I NEED SOMEONE intelligent not christians please cause a Christian told me this?

Jesus is a god. “God” means a strong one. Christ is called “The mighty God” at Isaiah 9:6, “a god” at John 1:1 (NW), and “the only-begotten god” at John 1:18 (NW). Jehovah is not the only god or strong one. The very fact that he is called the Almighty God indicates that there are other gods not so mighty, not almighty like him. So Thomas could call Jesus God, but not THE God, and three verses later Jesus is called “the Son of God,” as we read (NW): “But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name.” So there was no objection to John’s reporting that Thomas addressed Jesus as a deity, and certainly John does not say that Thomas’ address to Jesus was to make us believe that Jesus was The God, but says it was to make us believe Jesus was God’s Son. In this same chapter (20:17, NW) Jesus said: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.” He was not ascending to himself.

But now the trinitarians will say Thomas used the Greek definite article “the” (ho) before “God,” proving he called Jesus The God. The article “the” is in the nominative case in the Greek, but the word “God” here is in the vocative case and of such A. T. Robertson says in his A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, on page 461: “The article with the vocative in address was the usual Hebrew and Aramaic idiom, as indeed in Aristophanes we have ho pais akoloúthei. It is good Greek and good Aramaic too when we have Abbá ho patér (Mark 14:36) whether Jesus said one or both. In Matthew 11:26 (nai, ho patér) we have the vocative. When the article is used, of course the nominative form must occur. Thus in Rev. 18:20 we have both together, ourané kai hoi hágioi. Indeed the second member of the address is always in the nominative form. Thus Kýrie, ho Theós, ho pantokrátor (Rev. 15:3). Compare John 20:28.” Page 462: “When Thomas said Ho kýrios mou kai ho theós mou (John 20:28), he gave Christ full acceptance of his deity and of the fact of his resurrection.” Page 466: “In John 20:28 Thomas addresses Jesus as ho kýrios mou kai ho theós, the vocative like those above. Yet, strange to say, Winer calls this exclamation rather than address, apparently to avoid the conclusion that Thomas was satisfied as to the deity of Jesus by his appearance to him after the resurrection. Dr. E. A. Abbott follows suit also in an extended argument to show that kýrie ho theós is the LXX way of addressing God, not ho kýrios kai ho theós. But after he had written he appends a note to p. 95 to the effect that ‘this is not quite satisfactory. For [John] xiii. 13 phonéite me ho didáskalos kai ho kýrios, and Rev. 4:11 áxios ei, ho kýrios kai ho theós hemón, ought to have been mentioned above.’ This is a manly retraction, and he adds: ‘John may have used it here exceptionally.’ Leave out ‘exceptionally’ and the conclusion is just. If Thomas used Aramaic he certainly used the article. It is no more exceptional in John 20:28 than in Rev. 4:11.”

So, since the use of the definite article was made before the form of address to anybody, Thomas’ use of the definite article does not force his use of God to mean The God, Jehovah. Jehovah was not begotten, but existed without beginning. But according to John 1:18 (NW) Christ was the only god or strong one directly begotten or created by Jehovah, however.

So Jehovah is The God; Jesus Christ is one of many who are called gods. Satan is called “the god of this system of things,” Moses was said to be as god to Pharaoh, and in the Psalms men are called gods, and Jesus referred to this and argued that hence the Jews should not say he blasphemed when he said he was God’s Son. And the apostle Paul said there are many called gods. But to argue that these many different ones called gods are, by virtue of this fact, The God Jehovah would be absurd. Similarly, it is absurd to try to argue that Thomas’ reference to Jesus as god proves Jesus is The God, and doubly so when just three verses later Jesus is identified as God’s Son.—2 Cor. 4:4, NW; Ex. 7:1; Ps. 82:6; John 10:35; 1 Cor. 8:5.

Seek the Lord while He can be found. He promises if we seek Him, we will find Him.

Scripture interprets Scripture and the Holy Spirit reveals the rest.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a Child is born,

Unto us a Son is given;

And the government will be upon His shoulder.

And His name will be called

Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,

Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

NKJV

John 1:1 John Tells About Jesus, the Son of God

***Also read (Gen 1:1-2:3)***

Christ Comes to the World

In the beginning there was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 All things were made by him, and nothing was made without him. 4 In him there was life, and that life was the light of all people. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overpowered it. NCV

John 1:14 The Word became a human and lived among us. We saw his glory — the glory that belongs to the only Son of the Father — and he was full of grace and truth. NCV

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one. God has shown Himself to us as the Father in Heaven. Jesus is the Son of God and is also the second of the Trinity.

