Thomas didn't believe Jesus is God

[232 Ben Yissachar]

John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto Him ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου
ὁ The
κύριός - LORD
μου - of me
καὶ - and
ὁ - The
θεός - GOD
μου - of me

The LORD of me and The GOD of me

John 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

[Free]

Who else would an angel of God's presence be that was sent to save His people, the house of Israel? The New Testament repeatedly says God sent Jesus to save his people. This is a prophecy. The Messiah didn't come to the house of Israel until after Jesus was born, of course.

The angel of God's presence could very well be Michael. See Exo 23:20 and 33:2 where God said he would send an angel to bring deliverance.

Besides, you said Jesus didn't exist prior to being born. So, how is it that an angel who stands in the presence of God becomes Jesus? That would mean that he preexisted. That's also the error of JWs who believe Jesus preexisted as Michael and then returned to being Michael after his ascension, which has no biblical evidence whatsoever.

And, that brings up another problem for you. Heb 1 is all about Jesus's superiority to the angels, so how is he superior to himself? Of course, Heb 1 is pointing out that Jesus isn't an angel, he is the Son of God, God in the flesh, which is precisely why he is superior to the angels.

And, again, you readily apply a verse or two from prophecy to Jesus but when the inspired authors of the NT do so, you deny that that’s what they have done. Why the double standard? Why is your application correct and the inspired writers' application incorrect?

 

[Free]

John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto Him ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου
ὁ The
κύριός - LORD
μου - of me
καὶ - and
ὁ - The
θεός - GOD
μου - of me

The LORD of me and The GOD of me

John 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Yes, there is no question that Thomas was speaking only to Jesus and called him his Lord and his God.

 

[Runningman]

Yes, there is no question that Thomas was speaking only to Jesus and called him his Lord and his God.

Not according to scripture.

John 20:17 Jesus said that he and his brothers' God is the Father.

Next, when Thomas said "my God" in John 20:28 then it follows that Thomas is referring to the Father as his God. That's sola scriptura.

There is no precedent for any of the disciples confusing Jesus as God Himself.

 

[Free]

Not according to scripture.

John 20:17 Jesus said that he and his brothers' God is the Father.

This has been dealt with. There is much context that needs to be taken into consideration to understand what Jesus is saying and what he is not saying, such as the context below.

Next, when Thomas said "my God" in John 20:28 then it follows that Thomas is referring to the Father as his God. That's sola scriptura.

No, it does not at all follow, nor is it, by definition, sola scriptura, since you're reading into the verse the idea that Thomas is referring to the Father. According to Scripture:

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and my God!" (LEB)

There is only one interpretation. First, we see that Thomas "said to him." To who? Who is Thomas speaking to? Jesus, and only Jesus. To say that he also speaks to the Father, is to state something found nowhere in the text. Second, Thomas says to Jesus, and only Jesus, "My Lord and my God," or, as the Greek has it, "The Lord of me and the God of me." Thomas is saying that Jesus is both his Lord and his God, that is if grammar actually means anything.

There is no precedent for any of the disciples confusing Jesus as God Himself.

I agree. They knew he was God. There was no confusion about it. Remember who wrote this gospel, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. John tells us in the very first verse who the preincarnate Son of God is--he has absolute existence (1:1a), was in an intimate, interpersonal relationship with God (1:1b), and therefore, is God in nature (1:1c). This is then repeated in verse 2 and supported by verse 3. John then repeats that the preincarnate Son of God, the Word, is God in verse 18:

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

Then, Jesus says more than once that he came from heaven (John 3:13, 17; 6:38, 62; 8:23; 12:46; 13:3; 16:27-28, 30; 17:24), he said that he shared in glory of the Father prior to creation (John 17:5), he claimed to be the I Am (John 8:58), he did and said things that made the Jews believe he was God, which he never denies (John 5:18; 8:59; 10:33).

And, that's just John's gospel. So, whatever you want John 20:17 to say, it cannot contradict any of that or anything similar stated elsewhere in Scripture. We must make sense of all of it together, without creating contradictions or making clear verses say something they don't. But your position creates serious contradictions because you think some verses trump what other verses say, and so then completely change the clear meaning of those verses you disagree with, such as John 20:28.

 

[Runningman]

This has been dealt with. There is much context that needs to be taken into consideration to understand what Jesus is saying and what he is not saying, such as the context below.


