My Lord, and my God: Trinitarians get it wrong
Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28).
To Trinitarians and those who believe in the “deity of Christ”, this
verse is slam-dunk evidence that Jesus is God.
But is it? I believe the “deity of Christ” interpretation ignores and
contradicts Jesus’s teaching in the Gospel of John. There is a much better way
to understand Thomas’s words.
Which “God” did Thomas mean when he said “my God”?
If you think Thomas recognized a 2nd God-person in Jesus, or
a God-essence, or a “God the Son incarnate” in Jesus, I think you are not
listening to and contradicting what Jesus tells us in John’s Gospel.
Jesus, in John’s Gospel, said that it is God, the Father that Thomas
saw in Jesus.[1]
"...believe the works, that you may know and understand that THE FATHER IS IN ME" (Jesus, in John 10:28, cf. John 14:10-20)
A Challenge
Let me challenge you to think how biblically foreign the deity-of-Christ claim really is. Trinitarianism claims that because Thomas saw the once dead, now
resurrected, flesh-and-bone Jesus, “Thomas called Jesus his God.” Be honest
with yourself. Put yourself in Thomas’s place in first century Jerusalem. If
you saw and touched the dead-but-now-resurrected-man Jesus, would you think
that Jesus was God, or would you think that God (known as the Father) had
raised Jesus from the dead?
Some Ancient Near East and Greek religions believed in the death and
resurrection of their god. Worshipers of Baal, for instance, claimed Baal was
dead and came alive. But unlike pagans, biblical thinking Jews believed that
the eternal God does not die, nor does he come back to life. Rather, the only
God, Yehovah, the Father, promised to raise humans from the dead. This is one
of the reasons why God is called “the Father” -- because He gives life to
humans both in this age and in the age to come.
Contrary to the “deity-of-Christ” interpretation, Thomas did not fail
to acknowledge the work of the Father, the One Eternal Life-Giving God, in the
resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Indeed, Thomas acknowledged the Father,
seeing two “persons” involved in the resurrection of Jesus:
- my “Lord” is Jesus the Messiah, who suffered and died, but was raised from the dead.
- my “God” is the Father, who raised Jesus from the dead.
The
Trinitarian “deity of Christ” interpretation of John 20:28 fails to see or
acknowledge the Father who raised to life the dead Jesus.
Apostles’ Reaction to the Resurrection of Jesus:
“God
raised him from the dead!”
Not: “He is God!”
In all other places in the Bible where the apostles react to the
resurrection of Jesus the Messiah from the dead, they do not react by declaring
“This proves Jesus is God”. Rather, they react by declaring: “God (the Father)
raised the Lord Jesus from the dead” (Acts 2:22-24, 2:36, 4:10, 5:30, 10:40,
13:30-37; Rom. 1:4, 10:9, Gal 1:1, 1 Pet. 1:21, etc.) There are over 30
references in the New Testament stating that God raised Jesus Christ from
the dead. The reaction of the other apostles is evidence that Thomas is
reacting in the same way. “This Jesus, God raised up, and of that we are
all witnesses” (Acts 2:32).
The apostles, including Thomas, saw their God at work in the
resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
To emphasize, nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus’s resurrection
interpreted by the apostles to show Jesus’s deity. Rather, the apostles
interpret Jesus’s resurrection as an act of God (the Father) the Giver of Life,
who designated Jesus as Lord Messiah/Christ, Son of God, savior, and judge
(Acts 2:22-36, 3:15, 5:30-31, 13:23-40, 17:31, Rom.1:4, 10:9, Gal. 1:1, etc).
The Father (God) is made known, revealed and represented by the resurrected Son
(John 1:18).
Seeing God, but No one has seen God
John 12:45 and John 1:18
Just days before he was crucified, Jesus shouted out in Jerusalem, “He
who sees me sees Him who sent me” (John 12:44-45). The One
who sent Jesus is God (the Father, John 3:16, 5:23, 20:21). When we see
Jesus, we can see God (the Father) who sent him. There are two
“persons” seen here. 1) Jesus who was sent by God, and 2) God the Father who
sent Jesus.
But how could Jesus say “he who sees me sees Him who sent
me” and “whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 12:45,
14:9) when the same Gospel states “no one has ever seen God” (John
1:18)?
Because John 1:18 uses “seen” literally and Jesus uses “seen”
figuratively (John 10:6; 16:25, 29). The word “see” is often used in a
figurative sense to mean “perceive, know, understand”, as we might say “I see
what you mean.”
Jesus represents someone else, specifically, God the Father who sent
him. We see God the Father in Jesus because Jesus perfectly represents
God, and because God was behind the scenes and involved
in everything that Jesus was and did. When we see Jesus, we see, i.e., perceive God (the Father). When Thomas saw Jesus resurrected from the
dead, he saw, i.e., understood that God (the Father) was working.
Compare Peter’s declaration in Acts 2:22: “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by
God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did
through him…” The apostles literally saw Jesus perform miracles. But they “see”
God (the Father) behind the scenes doing the miracles. To “see” God this way
means in the figurative sense of “perceiving, knowing, understanding.”
Even before his death and resurrection Jesus could say that the
apostles had seen the Father, because the Father was seen, i.e., known
in the works that Jesus did (John 14:7-9).
By the works Jesus did the apostles could “know and understand
that the Father is in me and I am in the Father” (John 10:38).
“No one has ever seen God; the unique Son, who is at the Father's side,
he has made Him known.”
By claiming that Thomas literally saw God, the “deity of Christ”
interpretation of Thomas’s words directly contradicts the Gospel of John’s
statement that “no one has ever seen God”.
“Lord, show us the Father”
(John 14:8, Not “Lord, show us God the Son”)
We ask again. When Thomas said “my Lord and my God”,
which God did Thomas see?
Trinitarianism says that Thomas
was seeing “God the Son incarnate” or maybe some God-ness or God-essence. Jesus
said differently. Jesus said that Thomas would see “the Father” (God).
John 14
On the evening before Jesus’s crucifixion, Jesus told Thomas:
“If you have known me, you also will know my Father. From now on
you do know HIM and have seen HIM" (John 14:7).
Keep in mind that Jesus was speaking to Thomas. To know Jesus was to know
and see the Father. Thomas
had actually already seen Him (the Father). Again, “seeing” is being
used in the figurative sense of “understanding” and “knowing”.
