While talking with a Trinitarian this morning, who raised John 20:28 for the nth time as proof of Christ's deity, I thought of a disjunctive syllogism just for fun.
1) Either John 20:28 is a nominative for a vocative or it is a nominative of exclamation.
2) John 20:28 is not a nominative for a vocative.
3) Therefore, John 20:28 is a nominative of exclamation.
The argument is formally valid since disjunctive syllogisms assume the form: either p or q; not p or not q (deny one of the disjuncts); therefore, p or q (affirm one of the disjuncts).
Now the Trinitarian view is not disproved so easily, but I know more than one Witness who has vigrously argued that 20:28 is not a nominative for a vocative. The reasons have been discussed ad nauseam et ad infinitum, but maybe we need to discuss the reasons again.
25 comments:
Taking textual variant evidence into account. Is there any scripture that directly calls Jesus "god"?
Trinitarians normally invoke Jn 1:1c; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:6-8; 2 Pet 1:1; 1 Jn 5:20.
My question here is.. Does deity mean almighty God, or a divine being? If the latter there is no disagreement. I am not trying to be factious, I just feel that these scriptures prove a duality not a trinity. If they want me to accept the fact that Jesus is almighty, they have to accept the fact that these scriptures prove only a duality. I not willing to move on to a trinity based on these scriptures mentioned.
Deity in English may refer to the supreme being or to lesser entities. However, when Trinitarians say that Jesus is deity, they mean he is Almighty God (second person of the triune Godhead/the Son). But what about the holy spirit as you say? Trinitarians argue that the Bible predicates divine works/activities of the spirit, even if the spirit is never called El/Elohim or Theos. In other words, the Trinity is inferred from Scripture, not directly stated or taught in the Bible.
Inferred to me holds a lot less weight then the actual words at those scriptures. The scriptures they use teach a duality, an inferred is really their bias spin on the scriptures.
I agree with your statement, but have tried to understand Trinitarianism to some degree. Trinitarians appear to make the claim that the Trinity in Scripture is like a jigsaw puzzle: all the parts are not in one verse, but you have to piece everything together from the Hebrew and Greek Bible in totality. Once all the pieces are conjoined, then you'll see the light. :)
So John 1:1 + 1 Cor. 2:10ff = the Trinity. And so forth.
2 Cor 13:14 is often invoked too, but it does not prove the Trinity anymore than Mt 28:19 does.
At 2 Cor. I find it interesting that Paul speaks of Jesus than he says God and then Holy Spirit. If you are going to talk about a Person, who is one and the same you won't refer to him as separate as to what he is. Yet, Jesus is separated from God, seems it is always the case in scripture. I also like at John 20:22 how Jesus is able to give Holy Spirit by breathing, he then says receive holy spirit. It really highlights the meaning of the Hebrew word ruach, meaning breath.
Duncan and I had a long conversation about ruach/pneuma meaning "breath," and I agree with this understanding of ruach/pneuma. My only qualm sometimes is that ruach/pneuma are ambiguous at times since they could mean breath, wind or "spirit" and so forth. At any rate, I concur with your comment about Jn 20:22 with pneuma meaning breath there.
Sample word study on ruach. For educational purposes only--posting does not mean I endorse all that's said in a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ID8dNRPAok
Gen 26:35 is a point of interest in this video.
ABP και ησαν εριζουσαι τω Ισαακ και τη ΡεβεκκαG.
Still see this as motivation that drives action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Book_of_the_Dead_spells#54.E2.80.9363:_Empowering_to_breathe_and_drink
Interesting how breath and water are grouped together - Note the heading "drink" is misleading in the normal sense.
Cf Luke 16:24
It appears to me that Trinitarianism thrives on ambiguities, especially the triadic formulae, and esoteric connections (e.g. John 8:58). As such, it has doomed itself to become a relic of history. (I refer to the comments in The Triune God (New Studies in Dogmatics) by Fred Sanders (Author) December 6, 2016. PP. 162-3.)
With that said, it is no surprise that John 20:28 has to be ripped from its Johannine and immediate contexts, as well as the larger Biblical context, in order to be employed for Trinitarianism. It's absolutely appalling. Interested persons can read my essay on this here: http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/11/did-thomas-teach-trinitarianism-at-john.html
Duncan,
I believe Insight states that Gen 26:35 is an example of one's dominant mental attitude.
Cambridge Bible: "By 'a grief of mind' we should understand soreness and disappointment; cf. Proverbs 14:10. The LXX ἐρίζουσαι, Lat. offenderant animam, took the meaning to be that Judith and Basemath were quarrelsome, and had given offence to Esau's parents."
NET Bible Notes: "tn Heb 'And they were [a source of] bitterness in spirit to Isaac and to Rebekah.'"
E.A. Speiser also reads Gen 26:35 as a statement about the "disappointment" of Esau's parents.
Thanks, Jim. I will read your blog entry.
For me, the Trinity doctrine has been a 30+ year discussion with Trinitarians, and for the most part, I've gotten nowhere with them. A friend of mine used to say that if a Trinitarian won't accept 2 scriptures, he won't accept 150. It seems to me that his observation is true, but I cannot resist asking Trinitarians questions on occasion.
Trinitarians customarily read 20:28 within the context of John 1:1, 18 as seen through a Trinitarian template, then they invoke John 8:58 and 18:6 (etc) to uphold Jesus' deity.