No, it does not at all follow, nor is it, by definition, sola scriptura, since you're reading into the verse the idea that Thomas is referring to the Father. According to Scripture:

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and my God!" (LEB)

There is only one interpretation. First, we see that Thomas "said to him." To who? Who is Thomas speaking to? Jesus, and only Jesus. To say that he also speaks to the Father, is to state something found nowhere in the text. Second, Thomas says to Jesus, and only Jesus, "My Lord and my God," or, as the Greek has it, "The Lord of me and the God of me." Thomas is saying that Jesus is both his Lord and his God, that is if grammar actually means anything.


I agree. They knew he was God. There was no confusion about it. Remember who wrote this gospel, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. John tells us in the very first verse who the preincarnate Son of God is--he has absolute existence (1:1a), was in an intimate, interpersonal relationship with God (1:1b), and therefore, is God in nature (1:1c). This is then repeated in verse 2 and supported by verse 3. John then repeats that the preincarnate Son of God, the Word, is God in verse 18:

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

Then, Jesus says more than once that he came from heaven (John 3:13, 17; 6:38, 62; 8:23; 12:46; 13:3; 16:27-28, 30; 17:24), he said that he shared in glory of the Father prior to creation (John 17:5), he claimed to be the I Am (John 8:58), he did and said things that made the Jews believe he was God, which he never denies (John 5:18; 8:59; 10:33).

And, that's just John's gospel. So, whatever you want John 20:17 to say, it cannot contradict any of that or anything similar stated elsewhere in Scripture. We must make sense of all of it together, without creating contradictions or making clear verses say something they don't. But your position creates serious contradictions because you think some verses trump what other verses say, and so then completely change the clear meaning of those verses you disagree with, such as John 20:28.

Thomas was a dedicated follower of Jesus. That means Thomas obeyed and observed the teachings of Jesus.

He was very close to Jesus being a member of Jesus’ inner circle of 12. Jesus said that Thomas’ God is the Father in John 20:17. When Thomas said “my God” in John 20:28 then Thomas is not contradicting Jesus and taking on a different god. Thomas was referring to the Father.

This is sola scriptura, fits the context of the chapter, and is sound exegesis.

 

[Free]

Thomas was a dedicated follower of Jesus. That means Thomas obeyed and observed the teachings of Jesus.

Yes, of course. I am not saying otherwise.

He was very close to Jesus being a member of Jesus’ inner circle of 12. Jesus said that Thomas’ God is the Father in John 20:17. When Thomas said “my God” in John 20:28 then Thomas is not contradicting Jesus

I agree.

and taking on a different god. Thomas was referring to the Father.

This is fallaciously begging the question. First, Jesus is not a different God. I don't know why anti-Trinitarians can't understand this. Second, there is simply no way that Thomas was referring to the Father. That is reading into the text. Third, there is more context that you are not taking into account, even though Thomas's statement does stand on its own. Look at what Thomas first says when 'the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord."'

Joh 20:24 Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.
Joh 20:25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” (ESV)

Notice Thomas's demands in verse 25:

1. Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails,
2. and place my finger into the mark of the nails,
3. and place my hand into his side,
4. I will never believe.

Then:

Joh 20:26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”
Joh 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” (ESV)

Notice Jesus's response in verse 27:

1. Put your fingers here,
2. see my hands,
3. put out your hand, and place it in my side.
4. Do not disbelieve, but believe.

Jesus directly responds to each of Thomas's demands with commands to do exactly what Thomas stated. This shows the omniscience of Jesus, to which Thomas responds:

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God! (LITV)

Note that Thomas "said to Him;" that is what appears in the Greek. He was directly addressing Jesus, no one else. More than that though, is Jesus's response:

Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (ESV)

Jesus asks, "Have you believed because you have seen me?". Believed what? First, that he has risen from the dead, and second, that he is God. It was Thomas's statement--"The Lord of me and the God of me"--that was the evidence that Thomas now believed, having come out of his previous unbelief. A lack of rebuke from Jesus for Thomas calling him his God, is proof that Jesus is truly God, just as he is truly man.

And, again, this fits perfectly with John 1:1. John beings his gospel by stating that the eternal Word is God, who then takes on human flesh, records Jesus saying numerous things that point to his deity (or at a minimum his preexistence), and ends his gospel with Thomas claiming that the incarnate Word, the Son of God, was his God. That is a consistent message throughout John's gospel.

This is sola scriptura, fits the context of the chapter, and is sound exegesis.