To suggest that Thomas sees or knows a different God other than God the
Father in the resurrected Jesus turns a deaf ear to Jesus’s teaching, and
contradicts what Jesus told Thomas.
Then in the next verse, with Thomas undoubtedly still listening, Philip
asked:
“Lord, show us the Father” (John 14:8).
Philip’s request, “Lord, show us the Father” involves two
“persons”:
1) Lord -- is Jesus.
2) the Father -- is God.
Two “persons”, but only one of them is God. These are the same two
“persons” that Thomas acknowledges and sees in the resurrection of Jesus from
the dead.
“Lord, show us the Father”. We might wonder why Philip didn’t
ask Jesus to show the apostles “God the Son”? Why didn’t Philip ask Jesus to
show them the Trinity? Why would Philip only be interested in seeing the
Father? Could it be that for Philip there was no such thing as “God the
Son” or “God the Trinity”, and that for Philip, as for Jesus, Moses and Paul,
there was “only one God, the Father” (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29-32; John
5:44, 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 1:17, 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5)?
Jesus replied to Philip, Thomas still listening:
“Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever
has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show
us the Father’? Do you not
believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The
words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father
who remains in me does HIS works.
Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in
me, or else believe on account of the works themselves” (14:9-11).
Could Jesus have made it any clearer? The Father was in Jesus. “The Father who remains in me
does HIS works…”
Seeing and Believing
Philip wanted to see the Father. “Lord, show us the
Father”. Jesus did show Philip and Thomas and all the apostles the
Father. It is the Father that Jesus showed, and that Thomas saw.
Jesus stated over and over again that his words and works show that it
is the Father working in and through Jesus (cf. Acts 2:22). “Deity
of Christ” theologians ignore Jesus and instead create a fictitious “God the
Son” that they see in Jesus. But “God the Son” was not working in or
through Jesus. Neither Jesus nor anyone else in Scripture ever mention “God the
Son”. To suggest that there is any other God-person in Jesus other than the
Father simply ignores what Jesus told the apostles over and over again. Jesus said
continually that the Father was working in and through him. Jesus said
he would show the apostles the Father. Thomas saw (perceived)
the Father.
Resurrection: “When you see me again, you will know
that I am in my Father’
Jesus continued his discussion that same night with Thomas, Philip and
the other apostles. Jesus said that it would particularly be in seeing him after
his death and resurrection that they would know (see) that God the Father was at work in Jesus: “Yet a little while
and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. In that day you will know that I am in
my Father, and you in me, and I in you” (14:19-20).
Thomas Finally Gets It, when you see Jesus, you see
the Father
Some eight days after Jesus told Thomas and Philip that they would see
the Father in him (eight days after Jesus was raised from the dead), Thomas
saw and touched the once dead but now alive flesh-and-bone-human Jesus
(Luke 24:39). Thomas finally knew (understood and believed) what Jesus was
talking about. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus revealed the Father,
the only God (John 17:3), the Giver of Life. Thomas saw (i.e., understood,
knew) that the resurrection of Jesus was the work of God the Father,
that the Father had given life to Jesus, that indeed the Father was
in Jesus, the Father is known by the resurrected Jesus, the Father
is declared in the resurrected Jesus, the Father is represented by the
resurrected Jesus. Just like Jesus said, “Believe
me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me…” (John 14:11).
Thomas finally did.
It is not a “second person of a godhead” to whom Thomas proclaims “my
God!” If it was, Thomas still hadn’t learned what Jesus taught him. Jesus
taught Thomas that when you see Jesus you see the Father, because the Father
does His works through Jesus. If Thomas did not acknowledge the Father when he saw
the resurrected Jesus, Thomas failed to listen to Jesus and failed to acknowledge
or give credit to the God who raised Jesus from the dead.
My Lord, and my God
Thomas did not say to Jesus “YOU are my Lord and my God”. Compare
Nathaniel’s words to Jesus when Nathaniel expressed that Jesus was both
the King of Israel and the Son of God: “Nathanael answered Him,
"Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel”
(John 1:49).
Unlike Nathaniel’s declaration, Thomas’s declaration does not contain “you”
at all, because Thomas understood that he was seeing another “person” at work
in the resurrected Jesus, the Father. Thomas’s exclamation has two
titles for two different “persons”: “My Lord” (Jesus) and “my God” (the Father)
because Jesus has told Thomas - many times! - that “when you see me”, in this
case resurrected from the dead, “you have seen the Father” (John 12:45, 14:19-20).
How many times did Jesus need to say in the Gospel of John that when we
see him, we see the Father? “Deity of Christ” interpreters ignore the
author of the Gospel John. “Deity of Christ” interpreters ignore Jesus.
Just as Jesus told Thomas would happen, Thomas saw his God, the Father,
declared in and through the resurrected-from-the-dead Jesus.
Paging “God the Son”, “God the Son” where are You?
There is no “God the Son incarnate” in the Gospel of John or anywhere
else in Scripture. “God the Son” is never credited with being the reason Jesus
is who he is, or does what he does. Many Trinitarians claim that Jesus did what
he did and said what he said “because Jesus is God.” But the Trinitarian claim
is contrary to what the Bible says, especially in the Gospel of John. Jesus
says in the Gospel of John:
- The Father is “the only true God” (John 17:1, 3).
- The Father is in Jesus. Jesus’s works are the Father’s works. The works were done by the Father in Jesus (10:32, 10:37, 14:10, cf. Acts 2:22).
- Jesus’s words are the Father’s words (8:48, 12:49-50, 14:10, cf. Deut. 18:18).
- Jesus’s glory is from the Father (1:14, 8:54, 17:5).
- Jesus has declared or made known the Father (1:18, 14:10-11).
- If people knew Jesus, they would know the Father (8:19, 12:45, 14:7-11).
- Because Jesus spoke the Father’s words, and because of the miraculous works Jesus did from the Father, people could “know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father" (10:38, 12:49, 14:10).
Again, there is never any indication of another divine person, a
so-called “God the Son incarnate” at work or “in” Jesus. In the Gospel of John “God
the Son incarnate” gets no credit for anything because he doesn’t exist. The Gospel
of John makes it crystal clear that the God who is at work in Jesus is the
Father. For Trinitarians to claim that Thomas was declaring that he saw some
other God-person in the resurrected Jesus other than God (the Father) ignores a
massive amount of Jesus’s teaching recorded in John’s Gospel.[2]
“Believe me”: The Resurrection or Deity?