Look at it like this:

Ice, water and steam = Father (Ice), Son(water) and Holy Spirit (steam). All three are the same thing in a different form.

I hope that helps!

In His Service,

SLJ

That's funny. You phrase it well.

First - Isaiah 9:6 or Isaiah-anything has nothing to do with Christianity because it's a book of JEWISH scripture which Christianity (Constantine et all at Nicea in 325) stole to support the belief structure they already held to be true.

Second - Father/Son/Holy Ghost is simply a ripoff from Pagan beliefs which is why it makes no sense. In the pagan systems, with the original characters, it does make sense as a `regenerative' image or a symbol (as with the Triquetra of Celtic paganism) of the nature of life.

Third - If a `Christian' told me that it's a surety the sun rises in the east and sets in the west I would seriously question my confidence in the known world. I'm not talking about `nominal' Christians who still possess a brain and can actually converse on a sane level. I'm talking about, well, most likely the sort of `Christian' who told you this crap you're asking about here............

True Christians (such as Jehovah's Witnesses) believe as the Bible teaches:

Jehovah is the Father and God Almighty.

Jesus was created by Jehovah as his firstborn son.

Jehovah and Jesus are not the same person.

There is no mystery or confusion. The truth is simple.

I hope this helps.

God is not a single person...(as we think of "person" in human terms) in Christianity.

God is more defined like this:

the supreme or ultimate reality or the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit or the infinite Mind [1]

"God" is made up of THREE distinct persons, each having separate personalities and attributes from one another. There is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Father is known as YHWH in the Jewish Tanakh (Christian Old Testament).

The Son is Jesus Christ. The Lamb of God [5], the right arm of God [2], the Son of Man [3].

The Holy Spirit is literally the breath of God [4], the Counselor/Comforter [6].

Drugs do that to a mind... Bible fumes.

The person is apparently saying that yes Jesus is the son of god, also god, yet not his own father? Um...

Either it's a three-way split personality or conjoined triplets.

I guess the only real life scenario that could ever be close would be if a man raised a "son" who was a clone of himself... But even then the "son's" biological father would be the "grandfather."

So, you tell me this archangel Michael vs Jesus ordeal.

You think they can be the same Being but one is human and one is an angel and the human was never an angel as human and the angel was never a human as an angel....

The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but as God we are talking about the Alpha and the Omega, so how many Alphas and Omegas your religion allows you to have?

properly, i in my view study all of it, you're able to provide me some credit for that! So now I even have an account of a Christians perspective, i think of this is in basic terms honest to furnish you my atheist perspective approximately what you have mentioned. The unusual stories you reported seem unexplainable. i'm no longer even going to start to purpose to describe them as i wasn't even there on the time, even with the indisputable fact that from an atheist's perspective, it form of feels irrational to apply something much greater illogical to describe something. you may no longer think of how technically a tumor can disappear, yet you answer it with 'god did it' which then creates much greater questions. as an occasion, how did he bodily do away with a tumor? the place did the tumor bypass? Why might he % to do away with a tumor from in basic terms this guy or woman whilst there are thousands of human beings additionally dying from having a tumor? human beings watch magic shows all the time with unexplainable issues yet no person claims that god could have been at the back of it. And the form between documented technology and the bible is that the bible is many thousands of years previous, and this is been translated many situations in lots of languages. technology even with the indisputable fact that has been tried and examined repeatedly. A scientist will many times spend his or her entire existence attempting to coach their own theory incorrect, as will many different scientists. in all fairness, the technology and historic previous of as we communicate are lots greater stable for giving maximum suitable training that the bible. on the tip you asked does all and sundry sense an identical way, and that i could say definite. i think annoyed that folk shrink back technology and have faith in something thoroughly illogical. yet on the tip of the day i understand that this is in basic terms my own opinion. as long as different's ideals do no longer dictate the way i stay, then i'm happy to settle for them. i assume that folk could only comply with disagree.

answer: I've never really gotten a satisfactory answer, I'm afraid. Some try to use the analogy that you can be a student, a brother and a baseball player all at the same time but you're still just one person but I never bought that.

I could explain this but I've explained it so many times that I don't feel like typing it out again....so I think I'll go grab a beer