No, not at all, on all three points. The lack of sound exegesis gets to the heart of the matter as to whether one believes the biblical truth that the Son is truly God, making Jesus both truly God and truly man. The key here is that you are taking one verse out of context--from the chapter, the rest of the gospel, and the rest of Scripture--and making it override the plain meaning of another. That is anything but sound exegesis.

But, proper exegesis means making sense of both verses without one overriding the other. It also means taking into account the entire context of John's gospel and the rest of Scripture. Regarding John 20:17, from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary:

"I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God — words of incomparable glory! Jesus had called God habitually His Father, and on one occasion, in His darkest moment, His God. But both are here united, expressing that full-orbed relationship which embraces in its vast sweep at once Himself and His redeemed. Yet, note well, He says not, Our Father and our God. All the deepest of the Church fathers were wont to call attention to this, as expressly designed to distinguish between what God is to Him and to us - His Father essentially, ours not so: our God essentially, His not so: His God only in connection with us: our God only in connection with Him."

It is a statement by the incarnate Son that he was returning to the place he had prior to his incarnation (John 1:1-3; 3:13, 17; 6:38, 62; 8:23-24; 12:46; 16:27-28, 30; 17:5, 24; Phil 2:5-8; etc.). We must understand the entire context and not ignore John's prologue, Jesus's claims to have preexisted with the Father and to be the I Am, Thomas's clear confession, nor the rest of what Scripture reveals.

 

[Runningman]

Yes, of course. I am not saying otherwise.


I agree.


This is fallaciously begging the question. First, Jesus is not a different God. I don't know why anti-Trinitarians can't understand this. Second, there is simply no way that Thomas was referring to the Father. That is reading into the text. Third, there is more context that you are not taking into account, even though Thomas's statement does stand on its own. Look at what Thomas first says when 'the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord."'

Joh 20:24 Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.
Joh 20:25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” (ESV)

Notice Thomas's demands in verse 25:

1. Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails,
2. and place my finger into the mark of the nails,
3. and place my hand into his side,
4. I will never believe.

Then:

Joh 20:26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”
Joh 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” (ESV)

Notice Jesus's response in verse 27:

1. Put your fingers here,
2. see my hands,
3. put out your hand, and place it in my side.
4. Do not disbelieve, but believe.

Jesus directly responds to each of Thomas's demands with commands to do exactly what Thomas stated. This shows the omniscience of Jesus, to which Thomas responds:

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God! (LITV)

Note that Thomas "said to Him;" that is what appears in the Greek. He was directly addressing Jesus, no one else. More than that though, is Jesus's response:

Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (ESV)

Jesus asks, "Have you believed because you have seen me?". Believed what? First, that he has risen from the dead, and second, that he is God. It was Thomas's statement--"The Lord of me and the God of me"--that was the evidence that Thomas now believed, having come out of his previous unbelief. A lack of rebuke from Jesus for Thomas calling him his God, is proof that Jesus is truly God, just as he is truly man.

And, again, this fits perfectly with John 1:1. John beings his gospel by stating that the eternal Word is God, who then takes on human flesh, records Jesus saying numerous things that point to his deity (or at a minimum his preexistence), and ends his gospel with Thomas claiming that the incarnate Word, the Son of God, was his God. That is a consistent message throughout John's gospel.


No, not at all, on all three points. The lack of sound exegesis gets to the heart of the matter as to whether one believes the biblical truth that the Son is truly God, making Jesus both truly God and truly man. The key here is that you are taking one verse out of context--from the chapter, the rest of the gospel, and the rest of Scripture--and making it override the plain meaning of another. That is anything but sound exegesis.

But, proper exegesis means making sense of both verses without one overriding the other. It also means taking into account the entire context of John's gospel and the rest of Scripture. Regarding John 20:17, from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary:

"I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God — words of incomparable glory! Jesus had called God habitually His Father, and on one occasion, in His darkest moment, His God. But both are here united, expressing that full-orbed relationship which embraces in its vast sweep at once Himself and His redeemed. Yet, note well, He says not, Our Father and our God. All the deepest of the Church fathers were wont to call attention to this, as expressly designed to distinguish between what God is to Him and to us - His Father essentially, ours not so: our God essentially, His not so: His God only in connection with us: our God only in connection with Him."