The night before he was crucified, what did Jesus tell the apostles to believe?
“Believe me that I am God”? Far from it. “Believe
me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me…” (John
14:11).
When the other apostles told Thomas that they had seen the resurrected
Jesus, Thomas didn’t believe that Jesus was alive (John 20:25),
literally raised from the dead by God.
It was belief in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead - prime
evidence that the Father is in Jesus - that Jesus commended. “Believe
me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me…Have you believed
because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”
(John 14:11, 20:29).
It is the death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah
that the apostles later preached, not the deity of Jesus (Acts 2:22; 1
Cor. 1:23, 2:2, 15:3-6, 12; 1 Pet. 1:21, etc.).
My God and Your God,
My Father and Your Father: Context and John’s Purpose for Writing
Understanding that Thomas’s declaration
“my God” refers to the Father fits the context of John chapter 20. Interpreting
Thomas to be calling Jesus “my God” does not fit the context.
On the day of his
resurrection, in words that John recorded only 11 verses prior to Thomas’s “my
God” statement, Jesus said to Mary Magdalene, “Go to my brothers and say to
them ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God
and your God’” (John 20:17). Jesus has a God, who is the same God as the
apostles’ God. Jesus’s and Thomas’s God is also known as the Father.
Jesus said he is Thomas’s brother, not Thomas’s God.
Those who want to claim that
“Thomas called Jesus God” should explain from Scripture why God has a God, because
the “deity of Christ” interpretation means that “God-Jesus” has a God. Also, if
Thomas is brother to “God-Jesus”, does this mean that Thomas is (a) God?
John tells us why he
recorded the signs/miracles
Further, just two verses
after John recorded Thomas’s declaration, John stated the reason why he
recorded the signs that Jesus did.
“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the
disciples, which are not written in this book;
but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:30-31).
John does not say
that he recorded these signs so that we would believe that Jesus is God. Rather,
John recorded the signs so that we might believe that Jesus is the “Christ/Messiah,
the Son of God”. “Christ/Messiah” in the Bible is never a title for deity.
Likewise, “Son of God” in the Bible is never a title for deity, but is the
title for the human King of Israel (2 Sam. 7:14, Psa. 2:7, 89:26, John 1:49,
11:27).
Do we believe John? Or do we
ignore John and believe someone else who says that John wrote his book to tell
us that Jesus is God? Why does Trinitarianism refuse to believe John when John
tells us the reason he wrote?
The context of John 20,
including events and statements by the author of the Gospel of John immediately
before and after Thomas’s declaration show that Thomas was declaring that Jesus
is his Lord and the Father is his God.
Lord and God, two
different titles in the Gospel of John
The New Testament consistently
uses the same titles that Thomas used to distinguish between God (the
Father) and the Lord Jesus Christ. God is not the Lord
Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ is not God. There are many,
many biblical examples where the Lord Jesus Christ is differentiated from God. Here
are a few:[3]
- “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom (Eph. 1:17).
- “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:3, cf. Ephesians 1:3, Rom. 15:6, 1 Pet. 1:3).
- “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies” (2 Cor. 1:3).
- “Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36)
- "...if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead..." (Rom. 10:9).
In the Gospel of John, God
is never called Lord unless John quotes a passage directly from the Old
Testament which has God’s personal name Yehovah יהוה. But this is rare, only three times in all
the Gospel of John (1:23, 12:13, 38). Outside of those three quotes from the
Old Testament, the Gospel of John never refers to God as Lord. On the other
hand, Jesus is called Lord some 40 times in the Gospel of John,
all used in the sense of an honorific title denoting authority, “Master, Sir”. Here
are a few examples:
“Do you believe in the Son of
Man?” “Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?” (9:35-36).
“Lord, I believe that you
are the Messiah, the Son of God” (11:27).
“A servant is not greater than
his Lord” (13:16, 15:20).
“You call me Teacher and Lord,
and you are right, for so I am” (13:13).
“They have taken away the Lord
out of the tomb, and we do not know where they laid him” (20:2).
In the Gospel of John, Lord
is an honorific title for humans, especially for Jesus.
In the Gospel of John (and
in the New Testament), “God” refers only to Father. When Thomas said,
“my God” he could only be referring to the one God, the Father, who Jesus said
Thomas would see.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus
stated that receiving eternal life (life in the age to come,
resurrection life) involved knowing two “persons”:
“Father…this is eternal
life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom
you have sent” (John 17:1, 3). These are the same two “persons” that Thomas saw
in the raised to eternal life Jesus. “My God” is the Father. “My
Lord” is Jesus Christ. The Trinitarian interpretation of Thomas’s declaration
ignores the Father, the only true God, the Giver-of-Life (John 1:13).
Peter is Satan
If we apply the “deity of
Christ” interpretation method of Thomas’s statement to another place in the
Bible, then we can also interpret that the Apostle Peter is Satan. In Matthew
16:23 we read, “But he (Jesus) turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me,
Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the
things of God, but on the things of man.’”
Jesus directly called Peter, Satan, and “Peter did not deny being Satan!” Jesus’s
words can be considered to have greater authority than Thomas’s words. So, to
be consistent we must claim that Peter is Satan. This would logically lead to
understanding that Peter is Satan incarnate, that Satan had two natures (spirit
and human), that Peter was the serpent in the Garden of Eden who may have pre-existed
creation! Jesus spoke directly and very plainly. He called Peter Satan, just as
Thomas called Jesus God.[4]
The truth is, Jesus
recognized someone else involved in Peter’s thinking, just as Thomas recognized
someone else involved in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
Seeing God at work in
Human Affairs
A major biblical theme is
that humans should be able to recognize or see God at work in the deeds,
sometimes miraculous, that God does on earth through human beings. The
Israelites could know it was Yehovah who brought them out of Egypt by the
miraculous deeds that Yehovah performed through Moses (Exo. 29:46, Deut. 4:35).
The Canaanite Hivites saw
what “Yehovah your God…did to the two kings of the Amorites, that
were beyond Jordan”. They saw Yehovah God in victories done through Moses and
Joshua (Josh. 9:9-10).
When Jesus healed a lame
man, “the crowds saw it, they were in awe, and they glorified God, who
had given such authority to men.” (Matt. 9:6-8).
When Jesus raised to life a
dead man, “they glorified God, saying, ‘A great prophet has arisen among
us!’ and ‘God has visited his people!’” (Luke 7:15-16). The people
didn’t fail to recognize, glorify and credit God with the life-restoration
miracle that had been performed through Jesus.
