. This agrees well with the one that Jesus did not ask any questions for him! The verse that can be translated as, also helps to point in the direction of Thomas' words are no charges to Jesus. New English Bible: Thomas said, "My Lord and my God!" Phillips Modern English Bible: "My Lord and my God!" cried Thomas. As a final point I want to draw readers' attention to two interesting verses in John 20 that frames the 28 verse. In verse 17, Jesus has recently said to Mary Magdalene that she would go to his disciples, saying to them that he would soon go up to him who was both his own and his disciples God. This was a crystal clear message to the disciples - Thomas included - as to who was their God and the one true God. How credible is it to say that Thomas - in direct contravention of this teaching of Jesus - a few days later to get the idea that someone other than the Father was his God? In verse 31 sums up John - after the incident with Thomas - the purpose of the whole of the gospel he wrote. If it were true that Thomas confessed Jesus as God and that this was part of the very core of the Christian faith, should we not expect that John would summarize his gospel by saying something that he had written his Gospel so that people might believe that Jesus was God? But it does not John! There, however, he says, is that he wrote the Gospel "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." Again, we face a clear indication that Thomas never accused Jesus as God.

I round out the review of this understanding the model with a quote from the Norwegian Christian leader Ola Tulluan. The word Lord and the word God is in the nominative in John 20:28. Tulluan focus here on nominativformen of the word God (theos - unlike thee form of address): Is theos understand vokativt, or is the whole expression is simply a more or less permanent exclamation expressing astonishment and praise at the same time? Is this last right, do not say anything about the cry which view Thomas had in Jesus as God. When it expresses only his amazement at the miracle of the resurrection, while his praise of the Almighty God who has made this miracle possible. This interpretation is said to originate from Theodore of Mopsuestia and Faustus Socinus, but have not found many supporters. (Ola Tulluan, One true God - Monotheism and the first commandment of missiological perspective, Academic Library of Bible and Mission, Fjellhaug, 1998, p.57) The last Tulluan here say that that view has not found many followers, do not worry noteworthy. Truth and the majority has in no way been synonymous sizes throughout church history! What I do think is particularly interesting in his statement, his clear description of how all difficulties evaporate like dew before the sun when Thomas' words are understood as a eksklamasjon directed toward God the Father! Understanding this model, we have a simple and - as I see it - well substantiated and credible "solution" to the words found in John 20:28. If we understand the words to, seems all pieces to fall into place. I spoke initially about two interesting models for understanding Joh.20: 28 The second model opens up understanding that Thomas could possibly have called Jesus Lord and God, but the words then have had a subordinate and relative importance. That someone being referred to as God / god in a relative sense - without any regard to the juxtaposition of the Almighty God - is actually a well-documented biblical phenomenon. According to Jesus himself was the example. totally OK that judges in ancient Israel were called gods in a relative importance (see John 10:34-35 / Psalm 82). Not only the judges, but also kings could be called gods (see Psalm 45). And Moses called God in relation to the Pharaoh (2 Gen. 7:1). Abraham (1.Mos.23: 6) and King Nebudkanesar (Ez 31:11) were also called gods. Nothing before or after this scene with Thomas suggests that he confessed Jesus as God in the absolute sense! The disciples do not go over that day to believe that Jesus was God. In Acts - ie immediately after the Thomas confession - Jesus preached consistently as the risen Christ, not as God. I am therefore convinced that no friend or disciple ever confessed Jesus as true God. The Apostle Thomas may thus possibly have used the word God about Jesus in a relative sense - a practice the Old Testament gives several examples and practices Jesus himself endorses. But this usage involves never true god - just great power and majesty. This is however in line with the basic meaning of the Hebrew word El. The word just means power, might and majesty. Even the mighty things in nature can be described with this word (Psalm 36:7 - mighty (El) mountain, Psalm 80:11 - mighty (El) cedars). Some theologians suggest indeed that we might come correct if we had translated the word with thickness, or something similar, instead of God. When would the one true God was the Mighty and selected tools would be powerful in a subordinate and secondary importance. The statements below some point in this direction: The Hebrew "ælohim" denotes not only the name of the living and true God, 1.Mos.1: 1 etc. The word is used in a variety of other ways to describe the personalities of power and authority in accordance with the word's basic meaning: power, strength, force. In this latter way is used similarly to the Greek Theoi, gods. (Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1987, b.3, p 236) The Hebrew word for "gods" (elohim) to refer to various exalted beings beside Yahweh, but this meant no challenge in relation to monotheism. (Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues & Commentary, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, c2002, "The feast of Dedication" (John 10:22-42), p.163)

If we remember that the root as the Hebrew word "El" is derived means "strength or power," we will not be so gaping perplexed when we see the word used to describe people in the Old Testament. It is after all an element of strength and power associated with human authority. It is the context the words El or Elohim is in determines what value these words should have. We make a mistake if we give these words a fixed value when our study material notoriously do not. (Frye, The Father Son Relationship, pp.25.26, quoted in Patrick Navas, Divine Truth or Human Tradition, Author House, 2007, p.227-228) The early Christians used the word god beings with varying degrees of sovereignty and power, and not like now, only in an absolute sense. .... That is, as I see it, is a relative term, a term that describes someone who has control. (Mary SB Dana, Letters Addressed two relatives and friends, in reply to arguments in support of the doctrine of the trinity, Boston / London, 1846, letter No. 2)

