… John dubbed him Logos and said, "and the Word was God." On one occasion, when Thomas said to him, "My Lord AND MY GOD," he did not object.
As I said, the construction in the original Greek makes the word “God” a qualifier, which is very different from saying “the Word was God” in English. I don’t think that there’s any controversy about that. There is only a disagreement about what it means, because the word “God” is not used that way anywhere else, so there’s nothing to compare it to. Some scholars interpret it as “the Word was God-like” or “the Word had all the attributes and qualities of God.”
Some of this doesn'treally imply what many say it implies. Doing miracles in no way indicates a person is either the Messiah or God.
I wasn’t thinking that it does. I haven’t come to the part yet about him claiming to be the king that God told David that he would raise up from David’s descendants. I know that isn’t the only meaning of “Messiah,” but I’m thinking that in the gospel stories it’s what Peter and Jesus mean by “the Anointed One, the son of the Living God. I haven’t come to that part yet. Nothing I’ve said is about that. It’s about people’s reasons, in the time of the first Christians, for thinking that they worshipped two gods.
As to the claims that he is God, what can I say?
Nothing I said had anything to do with claims that He is God. Just the opposite. It’s about reasons for people thinking that Christians worshipped two gods.
If you don’t have any comments or questions about my story, we can skip that too. I have an idea about how to explain my theory about early Christians worshipping Jesus. That’s also about people’s reasons for thinking that Christians worshipped two gods. That’s important to keep in mind, to to be able understand what I’m thinking: It’s about people’s reasons, in the time of the first Christians, for thinking that they worshipped two gods.