When Jesus healed many in
the Gentile district of Decapolis, “the crowd was in awe, when they saw the
mute speaking, the crippled healthy, the lame walking, and the blind seeing.
And they glorified the God of Israel.” Again, these Gentiles were able
to see the God of Israel at work in Jesus.
In a statement that also
involved victory over death, Paul recognized the work of God through
Jesus: “Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our
Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 15:57).
Failure to see Yehovah
God at work in biblical events, particularly in the resurrection of
Jesus from the dead, is a kind of blindness (Isa. 6:9-10).
Summary
Thomas’s statement in John 20:28 is touted as one of the chief
evidences in the Bible for the “deity of Christ” and for the Trinity. But the “deity
of Christ” interpretation gets it very wrong.
1.
The “deity of Christ” interpretation ignores the biblical, Hebraic
cultural background of Thomas’s declaration. Pagans may have believed in a deity
resurrected from the dead, but biblically thinking Jews believed that God does
not die, nor does He rise from the dead. Rather, God raises humans from the
dead.
2.
The “deity of Christ” interpretation ignores the reaction of all the
other apostles to the resurrection of Jesus. The apostles never react to the
resurrection of Jesus by declaring “Jesus is God”, but rather, “God raised
Jesus from the dead”. The “deity of Christ” interpretation ignores tens of
other clear biblical statements that “God (the Father) raised Jesus from the
dead.”
3.
The “deity of Christ” interpretation directly contradicts the Gospel of
John’s statement that “no one has ever seen God” (John 1:18). Our
interpretation of Thomas’s declaration agrees that “no one has ever seen God.”
The Father figuratively was “seen”, i.e., percieved in the totality of the life
of Jesus, especially in his death and resurrection.
4.
The “deity of Christ” interpretation ignores the literary context of Thomas’s
statement in the Gospel of John. Thomas initially doubted and eventually
believed in the resurrection of Jesus, not the deity of Jesus. Further, not
long before Thomas made his declaration, the resurrected Jesus declared “I
ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” Jesus’s God and
Father are the same God and Father as the apostles. And then, only two verses
after Thomas’s declaration, John gave the reason he recorded the sign miracles
that Jesus did. That purpose was not to show that Jesus is God. The “deity of
Christ” interpretation doesn’t accept the author of the Gospel of John’s own
purpose statement.
5.
The “deity of Christ” interpretation fails to understand the consistent
biblical theme that the one God (Yehovah, the Father) is perceived, seen and
made known in His acts among humankind. “To you it was shown, that you might
know that Yehovah is God; there is none other than Him (Deut. 4:35. Isa.
43:10).
6.
The “deity of Christ” interpretation mis-identifies the God in Jesus. This is a serious error, since it ignores and contradicts
what Jesus told Thomas, fails to see the One God (the Father) at work in Jesus,
and fails to give credit to the One God (the Father) for raising the dead.
Trinitarianism
claims it was “God the Son” in Jesus. But Jesus said that it was God the Father,
the only God, who was in him (John 8:40, 10:38, 14:9-10, 17:3).
Should we believe Trinitarianism or Jesus?
What else does Trinitarianism
have wrong?
Since Trinitarianism mis-interprets and contradicts what the Bible says
about Thomas’s declaration in John 20:28, we must wonder what other verses in
John’s Gospel Trinitarianism has mis-construed. There is probably only one
other verse that tops John 20:28 as a “deity of Christ” proof text. “What about
John 1:1?” In a forthcoming article I plan to show that the Trinitarian and
“deity of Christ” interpretations of John 1:1 fail miserably.
Check out the One God Report Podcast
[1] Some
One God believers (“Biblical Unitarians”) have suggested that Thomas called
Jesus “god” in the sense that other humans were sometimes called “god” or
“gods” (e.g., Exo. 4:16, 7:1: Psa. 82:6). Or that Thomas was simply making an
exclamation like “Oh my God”. But like the Trinitarian interpretation, these
interpretations fail to take into account that God the Father raised Jesus from
the dead (Gal. 1:1), and that Jesus said Thomas would see the Father in him
(Jesus).
[2] To
Jesus, “Father” meant God entire. Many Scriptures state that “the Father” is
another title for God entire, not just one person of a multi-person god (Exo.
4:22, Isa. 63:16, 1 Chr. 29:10, Jer. 31:9, Mal. 2:10, John 20:17, 1 Cor. 8:6,
Gal. 4:4, Eph. 4:6, James 1:17). “Father”
is a metaphorical title for God that emphasizes humankind’s relationship to God
(John 1:13, 8:54, 20:17, Matt. 6:9, Rom. 1:7, 2 Cor. 1:2, Gal. 3:26, etc.). Calling
God “Father” is not a metaphysical claim to deity (Is God our Father?). Since
Jewish people tend not to use the personal name of God in conversation,
“Father” was in many ways a very fitting way for Jesus and other Israelites to
refer to the one God who gives life to all.
In the Bible, Son/s of God are created beings,
especially humans, never deity. “Son of God” is a title that came to be almost
synonymous with the title “King of Israel” and “Messiah” (2 Sam. 7:14; Psa. 2:7;
89:26; John 1:12-13, 1:49, 8:49, 8:54; 11:27).
[3]
Contrary to some misinformed, overly zealous Trinitarian preaching, to be “Lord” does not
mean you are God. Otherwise the upper house of the British parliament would be
the House of Gods. Sometimes LORD/Lord in the Bible does mean God, but there
are many lords/Lords in the Bible who are not God. “Jesus is Lord” is not a
claim to deity (Act 2:36, Rom. 10:9).
The confusion over LORD/Lord/lord stems from the
translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek. The title
“Lord” kurios (“master, sir, prince, ruler”), an honorific title
acknowledging authority, was substituted for God’s personal name,
Yehovah יהוה. English translations of
the Old Testament usually indicate Yehovah’s personal name with all capitals LORD. But God’s name Yehovah is very
different from the replacement title “Lord”. Yehovah/Yahweh is God’s
personal name but the title Lord is adon in Hebrew and kurios in
Greek).
Abigail distinguished between her Lord (David) and her
God (LORD/Yehovah): “for the LORD will certainly make for my Lord
an enduring house, because my Lord is fighting the battles of the LORD”
(1 Sam. 25:28, Abigail called David “Lord” 14x in this chapter). In the Hebrew
text there is no confusing Abigail’s LORD from her Lord, because they are two
very different words. In the Greek text the words are exactly the same, and
therefor confusing.
Sometimes God is called “Lord” in the New Testament,
using the Greek practice of substituting the title kurios/Lord for
Yehovah’s personal name. Context can most often determine if kurios/Lord in the New Testament means God, or
the Lord Messiah, or some other lord. Lord/kurios in the Gospel of John
refers to God only in OT quotations (see main text).
Comments
I only wish it could be as ingrained in my memory and understanding as it is in yours. I am posting the link and intend to share the transcript with numerous of my Trinitarian friends, with prayer that they may be willing to consider it.
Another thing that I found amazing is that seventy of the greatest Hebrew scholars in the world translated the Old Testament into Greek, known as the septuagint and used the very same word Thomas uses for Jesus, which is Kurios, which means Sovereign Lord and only ever refers to God in the Old Testament . Peter also calls Jesus Lord of all and Paul calls Jesus the Lord of Glory and Lord over all and John calls Jesus the Lord of lords and King of Kings, the One you and I must stand before on the Day of Judgement to give an account, something I never want to take lightly .
Its not what we will say to Him that matters but it is what He will say to us that Eternally matters . Because I know in my heart if I am wrong and you know in your heart if you are wrong then all that remains for you or I if we do not repent are the words in Matthew 25:41,46, where the Lord Jesus will say to you or I 'Depart from Me you cursed ,into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels...these will go away into everlasting punishment ,but the righteous into eternal life.
I have a simple test for you and I , it is a biblical test . Do you believe that you can hold onto one sin and still see Heaven , God's word says again and again you cannot, 1Corinthians 6:9-10 as well as Hebrews 12:14 and many others clearly teach that . But the One I want to leave you with involves our thoughts , which as Jesus declares includes our eyes as well and it is Isaiah 55:6-7. To obey this command ,that is to call on the name of the LORD and be saved , the New Testament states it is referring to the Lord Jesus Christ, as seen in both the quote from Joel 2:32 in acts 2:21 and
Romans 10 :13. My only prayer is that on the day of Judgement we may be found on the same side and with all the saints crying out Worthy is the Lamb Who was slain..., God bless you, Adrian
I am from India
Please send your contact e-mail
While it is true that the apostles declared that God raised Jesus (Acts 2:32, Gal. 1:1), this does not contradict the deity of Christ. Both truths coexist: Jesus is God, and the Father raised Him from the dead. This is consistent with the Trinitarian understanding that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit act in unity. Thomas’s confession in John 20:28 uniquely highlights Jesus’s divine nature, complementing the apostles’ proclamation of the resurrection. The apostles also affirmed Jesus’s divinity in other passages (e.g., John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8).
John 1:18 refers to seeing God in His unmediated, transcendent essence. However, Jesus, as God incarnate, reveals the Father (John 14:9). The Son is the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). When Thomas sees Jesus, he is seeing God the Son in His incarnate form, not the Father directly. This is consistent with Trinitarian theology, which distinguishes the persons of the Godhead.
John 17:3 emphasizes the Father’s unique role as the source within the Trinity but does not deny Jesus’s deity. In the same Gospel, Jesus claims equality with the Father (John 5:18), states, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), and declares, “Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58), echoing Yahweh’s self-identification in Exodus 3:14. The apostles, including John, affirm Jesus’s deity alongside His distinct role as the Son (John 1:1, 1:18, 20:28).
Jesus calling the Father “my God” reflects His incarnate role as the mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5). As a man, Jesus prays to and acknowledges the Father as God, consistent with His dual nature (Philippians 2:6-8). This does not negate His deity but highlights His submission in His humanity.
There is no historical or cultural precedent for Jews using “My Lord and my God” as a generic exclamation of astonishment. Such usage would have been considered blasphemous under Jewish law, violating the commandment against taking God’s name in vain (Exodus 20:7). Jesus accepts Thomas’s statement without correction, affirming its validity. In contrast, when people misunderstood or inappropriately elevated others, correction was immediate (e.g., Acts 10:25-26, Acts 14:14-15).
John 20:31 states that the purpose of the Gospel is to show that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of God.” However, these titles are not mutually exclusive with Jesus’s deity. John opens his Gospel with a clear declaration of Jesus’s divine nature: “The Word was God” (John 1:1). The phrase “Son of God” in Johannine theology conveys equality with God, as evidenced by John 5:18, where the Jews seek to kill Jesus for making Himself “equal with God.”
In the context of Jewish monotheism, the title “Lord” (κύριος, kurios) when applied to Jesus carries divine connotations, as it is used for Yahweh in the Septuagint (e.g., Psalm 110:1; Isaiah 45:23). The combination of “Lord” and “God” in Thomas’s confession directly parallels Old Testament usage of Yahweh’s titles, reinforcing the identification of Jesus as Yahweh incarnate.
Allow me to point out: there is no "God the Son" in the Bible.
If you don't mind my asking, if the title "Lord" used for Jesus in the New Testament means that Jesus is Yahweh,
1) when Yahweh Jesus was dead, who is the God that raised Yahweh Jesus from the dead (1 Cor. 6:14), and
2) who would you think Paul meant when he referred to Yahweh's brothers (1 Cor 9:5)?
Thanks.
Regarding your question about the title "Lord" used for Jesus in the New Testament, its application to Jesus indeed affirms His divine nature. In the context of Jewish monotheism, "Lord" (κύριος, kurios) was a title used in the Septuagint to translate the divine name Yahweh. When the New Testament writers apply this title to Jesus, they are affirming His identity as Yahweh. For example, Philippians 2:10-11 declares that every knee will bow to Jesus and every tongue confess Him as Lord, echoing Isaiah 45:23, which refers to Yahweh.
When considering the resurrection, the Trinitarian understanding offers a cohesive explanation. The Bible teaches that Jesus was raised by the power of God (1 Corinthians 6:14), and this resurrection is ascribed to the Father (Romans 6:4), the Son (John 10:18), and the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:11). This reflects the unity and cooperation of the triune God in the work of salvation. Jesus’s resurrection was not the act of a separate God, but the act of the Father, Son, and Spirit, working together as one God. In His incarnate state, Jesus, who humbled Himself to take on human nature (Philippians 2:6-8), willingly submitted to the Father's authority. Thus, the Father raising Jesus is consistent with Jesus’s role within the Trinity during His earthly ministry.