It is a statement by the incarnate Son that he was returning to the place he had prior to his incarnation (John 1:1-3; 3:13, 17; 6:38, 62; 8:23-24; 12:46; 16:27-28, 30; 17:5, 24; Phil 2:5-8; etc.). We must understand the entire context and not ignore John's prologue, Jesus's claims to have preexisted with the Father and to be the I Am, Thomas's clear confession, nor the rest of what Scripture reveals.

Thank you for sharing your opinion, but John 20:17 about Jesus proclaiming the God of his brothers to be the Father and John 20:28 about Thomas saying "my God" in reference to the Father are not going anywhere. What this OP is about is not only Jesus not being Thomas' God, but also that Thomas' didn't believe that.

Among many other proofs from the Bible, this is just one. Thomas believed the Father is his God. No one in the Bible called Jesus God because he isn't God. Humans aren't God. I hope that helps.

 

[Free]

Thank you for sharing your opinion, but John 20:17 about Jesus proclaiming the God of his brothers to be the Father

Which, in no way whatsoever precludes Jesus from also being God.

and John 20:28 about Thomas saying "my God" in reference to the Father are not going anywhere.

But Thomas wasn't speaking to or about the Father. He was speaking to Jesus alone, as the text plainly and clearly indicates.

What this OP is about is not only Jesus not being Thomas' God, but also that Thomas' didn't believe that.

There is only one understanding of John 20:28: Thomas truly believed that Jesus was both his Lord and his God. There simply isn't any other way. That is why you have to read the Father into that verse.

Among many other proofs from the Bible, this is just one.

Is that why you have left so many of the passages I've given unaddressed?

Thomas believed the Father is his God.

Thomas came to believe that Jesus was also truly God.

No one in the Bible called Jesus God because he isn't God.

If one ignores Thomas's clear confession, John's entire prologue, Jesus's claims about himself, Paul's claims in 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16-17, and Phil 2:5-8, the entirety of Heb 1, and the titles of God applied to Christ, among other passages, then sure, of course it would like that was the case.

Humans aren't God. I hope that helps.

Not really, because in regards to Jesus, that is just fallaciously begging the question. For everyone else, of course they aren't God.

 

[tigger 2]

A small portion of my "My God" study:

What about the rest of the context? (1) As noted before, Thomas did not bow down, worship, etc. upon learning that it was really Jesus and saying 'my lord and my god.' He could not have just discovered that he was in the presence of God and acted the way he did! (2) It’s also obvious that Jesus did not understand Thomas to be calling him equally God with the Father in heaven. But did John, in spite of the incredible contradiction of a previous statement (like 1 John 4:12 above) at John 1:18 that “no man hath seen God at any time,” somehow think that Thomas understood Jesus to be God?

Well, no other disciple of Jesus ever made a statement to him which could honestly be construed as meaning Jesus is God! So, (3) if John had, somehow, understood Thomas’ statement that way, he certainly would have provided some follow-up clarification and emphasis in his own comments.

Surely John would have shown Thomas prostrating himself before “God” and worshiping him (but he doesn’t!). So how does John summarize this incident? - “But these were written that you may believe [Believe what? That Jesus is God? Here, then, is where it should have been written if John really believed such a thing:] that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” - John 20:31, RSV. (Be sure to compare 1 John 5:5.)

Or, as the trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985, states in a footnote for this scripture:

“This whole Gospel is written to show the truth of Jesus’ Messiahship and to present him as the Son of God, so that the readers may believe in him.”

Obviously, neither Jesus’ response, nor Thomas’ responses (before and after his statement at John 20:28), nor John’s summation of the event at 20:31 recognizes Thomas’ statement to mean that Jesus is the only true God!

...............................................................

A study of the Grammar of John 20:28 will follow (God willing).

 

[Free]

A small portion of my "My God" study:

What about the rest of the context? (1) As noted before, Thomas did not bow down, worship, etc. upon learning that it was really Jesus and saying 'my lord and my god.'

This is an argument that Trinitarians can't win because JWs rig the game. When we point out the texts where the disciples worshiped Jesus, JWs say it wasn't actual worship. So, if this text said that Thomas bowed down or worshiped, the same argument would be made. Yet, since the text doesn't say that Thomas worshiped Jesus, the argument becomes the opposite. No winning for the Trinitarians because no matter what is stated, it would be denied.

He could not have just discovered that he was in the presence of God and acted the way he did!

Do you mean by saying to Jesus, "the Lord of me and the God of me"? Any judgement as to how he should have acted is just begging the question, especially considering he had already spent 3 years with Jesus.