Here lately, I've been getting more pneumatological questions based on 1 Cor. 12:11; Eph. 4:30 and 1 Cor. 2:10-12. As you said, one needs to read all of these verses in the light of Scripture overall. One can hope, can't one? :)
Did you notice what the WT said yesterday about the KJV?
Where ever you see the word "LORD" in all caps, it stands for Jehovah, even in the Greek Scriptures. Found it to be true, well that was an eye opener for me. So when we read the all caps lord it is Jehovah even in the KJ. That would help separate Jesus from Jehovah in the KJ bible.
That point about the Greek scriptures was interesting for me too. We all know Ps 110:1 in the KJV where the LORD said unto David's Lord, but we don't often talk about how the KJV treats the divine name in Greek Scripture verses.
https://www.originalbibles.com/mobile-view/
Starting at Pg 1219. Can you spot an example?
Duncan, see this article: http://kurios.homestead.com/
Edgar;
I don't suppose that you know of any notes from the translators of KJV? Why they would choose to use the all Caps "LORD" in the Greek testament? It seems that it is 4 very deliberate choices they made. They would have had to say we are using the all caps "Lord" here. Plus they only used Jehovah 4 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, the number 4... Hmm, could it be a mere coincidence?
Thanks
Philip, did you see the link above at homestead.com? I thought it was somewhat helpful with answering the questions you ask. I am sure there is more information on the questions, but I would say the KJV treatment of the Tetragrammaton is not coincidence.
It is a helpful link, when I have more time, I will look into it more. I have made it a favorites for my computer, I think I have already spent 30 minutes or more looking at him.
Original kjv available here (bandwidth & storage permitting).
https://www.originalbibles.com/download-a-bible/
As far as I know, the original introduction is available also from here:-
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/1611-King-James-Bible-Introduction.php
I do not know what other apparatus the complete bible may contain.
The fact that only 'ho theos' can be a real God, standing without a noun ('theos') can necessarily only mean some lesser god, demigod, well, neither the New Testament nor Greek grammar knows such a rule. The New Testament also calls the Father simply 'theos', and there are even examples where 'ho theos' refers not only to the true God, but also to Satan (e.g. 2Cor 4:4 "the god of this world" = ho theos tou aiōnos toutou).
According to the Watchtower Society, Thomas here simply exclaimed in emotional surprise, turning to Jesus, but actually addressing his words to God the Father, not to Jesus. As for the text, neither the kyrios (lord) nor the theos (god) is in the vocative case, that is, the addressing mode (e.g., the vocative of kyrios would be kyrie). However, this does not mean that Thomas did not say what he said to Jesus. Both nouns are preceded by the definite article: ho kyrios and ho theos, which is of decisive importance.
As for such constructions with definite articles, which sound a bit strange to a Greek ear, this is one of the special Hebrew and Aramaic linguistic turns found in the Greek text of the New Testament. In Hebrew, the vocative case is expressed with the definite article: e.g., in Mk 14:36 the 'abba ho pater' is literally "God, the Father", in English: "My God! My Father!" In Aramaic, the vocative is expressed by the -a (article) attached to the noun; e.g., in Mk 5:41 the 'talithA kumi'! According to Mark's Aramaic Greek translation, 'to korasion', literally "THE little girl, arise!", in English: "Little girl, arise!"
If John wrote following the Greek linguistic procedure, then Thomas's sentence is an exclamation stemming from recognition, addressed to Jesus: in Jesus, he finally recognized his Lord and his God. If John translated the sentence originally spoken in Aramaic "literally" into Greek, it is also clear that he originally said what he said to Jesus, in the vocative case. Based on all this, it can be said with certainty that from Thomas's recognition, a statement, ultimately a confession of faith, arose: "My Lord, and my God!" or more simply, said to Jesus ("to him"): "Lord! My God!" The conjunction 'and' (kai) does not refer to the separateness of Thomas's Lord and God, but is one of the expressive tools of pathos in both Hebrew and Greek. For example, in Paul's blessings, 'ho theos kai pater' is literally "God and Father", but in meaning it is "God the Father" (see 1Cor 15:24, 2Cor 1:3, 11:31, Gal 1:4, Eph 1:3). Therefore, the "and" can be omitted in the English translation.
Thomas's words cannot be interpreted merely as signs of astonishment ("Oh my God!"). He not only exclaimed, but clearly spoke to Jesus, said what he said to him (auto = to him). Thomas transitioned from doubting to confessing faith after Jesus appeared to him. And Jesus did not correct him to be just "a god" among many or "god with a small g".
However, the Watchtower Society denies that God, the Son, was among us in Jesus and died a sacrificial death. Therefore, they try to translate and interpret Thomas's words in a way that they do not sound like a confession of faith stemming from recognition. According to the Bible verse, however, Thomas recognized his Lord and his God in the resurrected Jesus, and Jesus accepted his confession of faith.
Interesting quote on John 20:28:
"The article in Jn 20:28 is explained by the mou (mou, moo, “of me”) which normally
requires the article before it; by its use with the vocative [case]...and by its presence in the established formula ‘the lord and the god’...It should be further noted that ‘the god of me’, whether it is taken as vocative [direct address] or nominative, [identification] is predicative in sense and so cannot be used as evidence either way to show whether the god in New Testament usage ever appears as subject of a statement referring to Christ.”—Karl Rahner, S.J., Theological Investigations, Vol. i, p. 136.
Post a Comment