Regarding Paul’s reference to "Yahweh’s brothers" in 1 Corinthians 9:5, this reflects the familial relationship believers have with Christ through adoption (Romans 8:15-17). By His incarnation, Jesus became the "firstborn among many brothers" (Romans 8:29). This does not imply that Jesus ceased to be divine; rather, it highlights the relational and salvific aspects of His incarnation. Jesus is fully God and fully man (John 1:1, 1:14), and as man, He shares in the human experience, even becoming "brother" to those He redeems. This familial language underscores the intimacy of the relationship believers have with Christ while affirming His divine nature.
Therefore, the issues raised—Jesus being called Lord, His resurrection, and the familial language used of believers—are fully compatible with the biblical teaching of Jesus's deity and the Trinitarian framework. These concepts reflect the profound mystery and depth of God’s redemptive work through Jesus Christ, who is both Lord and God, as Thomas rightly confessed.
Maybe the title Lord Jesus means the Lord Messiah. You will see many times in the Bible that the Lord Jesus has a God. Blessings.
When Jesus refers to the Father as "My God" (e.g., John 20:17, Matt. 27:46), He does so in His capacity as the incarnate Son, the mediator between God and humanity. Phil. 2:6-8 explains this dynamic: though Jesus was "in the ‘morphe’ of God," He "emptied Himself" and took on "the form of a servant," humbling Himself to the point of death. This self-limitation was not a loss of divinity but a voluntary assumption of humanity, where He willingly submitted to the Father’s will as part of His redemptive mission. As a man, Jesus perfectly fulfilled the role of obedience to the Father, serving as the representative of humanity and the ultimate high priest (Heb. 4:14-16). It is in this role that He speaks of the Father as "My God."
The title "Lord" (Kyrios) in reference to Jesus is significant in understanding His divine identity. In the Greek Septuagint, the title “Kyrios” is used to translate the divine name Yahweh. The NT authors intentionally apply this title to Jesus, linking Him to the identity of Yahweh in the OT. For example, Phil. 2:9-11 proclaims that God has exalted Jesus and given Him “the Name above every name”, so that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is "Lord" (Kyrios), echoing Isaiah 45:23, where Yahweh declares that every knee will bow to Him. This application of divine titles to Jesus underscores His equality with the Father in divine essence.
Your suggestion that "Lord Jesus" might mean only "Lord Messiah" and not imply divinity misunderstands the theological weight of the title "Lord" in a Jewish context. When the NT calls Jesus "Lord," it not only acknowledges His messianic role but also attributes to Him the divine prerogatives, such as forgiving sins (Mark 2:5-7), accepting worship (John 20:28, Matt. 14:33), and exercising authority over creation (Mark 4:39-41). These are not mere attributes of a human Messiah but are acts of divine power and identity.
The fact that Jesus has a God does not negate His deity but reflects the relational distinction within the Trinity. In Trinitarian theology, the Son is distinct from the Father but shares the same divine essence. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit relate to one another in eternal relationships of love and order, with the Son eternally begotten of the Father. This relational dynamic is not a hierarchy of essence but of role and relationship. Thus, Jesus, in His incarnate role and as the resurrected mediator, acknowledges the Father as His God without diminishing His own divine nature.
Finally, it is essential to understand the broader biblical narrative. Jesus, as the "second Adam" (Rom. 5:12-21), fully entered into the human condition to redeem humanity. His acknowledgment of the Father as His God reflects His perfect fulfillment of the law and His solidarity with humanity. As the risen Lord, He continues to function as the mediator who intercedes for believers (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:25). This mediatorial role is not inconsistent with His deity but is a demonstration of His love and humility.
Mainly the Bible. Do you have some go to biblical verses that describe Jesus has having two natures, and divine nature and a human nature?
The Trinity and dual-natured god-man may be the cornerstones of Byzantine period Christianity, but not New Testament Christianity. In the New Testament, to be a Christian one believed that Jesus was the Christ, a human being through whom God worked, who died, but whom God raised from the dead and exalted to His (God's) right hand. In the Bible, the Christ is never "God" or a god-man.
Of course his recent post is a stream of anti-biblical lies. But I'm not going to address the doctrinal points for the reasons I have just stated.
If Mr. Anonymous would like to disabuse me of this possibility, perhaps he could chime in and show his extant body of work published online.
Of course, there is no such a verse in the NT that explicitly contains the Chalcedonian definition verbatim, but I would compare this argument to the following example. I tell you one day that I have a son, John. Then another day I tell you that I have a daughter, Jennifer, and another time I tell you that I have another son, Karl. Then later you would argue to me, "Since you didn't explicitly say that you are a “father of three,” by using these specific words, you are not one!" Well, Christ is not explicitly stated that “He has two natures” either, but it is stated that He is 1. God and 2. man. Now if I count these on my fingers, that's exactly two.
The Bible indeed provides a strong basis for understanding Jesus as having BOTH divine AND human natures, the foundational claim of Chalcedonian Christology. While the exact phrase "two natures" does not appear verbatim, Scripture presents evidence of Jesus' full divinity AND humanity.
John 1:1 unequivocally states, “The Word was God,” and John 1:14 continues, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” This is a clear declaration that the eternal, divine Word took on human nature. Similarly, Colossians 2:9 affirms, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” These verses explicitly show both natures—divine and human—coexisting in Christ.
Numerous verses describe Jesus’ genuine humanity. For example, Philippians 2:6-8 states that Christ, “being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” This passage explicitly affirms that Jesus existed in the ‘morphē’ of God yet took on the form of a servant, showing the coexistence of His divine and human natures.
In Matthew 8:23-27, Jesus calms the storm, demonstrating divine authority over nature, while also expressing human weariness as He sleeps in the boat. In John 11, Jesus weeps at Lazarus’s death (showing genuine human emotion) but then raises Lazarus, demonstrating divine power over death. These accounts illustrate the harmonious operation of His divine and human natures. In John 20:28, Thomas declares to the risen Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” This confession acknowledges Jesus' divine identity. Furthermore, Jesus consistently receives worship (Matthew 14:33, Matthew 28:9, John 9:38), something reserved for God alone in Jewish monotheism. Hebrews 2:14-17 explains why Jesus needed to be both fully divine and fully human. He had to share in humanity to destroy the power of death and make atonement for sin, while His divine nature ensures the infinite value of His sacrifice. This passage affirms that Jesus was fully human to represent humanity and fully divine to accomplish what only God can.
While it is true that the NT describes Jesus as the Christ, it is incorrect to assert that it denies His divinity. John 10:30 states, “I and the Father are one,” which the Jews understood as a claim to deity, prompting their attempt to stone Him for blasphemy (John 10:33). Titus 2:13 refers to Jesus as “our great God and Savior,” further affirming His deity. The concept of the God-Man is deeply rooted in the NT. Jesus’ exaltation to God’s right hand (Acts 2:33-36) does not diminish His deity but highlights His unique role in salvation history. His exaltation as the risen and ascended Lord fulfills His mission and confirms His divine identity as the Son of God.
So the NT consistently portrays Jesus as both fully God and fully human. The understanding and the doctrine of Christ’s two natures are not “Byzantine” inventions but faithful reflections of biblical teaching.
Or, do you think it possible that it was really the human person, Jesus of Nazareth who said those words, and meant something that maybe you've overlooked?
Your question raises the possibility that it was "the human person, Jesus of Nazareth" who spoke the words, potentially with a meaning that does not affirm His deity. This approach, however, misunderstands the unity of Christ's person. While Jesus possesses two distinct natures—divine and human—He is not two persons. There is one indivisible "who" speaking in John 10:30: the eternal Son of God, who is fully God and fully man. This unity of personhood means that the divine and human natures are inseparably united in everything Jesus does or says.
It is a mistake to suggest that His humanity and divinity might have been at odds or that one nature could act independently of the other in His statements or actions. As the early Church articulated in the Chalcedonian Definition, the two natures of Christ coexist "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation." You should read about the difference between Nestorian and Chalcedonian theology, Christ is sometimes only God, sometimes only man, and switching Himself back and forth. When Jesus speaks, He speaks as one person, not as a divided or fragmented being. The human mind and will of Jesus are fully aligned with His divine nature, and both are active in every act and word.
Thus, when Jesus declares His unity with the Father, it reflects both His divine nature, which shares the same essence as the Father, and His human nature, which is in perfect submission and alignment with the Father’s will. Jesus’ humanity does not dilute or negate the divine claim inherent in His statement; instead, it exemplifies the mystery of the God-man who fully embodies the mission of revealing and redeeming humanity.
The possibility you raise, that Jesus of Nazareth (as merely human) might have meant something else, is inconsistent with the larger context of John’s Gospel and the reactions of Jesus’ contemporaries. John consistently presents Jesus as the divine Word made flesh, and His actions and claims reflect this reality. The healing of the blind man earlier in John 9, followed by Jesus’ declaration in John 10 that He is the Good Shepherd (an OT image of Yahweh, cf Ps. 23), builds to this climactic statement. Jesus asserts His unique relationship with the Father, which transcends mere prophetic or messianic alignment—it is a claim to ontological unity with God.
"...theology, Christ is NOT sometimes ..."
The AI answer (feel free to correct me if it isn't) shows how all "deity of Christ" interpretations of Scripture attempt to eliminate the human person, Jesus of Nazareth. According to your answer, no human person Jesus of Nazareth came to be. No human person Jesus of Nazareth exists now.
You've got a "divine person" who took on a human-personless nature, otherwise your Christ would be two persons.
How many persons were in the Trinity before the "incarnation"? Three.
How many persons are in the Trinity after the "incarnation"? Three.
No human person Jesus of Nazareth came to be at the "incarnation".
#anhypostasis of Jesus
"The words spoken in John 10:30 are a declaration of Jesus’ divine identity. The phrase “I and the Father are one” cannot simply mean unity of purpose, as some suggest, because the reaction of His audience reveals their understanding: the Jews immediately took up stones to kill Him for what they perceived as blasphemy. They explicitly state, “You, being a man, make yourself God” (John 10:33)."
Just prior to this Jesus said the Pharisees were liars and sons of the devil, and false witnesses. (John 8:44)
So you are depending upon the testimony of liars and false witnesses to prop up your own accusation against Jesus.
Let that sink in. Your logic depends on the Pharisees as the yardstick of truth in the matter. And that is all we need to know about this false trinitarian argument.
Right after Jesus called his accusers liars, he said this:
"And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not."
And then they accuse him of making himself God. So then in your bait and switch argument, you are now claiming the Pharisees believe the truth, and are telling the truth as they seek to do murder, when Jesus has just said they don't believe the truth.
Here is a hint for the lost trinitarians. Jesus is not claiming to be God in this statement about Abraham. Jesus is claiming the be the prophesied Mechizedek to whom Abraham will pay tithes. This is why Abraham is 'yet to come' and Jesus comes before him. That is why Jesus said, "I am he who is coming before Abraham is to come. Jesus is saying that Abraham doesn't exist yet--not that he pre-existed Abraham in some remote antiquity. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are about to be born into the world through the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the preaching of the gospel to all nations by his Apostles and Disciples.
This is exactly what the Apostles understood to be the case:
" For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith." (Romans 4:13-17)
There are several more passages from the Epistles stating basically the same thing: Abraham, and the seed of Abraham, are those who believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. This new Abraham is the Abraham of which Jesus and the Apostles preach. He is the living Abraham, made alive in the faith of Jesus and the grace of God.
Your trinity denies all of this and drags everyone firstly back into the law of Moses and secondly back into the idolatry of Egypt from which Moses led us out. Your trinity hates the testimony of the Prophets and turns Jesus into a liar and charlatan demi-god.
Paul tells us that Jesus is Melchizedek. Not some ancient Melchizedek, but the one and only High Priest to whom the nations of Abraham will pay tribute.
Jesus was born just a man, like any other man. He was not a pre-existing god with a dual nature. He is a man, and now a glorified man, clothed with the power of divine life. The promise of the resurrection is that all who believe will be clothed likewise. The trinity denies this. The trinity denies the resurrection. The trinity denies the very words of Jesus, who said, "I am the Son of God."
The trinity turns Jehovah into Zeus and transforms Jesus into Perseus. The trinity is the foundation of Babylonian and Egyptian sun worship. The Shema is a warning to reject the trinity.
No matter how they argue it, the trinity always mathematically results in a Hindu chimera of many deities and demi-gods. The more the trinitarian arguments are analyzed, the more personalities and half-human demigods must be added to their canned chimerical godhead product.
We have the Shema, where 'echad' means 'singular' or 'solo'. They reject that, so they reject the whole testimony of the Law and Prophets. Jesus said the whole Law and Prophets hang on this Shema, so rejecting it is a rejection of the whole testimony of all scripture, and a rejection of Christ by analogy.
To clarify, Chalcedonian theology does not deny the full humanity of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus’ human nature includes a rational soul and human will, meaning He experienced everything human beings do, including growth, learning, and human emotions. What is denied is the existence of a separate human person independent of the divine person of the Son. This distinction is important to preserve the unity of Christ’s identity. Thus, while Jesus is not a "human person" in the philosophical sense of existing apart from the Logos, He is fully human in every respect, as the New Testament clearly teaches. Jesus of Nazareth is the divine Logos acting in and through a complete human nature. His humanity is not reduced, overshadowed, or eliminated by His divinity.
You correctly note that the Trinity consists of three persons, both before and after the incarnation. The incarnation does not alter the number of persons in the Trinity; instead, it introduces a new mode of existence by addition for the second person of the Trinity, the Son. The Son, who is eternally God, takes on human nature in the incarnation without ceasing to be divine. This does not create a fourth "human person" within the Trinity but rather adds a human nature to the divine person of the Son. The eternal Son remains who He has always been—fully divine—but now also fully participates in humanity through the incarnation. This understanding avoids the theological errors of both Nestorianism (dividing Christ into two persons) and monophysitism (blurring His two natures into one).
Your concern seems to stem from the idea that the traditional view "eliminates" the humanity of Jesus. This is a misunderstanding of Chalcedonian theology. Jesus of Nazareth lived a fully human life. He had a human mind, emotions, will, and body. He learned, grew, suffered, and died as a man. The only distinction is that His personhood is not independent of the Logos. He is one person, not two, with two natures—divine and human—united without confusion or division.
The Greek phrase "ego eimi" (I am) mirrors God’s self-identification in Exodus 3:14, where God declares, "I AM WHO I AM." Jesus’ use of this phrase in the present tense, coupled with the context of eternal existence, is a clear assertion of His divinity and eternal pre-existence. The reaction of the Jews confirms this interpretation: "They picked up stones to stone him" (John 8:59), a penalty for blasphemy under Jewish law (Leviticus 24:16). Again, Jesus does not correct their understanding because they understood correctly: He was claiming to be the eternal, self-existent God.
While Hebrews 7 identifies Jesus as a priest "in the order of Melchizedek," this is a typological reference, not a denial of His divine pre-existence. Melchizedek is a type of Christ, serving as a precursor to the eternal priesthood of Jesus. This does not negate Jesus’ divine nature or His eternal existence as the Word of God (John 1:1-3). Your assertion that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are yet to come into existence is not supported by Scripture. Jesus clearly states in Matthew 22:32 that God is "not the God of the dead, but of the living," affirming their continued existence.
The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) declares, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." This does not deny the Trinity but rather affirms monotheism, NOT unitarianism. The Trinity is not tritheism (belief in three gods) but the belief in one God in three persons. The Hebrew word for "one" (echad) often denotes a compound unity, as in Genesis 2:24, where a man and woman become "one flesh." The doctrine of the Trinity harmonizes with the Shema, affirming that there is one God who exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Trinity does not deny the resurrection; it is central to the Christian faith. Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15 emphasizes the resurrection as the cornerstone of Christian hope. The Son’s divine and human natures ensure that He is both the perfect mediator between God and humanity and the firstfruits of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:20). The Trinity upholds the reality of the resurrection by affirming the full deity and humanity of Christ. Jesus’ divine nature ensures the efficacy of His atoning sacrifice, while His humanity ensures that He fully shares in the resurrection that believers hope for.
Your claim that the Trinity is rooted in Babylonian or Egyptian sun worship is unfounded and has been thoroughly debunked. The Trinity emerges from the unique revelation of God in Scripture, not from pagan sources. Assertions of parallels with pagan triads misunderstand both the nature of those triads (which involved multiple distinct gods) and the nature of the Trinity (one God in three persons). Historical evidence demonstrates that the doctrine of the Trinity developed through careful reflection on biblical revelation, not through syncretism with pagan ideas. My advice: throw Alexander Hislop's book where it belongs, in the trash.
The claim that the Trinity results in "many deities" or "demigods" misrepresents the doctrine entirely. Christianity categorically rejects polytheism and insists on the absolute unity and uniqueness of God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three gods or lesser beings but fully and equally share the same divine essence. This is far removed from Hinduism or any belief in chimerical deities or demi-gods. The Trinity arises from the biblical testimony that affirms the oneness of God (Deuteronomy 6:4) alongside the revelation of the Father as God (John 6:27), the Son as God (John 1:1, John 20:28), and the Spirit as God (Acts 5:3-4). The distinction of persons does not divide God's essence but reflects the relational life of the one true God.
The argument that ECHAD in the Shema means "singular" or "solo" oversimplifies the Hebrew text. While ECHAD emphasizes God's oneness, it does not preclude relational distinctions within that unity. The same word ECHAD is used in Genesis 2:24 to describe the union of a man and woman as "one flesh," a unity that encompasses relational plurality. Similarly, in Ezekiel 37:17, two sticks are joined into one (echad) stick, again demonstrating the capacity of ECHAD to convey unity within diversity. The Shema affirms monotheism, but it does not exclude the later revelation of the relational nature of God found in the New Testament.
The accusation that Trinitarians "reject the whole testimony of the Law and Prophets" is unfounded. Trinitarians affirm the Shema and uphold the absolute monotheism revealed in the Old Testament while recognizing the fuller revelation of God's nature in the person of Jesus Christ and the sending of the Holy Spirit. Jesus himself affirmed the Shema (Mark 12:29-30) and declared that he came not to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17). The New Testament builds on the foundation of the Old Testament, revealing the unity of God in a more profound way through the incarnation of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. To affirm the Trinity is not to reject the Shema but to recognize its fulfillment in the light of Christ's divine identity.
The charge that Trinitarianism adds "personalities" or "demi-gods" misunderstands the doctrine’s theological precision. The persons of the Trinity are not independent "personalities" or lesser beings but relational distinctions within the one divine essence. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father, yet they are coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial. This is not a contradiction but a mystery of divine nature that surpasses human categories. Far from being a "canned product," the Trinity is a doctrine derived from careful reflection on the entirety of Scripture, informed by the experiences and teachings of the early Church, and articulated to protect the biblical revelation of God's oneness and relationality.