(2) It’s also obvious that Jesus did not understand Thomas to be calling him equally God with the Father in heaven.

Thomas was talking to Jesus and only Jesus and clearly called him his God. Do you really think Jesus didn't understand such a clear statement?

But did John, in spite of the incredible contradiction of a previous statement (like 1 John 4:12 above) at John 1:18 that “no man hath seen God at any time,” somehow think that Thomas understood Jesus to be God?

And, yet, Jesus said:

Joh 14:7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
Joh 14:8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”
Joh 14:9 Jesus said to him, “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’?
Joh 14:10 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 dwells in me does his works.
Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. (ESV)

Context is so important.

Well, no other disciple of Jesus ever made a statement to him which could honestly be construed as meaning Jesus is God! So,

Which, if true, is not relevant as to the truth of what Thomas stated, right?

(3) if John had, somehow, understood Thomas’ statement that way, he certainly would have provided some follow-up clarification and emphasis in his own comments.

Surely John would have shown Thomas prostrating himself before “God” and worshiping him (but he doesn’t!).

Again, begging the question. You simply cannot argue that if X was the case, then Y would have been the case.

So how does John summarize this incident? - “But these were written that you may believe [Believe what? That Jesus is God? Here, then, is where it should have been written if John really believed such a thing:] that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” - John 20:31, RSV. (Be sure to compare 1 John 5:5.)

But this ignores the fact that Jesus's response was based directly on Thomas's confession. And Thomas's confession was based on Jesus repeating back to Thomas words that he had made when Jesus wasn't present.

Or, as the trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985, states in a footnote for this scripture:

“This whole Gospel is written to show the truth of Jesus’ Messiahship and to present him as the Son of God, so that the readers may believe in him.”

Yes, but to say that this means Thomas didn't say that Jesus was God or that it is nowhere written in John's gospel is begging the question. None of what is stated in that note precludes Jesus from being truly God.

Obviously, neither Jesus’ response, nor Thomas’ responses (before and after his statement at John 20:28), nor John’s summation of the event at 20:31 recognizes Thomas’ statement to mean that Jesus is the only true God!

Again, all begging the question. Thomas's words speak for themselves; no commentary is necessary.

 

[Runningman]

Which, in no way whatsoever precludes Jesus from also being God.

It does since Jesus said the only true God is the Father. John 17:3

But Thomas wasn't speaking to or about the Father.

Following from John 20:17, it would follow that if Thomas mentions his God then he would be referring to the Father.

He was speaking to Jesus alone, as the text plainly and clearly indicates.

Thomas speaking to Jesus, saying "my God" doesn't mean Thomas is saying "You are my God." Thomas isn't trying to say he believes Jesus is God incarnate.

Another example to demonstrate the Bible's logic, Jesus also said directly to Peter in Matt 16:23 "Get behind me, Satan!" That doesn't mean Peter is literally the devil incarnate nor do we begin building a theology about how Peter is the devil incarnate. Speaking to Peter and saying "Satan" doesn't follow that Peter is actually Satan.

If one wants to say Jesus is God in John 20:28 then one must accept Peter is the devil in Matt 16:23.

This is just rhetorical to demonstrate the fallacious reasoning of saying Thomas said Jesus is God.

There is only one understanding of John 20:28: Thomas truly believed that Jesus was both his Lord and his God. There simply isn't any other way. That is why you have to read the Father into that verse.

I provided the one true understanding of John 20:28 in my OP and I presented a very logical and coherent basis for why this is so. People will believe this easily because it's simple, clear, and true.

Thomas came to believe that Jesus was also truly God.

Verse?

1 Cor 8:6,

Says the Father is the only God.

Col 1:16-17,

Begin with Colossians 1:15 that says Jesus is the "image of God." Is your god the image of God or God Himself?

and Phil 2:5-8,

Begin with Philippians 2:5 where Paul told the Philippians to have the same mind as Jesus. What follows from there is about the mind of Jesus, not Jesus being God, because Paul isn't telling the Philippians to believe that are God.

the entirety of Heb 1,

Hebrews 1 has nothing to do with Jesus being God.

and the titles of God applied to Christ, among other passages, then sure, of course it would like that was the case.

Such as?

Not really, because in regards to Jesus, that is just fallaciously begging the question. For everyone else, of course they aren't God.

What did Jesus do that makes him God then?

 

[Runningman]

A study of the Grammar of John 20:28 will follow (God willing).

Looking forward to it. I enjoy reading all of your commentary I have seen so far.

 

[tigger 2]

I do not believe this expression by Thomas is an address to anyone. If Thomas had said, “You are my Lord and my God,” we might have reason for such a representational interpretation. Or if he had addressed Jesus with the intent of saying something further (e.g. “My Lord and my God, how have you returned to us?”), it could also be indicative of the above representational interpretation. But there is no indication of any intent by Thomas to follow up an “address” with anything further as is normally required of nouns of address. (cf. Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34; Acts 1:6; 22:8; Rev. 7:14.)

The very fact that the words of Thomas are not a complete statement show that it is probably the abbreviated form of a common expression or doxology and not a statement of identification such as “you are my lord and my god.” Whereas doxologies and other common expressions are frequently abbreviated to the point of not being complete statements (cf. Dana and Mantey, p. 149), statements of identification appear to be complete statements (certainly in the writings of John, at least), e.g., Jn 1:49, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.” - NASB. Cf. Jn. 6:14, 69; 7:40, 41; 9:17; 11:27; 21:7. Furthermore, when using the term “Lord” (at least) in address to another person, a different form of the NT Greek word is used than the form found at John 20:28 (ho kurios mou).

“The vocative is the case used in addressing a person .... kurie [kurie] (O Lord), Θee (O God) ... are almost the only forms found in the N.T.” - pp. 14, 15, The New Testament Greek Primer, Rev. Alfred Marshall, Zondervan, 1978 printing.


This is especially true of “Lord” and “my Lord” in both the Septuagint and the New Testament. Kurie, not kurios, is the form used when addressing someone as “Lord” or “My Lord.” (“God,” Θεε, however, is not so certain. In fact it is very rare in the NT which normally uses the nominative Θεὸς in address).

We can see a good example of this vocative form, which is used in addressing a person as “Lord,” at 3 Kings 1:20, 21 (1 Kings 1:20, 21 in modern English Bibles) in the ancient Greek of the Septuagint: “And you, my Lord [kurie mou], O King ...” - 3 Kings 1:20, Septuagint. Then at 3 Kings 1:21 we see the same person (King David) being spoken about (but not addressed) in the same terms as Jn 20:28: “And it shall come to pass, when my Lord [ho kurios mou] the king shall sleep with his fathers .... - 3 Kings 1:21, Septuagint.

We also find Thomas himself, at Jn 14:5, addressing Jesus as “Lord” by using kurie. And, when addressing the angel at Rev. 7:14, John himself says kurie mou (“My Lord”)! There are 33 uses of kurie in the Gospel of John alone. Here are a few of them: John 9:38; 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 12:38 (from OT quote-'Jehovah' as kurie); 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37; 14:5. (Compare these with an actual identification of the lord: “it is the lord [kurios],” John 21:7 – Also, for Colwell’s Rule fans, note the use of the article and the word order of the clause in the two clauses identifying the Lord here.)

Therefore, it is probably safe to say that when John wrote down the incident with Thomas at Jn 20:28 and used the nominative form for “My Lord” [Kurios] he was not saying that Thomas was addressing Jesus as “My Lord and my God”! For all the uses of "Lord" in address, see my further study: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2016/04/all-uses-of-vocative-noun-of-address.html

So, again, there is not even one valid, certain example in the entire New Testament to back up the trinitarian assertion that the nominative kurios in John 20:28 should be understood as a vocative. But there are many straightforward, indisputable examples (120 of them in the Received text; 119 in the newer texts) to show that kurios at John 20:28 was not intended as a noun of address signifying identification.

It is most likely that it is a doxology blessing the Father.

Don't forget John's own summary of his Gospel: John 20:31 - "but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in His name." - NASB.

If John had really believed Jesus was God, that would have been foremost among his stated reasons for his Gospel. But it isn't even mentioned.

 

[Free]

I do not believe this expression by Thomas is an address to anyone. If Thomas had said, “You are my Lord and my God,” we might have reason for such a representational interpretation. Or if he had addressed Jesus with the intent of saying something further (e.g. “My Lord and my God, how have you returned to us?”), it could also be indicative of the above representational interpretation. But there is no indication of any intent by Thomas to follow up an “address” with anything further as is normally required of nouns of address. (cf. Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34; Acts 1:6; 22:8; Rev. 7:14.)

