My Lord and my God!, Trinity Debunked in John 20:28|Page 2

The Kingdom of David couldn't continue to carry on, but God still honored the promise that this man's Kingdom would endure forever. It

would rain on and live on forever but guess what? There was a man Jesus and by his resurrection of the dead, He could carry on with

Davids Kingdom. Imagine this man comes along a man from Nazareth and he say, hey I'm the son of God I'm the King of Israel the

Messiah, I'm Christ. Wow is he going to take the throne of David, are you're going to start ruling and reigning. But the next thing he's

taken from us crucified killed, oh well that's it, maybe another dissent will come along in the next generation. But wait, He's raised from

the dead, and that is the final stamp of approval the final proof that God gave. This man is indeed the inheritor of David's Kingdom and

because He's been risen from the dead, and he's not subject to death any more. He will inherit that Kingdom and live to reign in it

forever and ever as God's anointed, as God's Messiah, as God's Christ, as God's Son. All of those are messianic titles and Jesus is by

those designated titles King of Israel. His resurrection proved it and this man will inherit the David's Kingdom and he will reign in David's

Kingdom forever.

Notice every single New Testament shred of evidence regarding the resurrection of Jesus points to the reality that He is the son of God

the King of Israel. Never is there any proof text in the New Testament regarding the resurrection of Jesus that proves that His deity

except for one in John 20:28 which is shrouded in controversy, every other instance of verses in the New Testament that speak of the

resurrection of Jesus everyone says it declared him to be the Son of God, it declared that He will be the judge of the world to come. It

declared him to be the King of Israel it declared him to be the Lord and the Christ. It declared Him of everything except that He is deity.

The resurrection of Jesus is a challenge. If you study the resurrection of Jesus you will see where it will leads you and what conclusion

will you have, at least it won't lead you to Jesus being God, co-eternal or Almighty or preexisting. When Thomas see Jesus alive from

the dead and he utters the phrase my Lord and my God and as trinitarian say that proves that Jesus is deity. Let's look at it from another

angle, let's look at the grammar in the Greek “ho kýrios, ho theós” What it says in the Greek literally could be translated the Lord of me

and the God of me.

We are going to look at this grammatically and understand what information can we get from this. People are divided in their

understanding of what Thomas was saying. There is a division of two types, one class of people say Thomas spoke the terms Lord and

God to Jesus in other words what Thomas was saying was wholeheartedly directed to Jesus. This is perhaps the most common or

popular view another class of people say Thomas spoke the term Lord to Jesus and God to the Father. There are growing trending in

that belief. Thomas said “my Lord” he was saying it to Jesus and then when he said “my God” he wasn't saying it to Jesus but he was

speaking of God the Father in Jesus. People are now at odds to understand what Thomas was saying, was he saying it all to Jesus or

was he saying it to two distinct persons. Let's look at the grammar what is correct, many people will try to solve this with the grammar

we'll start there. “The Lord of me” or in the Greek “ho kýrios”. The construction of that phrase begins with a articles “the” “ho” followed by

noun “Lord” “ kýrios” “The Lord”, alright so you have a noun “kýrios” with a definite article “ho”, which in english means “the Lord”

followed by a conjunction “kaí” or “kýrios”“kaí” (and) that's a conjunction right then followed by the second noun “the God of me“ho

theós” notice the definite article that will followed by the noun God.

Let us understand a little bit of the grammar here, whilst most believe that Thomas spoke both titles to Jesus. A growing number of

people challenging this theory by claiming that the grammar indicates that Thomas was actually referring to two people Jesus and God

the Father, now how do they arrive at this conclusion? They arrive at this conclusion by using a grammatical argument or a grammatical

rule called the Granville sharp rule. Granville Sharpe was born November 1735 died July 1813 and was one of the first English

campaigners for the abolition of slave trade. He was also a classicist which is a man who loved ancient art, a talented musician and a

biblical scholar that led him to become a revered grammarian. As a grammarian Granville Sharpe produce what is known as the

Granville Sharpe rule, which are a set of grammatical rules or principles that he outlined when studying the Greek New Testament. One

of those rules which is the sixth rule he says when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or

Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the")

while the second does not, both nouns are referring to the same person"

Then Granville sharp says “The Lord and the God” notice that both nouns have a definite article like it is in John 20:28 Granville says

here, as both nouns have articles and they are connected by the conjunction then the rule states that these two nouns must refer to two

different persons. Those who believe this say Thomas when he uttered the term “my God” it is because he was seeing God the Father

in Jesus and through Jesus. Many people are starting to conclude now that this is what thomas meant in John 20:28, based on the

construction of the grammar, and it seems like Thomas was addressing two people. For example these people who believed this would

cite Joh12:44-45 Jesus cried out and said he who believes in Me does not believe in me but in Him who sent me and He who beholds

me in other words who observes me or sees me be holds the one who sent me. Further down in Joh14:9 Jesus said, have I been with

you so long and yet you have not come to know me Philip, he who has seen me has seen the father so how do you say show us the

Father. People conclude that Thomas was confessing with the words “my God” that He (God) was in fact in Christ, that's what they

conclude based on the premise of the Granville sharp rule. Thomas is speaking about the fact that he can see God the Father at work in

Christ.

That's the conclusion many have drawn now based on construction of this grammar, now that's a very plausible argument, there is merit

to that argument certainly. I don't debunk that argument I think that's extremely plausible but I think it lacks a very convincing argument

because the whole premise of that argument begins with the Granville sharp rule. In order to prove that to someone you have to say

well do you understand Granville sharps rule. I dont think that is necessary because by just studying John gospel you will see how

Jesus was teaching His disciples that the Father was in Him. You dont have to ask people if they know about the Granville sharp rule.

But if they ask you about it you can explain it to them. It is a matter of studying, hearing and believing. In the old Testament David was

using the same phrase which is to one person. Psa 35:23-24, David says here stir up yourself and awake to my right and to my cause,

my God and my LORD..., David is addressing Yahweh who's one person and he's saying “my God” The Granville sharp rule is not

working here and there are exceptions to the rule in the Greek. Discussing the message of Jesus in John’s Gospel, the German

systematic theologian Karl-Josef Kuschel asks, “Did Jesus give himself out to be God? Did the disciples of Jesus deify their hero?” To

these questions he replies:

First, there can be no question that the text indicates that Jesus

deified himself here. Jesus did not proclaim himself “God,” but

rather was understood by the community after Easter, in “the

Spirit,” as the word of God in person… Secondly, the disciples

of Jesus did not claim that Jesus was God either; they, too, did

not deify their hero. Nowhere does the Johannine Christ appear

as a second God alongside God. In the Gospel of John, too, it is

taken for granted that God (ho theos) is the Father, and the Son

is the one whom he has sent, his revealer: “the Father is greater

than I” (Joh 14.28). The famous confession of Thomas, “My Lord

and my God” (John 20.28), must also be understood in this

sense; reflecting the language of prayer (!), it clearly refers to

the risen Christ and presupposes the sending of the Spirit

(20.22). In content it does not represent any change from prev-

ious christological statements (in the direction, say, of a deifi-

cation of Christ or a replacement of God with Christ), but is a

confirmation of what is introduced in the prologue and will

also be expressed at the end of 1John (5.20), that “God has

really become visible in the form of Jesus” (H. Strathmann),

that “Jesus is transparent to the Father as his revealer” (Rahner

and Thuesing, A New Christology, 180. On John 1.1, Thuesing

(ibid.) convincingly declares that ‘“Logos” here is not the

second mode of subsistence of the Trinity, but God’s word of

revelation’.) (K-J Kuschel, Born Before All Time? p.387f.)

But not only did Jesus not claim to be God, he was reluctant to even speak of himself as Messiah in public. This fact is clearly evident in

the gospels. The German scholar William Wrede called this “the Messianic secret,” and this “secret” is the subject of an abundance of

scholarly discussion in books and articles. All that we need to notice here is that if Jesus refused to even acknowledge his messiahship

publicly, how much less would he have made any claim to be God.

But Christians, while admitting that Jesus never applied the word “God” to himself, argue that some of his sayings constitute implicit

claims to deity. One such statement they cite is: “I and my Father are one”. If we are to be true to Jesus’ attitude of refusal to claim

divine status, then clearly any interpretation of Jesus’ words will rule out any implicit or subtle claim to being God. If we could for once

drop the habit of reading our own trinitarian interpretation into whatever we read in the gospels, we would see that the “oneness” with

God of which Jesus speaks is not exclusively a oneness between him and the Father, but is a oneness which is to include all believers;

and it is precisely this inclusive oneness of all believers with himself and with God for which Jesus fervently prays in John 17.11,22: “that

they may be one, even as we are one.” If oneness with God has to do with being God, then all believers would become God through

this union! God Bless.

Video by Brother Kel - http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity.html
This article above was written from a transcript of the video above.

My Lord and my God!, Trinity Debunked in John 20:28|Page 2

Come Out of her the mother of all whores and her dauthers Rev 17:1-7, Rev 18:4

This is life to know Yahweh and His Son Yahshua John 17:3

If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. John 14:15

From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all Israelites will come to worship before Me,” says the LORD. Isa 66:23