One finds a wide use of the words for "God" in Jewish angelology. Both elim and elohim are eg. extensively used as a term of mighty angels in 4Q400-407 (Dead Sea Scrolls). Neither here forligger there any intention to violate God's unity and uniqueness. (PM Casey, monotheism, Worship and Christological development in the Pauline Churches, in: The Jewish Roots of Christological monotheism. Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, ed. Newman, Davila, Lewis, Brill , Leiden-Boston-Köln, 1999, p.216-217) Other heavenly beings than the Lord is often called elohim in the Dead Sea Scrolls. (Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God - Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature, William B. Eerdmans Publ. Co.., Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, UK, 2008, p.61) We must therefore conclude that, based on Filon perspective and from the perspective of the Jewish community he belonged, as was his description of Moses as theos (God) is not something that affected or threatened monotheism. (PM Casey, monotheism, Worship and Christological development in the Pauline Churches, in: The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism. Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, ed. Newman, Davila, Lewis, Brill, Leiden-Boston-Köln, 1999, p.216) In light of the rest of John's Gospel can not Thomas confession mean that the risen Jesus is the one God. The name has already been used by Jesus in the context in which he clearly distinguishes between the Father and the Son. (17:3). In addition, Jesus had a revelation to Mary Magdalene after the resurrection commanded her to go to his disciples, saying to them that he ascended "to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" (20:17). It is highly unlikely that John intended to get readers to believe that the Father and the Son at one time or another have merged into one, or the one Jesus called "my God" in one way or another has been the Risen Lord himself. (Marianne Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John, p.235) The scriptures do not identify the word "God" necessarily the highest, but is often used of men and angels. Moses is called God: 2 Gen. 7:1. The judges in Israel are called gods, Psalm 82:6. The word of God came to be called gods: John 10:35. Paul says that there are many things both in heaven and in earth, who are called gods, 1 Cor 8:5. Thus we see that the word "God" is sometimes used in a secondary importance. When the term is used to denote the highest, are often other words associated with it to describe his divine perfections or characteristics. He is called the invisible God, the Almighty God, the only wise God, the only true God, the Most High God, Yahweh God - titles that never once given to Christ nowhere in the Bible. About the word "God" alone always termed the Most High, would such additional descriptions have been superfluous. If Jesus had been called God never so many times in Scripture, this would not have been any evidence that he was the Supreme, just as the fact that Moses is called God is no evidence that he is the Most High! (Charles Morgridge, The True Believers Defence, Boston, 1837, p.115) Thomas used the word "God" in the sense it is used of kings and judges (who are seen as God's representatives) and, above all, the Messiah. (CG Kuehnoel (Trinitarian theologian), cited by WG Eliot in: Discourses on the Doctrines of Christianity, Boston, 1886, p.79) Thomas saw the risen Jesus, the one who was chosen to be "God" in the age to come, who would take over for Satan, this age "God." But Thomas' words "Lord" and "God" is nothing other than the messianic titles in line with the divine titles given to the angel of the Lord and to the representatives of God in the Old Testament. The earlier doubting apostle did not begin suddenly to believe in the Nicene and the Athanasian Creed and watch his Lord as "true God from true God." John's Gospel must not be manipulated to match the much later speculation on Greek theologians. (Sidney A. Hatch, Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary) We must here round this brief and fragmentary overview of language background material. But hopefully enough has been said to show that the New Testament writers spoke of Jesus in a cultural setting where the terminology that we would have considered appropriate only in relation to a being who was truly divine, was used to angels and even though people . In the first century world, one could argue that some people were in a particularly close relationship to the celestial sphere, one could ascribe to them a certain degree of ontological equality with God's nature, one could honor them with such titles as "Son of God", " Lord "- yes, even" god ". And all this could be done without having any intention to attribute those honored in this way, the same divine status as the Supreme God. (GH Booby, Jesus as "theos" in the New Testament, The John Rydland Bulletin, vol.50, 1967/8) As we see, also for understanding the second one of a kind. Thomas may actually have called Jesus God in a subordinate and relative importance without having had the intention to confess one true God number two next to God the Father. Such a use of the word god is quite alien to us in our modern culture, but in biblical times was such a use of the word a real possibility. Word had obviously another denomination at the time. All the pieces fall into place so we also follow this understanding model. As mentioned before, I find it hard to choose between the two models understanding. What I do know for sure about myself is that both of these two models provide better and more likely answer to what kind of meaning Thomas put in their words than a Trinitarian interpretation does. We have - as I see it - not a strange case of one person once confessed Jesus as true God in the Gospels. All the apostles - Thomas included - thought only GOD! Jesus was their Messiah - not your God!

Final Comment: Coming back to several topics about Trinity. If you have questions about this topic or other things? Submit your question and you will get the answer here, send in:

Mail: jk.chris @ online.no

Otherwise SMS: 99598070

Related links: http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/ http://janchristensen.net/index2.php?side=video http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution