How does your Church Pastor/bishop (or denomination) explain the following verses. I'm having a hard time understanding how they fit with church doctrines of subordination within the Godhead as the plain reading comes across very clear.

In light of the post-canon theological doctrines, such as the Trinity, how should we interpret the repeated references to "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ" by Peter and Paul. Additionally, from Jesus himself, he states "My God" in his Post-resurrection and exalted state (not during his earthly ministry).

Do these statements reflect some sort of hierarchy within the Godhead, or do these verses invite us to re-examine later doctrinal formulations? I have found the responses I've received from pastors to be lacking. Would like to seek further understanding from others.

Passages Referring to "The God of Our Lord Jesus"

1. Ephesians 1:3 "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ."
2. Ephesians 1:17 "I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better."
3. 2 Corinthians 1:3 "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort."
4. 2 Corinthians 11:31 "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying."
5. 1 Peter 1:3 "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."

Passages Where Jesus Says "My God" After His Resurrection or in His Exalted State (Red Letters)

1. John 20:17 "Jesus said, 'Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."’"
2. Revelation 3:12 "The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name."

Thanks in advance for your responses.

So, I think it's pretty clear from my posting history that I am an ex-Christian, but this question actually dates back to before I left.

Why do theologians even bother trying to reconcile the contents of the book of John with the historical aspects of the synoptics? It seems not only fruitless but actually misguided.

By both the content and the narrative structure of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it is clear that what is intended is at least a quasi-historical account of the life of Jesus. This is missing from John.

Whether you believe that they copied from each other or from another source, it is clear that there is a strong agreement over much of the contents. But John is remarkably different. Not only does it start with the preamble, but it also completely restructures the story. In the synoptics, Jesus has one year of ministry, in John there are three. The synoptics and John disagree over what day Jesus died (one lining up with the Passover, the other lining up with the sacrifices for Passover). In the synoptics, the clearing of the temple is at the end, the beginning of Holy Week. In John, it is among his first public acts. Even the use of miracles is different in John than it is in the synoptics.

None of this is to say that any of the above disproves the validity of the Bible (I will refrain from comment on that here), but it does suggest that the purpose of John is something entirely different from the purpose of the synoptics. It is clearly a poetic theological work and not meant to be interpreted as a historical account. From a modern perspective, it might be akin to *Hamilton!*: based on real events and having a large number of historically accurate points, but not intended to be a comprehensive lesson in history.

Now, the thing is, people like Ehrman know this. The above is pretty "Biblical criticism 101". But yet in books like *Misquoting Jesus*, the contradictions between John and the synoptics is held as an example of Biblical errancy.

So my questions are:

• Is it just Ehrman and anti-apologists who do this? Or is this actually a prevalent problem in the secular interpretation of the gospels? I know I've encountered it multiple places, but I don't know if it is something that scholars debate seriously.
• Am I incorrect in the interpretation that John should basically be set aside as a source of historic information? If so, how do serious scholars account for the differences between it and the other three canonical gospels? In this case, how many years was Jesus active in ministry?
• If I am correct about John, then is there anything which we can say definitively did or did not happen? I'm particularly interested in whether teachings like the Bread of Life discourse can be considered to be Jesus's words or should we consider them to be interpolation? (I will not comment on the implication of whether Jesus actually said something makes it more important than if another author made such claims).

Again: none of this is claiming anything about what is right or true. It is an attempt to understand whether something which I seem to be abundantly obvious seems to be ignored by New Testament scholars and, if so, why that is.