Again, begging the question by presuming what would have or could have been said it Thomas were addressing someone.

The text is clear:

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and my God!" (LEB)

He is speaking directly to Jesus and only to Jesus. There is no reason to believe that he isn't calling Jesus both his Lord and his God.

The very fact that the words of Thomas are not a complete statement show that it is probably the abbreviated form of a common expression or doxology and not a statement of identification such as “you are my lord and my god.” Whereas doxologies and other common expressions are frequently abbreviated to the point of not being complete statements (cf. Dana and Mantey, p. 149), statements of identification appear to be complete statements (certainly in the writings of John, at least), e.g., Jn 1:49, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.” - NASB. Cf. Jn. 6:14, 69; 7:40, 41; 9:17; 11:27; 21:7. Furthermore, when using the term “Lord” (at least) in address to another person, a different form of the NT Greek word is used than the form found at John 20:28 (ho kurios mou).

This is really a non-argument. This isn't a complete statement either, yet it's meaning is not disputed:

Joh 11:35 Jesus wept. (ESV)

Koine Greek, like probably any language, uses incomplete sentences and clauses to communicate.

“The vocative is the case used in addressing a person .... kurie [kurie] (O Lord), Θee (O God) ... are almost the only forms found in the N.T.” - pp. 14, 15, The New Testament Greek Primer, Rev. Alfred Marshall, Zondervan, 1978 printing.


This is especially true of “Lord” and “my Lord” in both the Septuagint and the New Testament. Kurie, not kurios, is the form used when addressing someone as “Lord” or “My Lord.” (“God,” Θεε, however, is not so certain. In fact it is very rare in the NT which normally uses the nominative Θεὸς in address).

We can see a good example of this vocative form, which is used in addressing a person as “Lord,” at 3 Kings 1:20, 21 (1 Kings 1:20, 21 in modern English Bibles) in the ancient Greek of the Septuagint: “And you, my Lord [kurie mou], O King ...” - 3 Kings 1:20, Septuagint. Then at 3 Kings 1:21 we see the same person (King David) being spoken about (but not addressed) in the same terms as Jn 20:28: “And it shall come to pass, when my Lord [ho kurios mou] the king shall sleep with his fathers .... - 3 Kings 1:21, Septuagint.

We also find Thomas himself, at Jn 14:5, addressing Jesus as “Lord” by using kurie. And, when addressing the angel at Rev. 7:14, John himself says kurie mou (“My Lord”)! There are 33 uses of kurie in the Gospel of John alone. Here are a few of them: John 9:38; 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 12:38 (from OT quote-'Jehovah' as kurie); 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37; 14:5. (Compare these with an actual identification of the lord: “it is the lord [kurios],” John 21:7 – Also, for Colwell’s Rule fans, note the use of the article and the word order of the clause in the two clauses identifying the Lord here.)

Therefore, it is probably safe to say that when John wrote down the incident with Thomas at Jn 20:28 and used the nominative form for “My Lord” [Kurios] he was not saying that Thomas was addressing Jesus as “My Lord and my God”! For all the uses of "Lord" in address, see my further study: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2016/04/all-uses-of-vocative-noun-of-address.html

So, again, there is not even one valid, certain example in the entire New Testament to back up the trinitarian assertion that the nominative kurios in John 20:28 should be understood as a vocative. But there are many straightforward, indisputable examples (120 of them in the Received text; 119 in the newer texts) to show that kurios at John 20:28 was not intended as a noun of address signifying identification.

There are a number of assumptions there. The interesting thing is, while both "Lord" and "God" are nominative, the definite article for both is vocative.

It is most likely that it is a doxology blessing the Father.

There is nothing to even imply such.

Don't forget John's own summary of his Gospel: John 20:31 - "but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in His name." - NASB.

Which in no way whatsoever precludes Jesus from being God.

If John had really believed Jesus was God, that would have been foremost among his stated reasons for his Gospel. But it isn't even mentioned.

There is no doubt that John believed in the deity of Jesus as it is mentioned or implied numerous times:

John 1:1-18 clearly shows that John believed in the deity of Jesus. Then we have numerous statements from Jesus himself that he existed prior to being born and was returning to the place he had prior to his incarnation (John 1:1-3; 3:13, 17; 6:38, 62; 8:23-24; 12:46; 16:27-28, 30; 17:5, 24). Jesus claimed to be the I Am (John 8:58), etc. We could then also consider the titles of God that he applies to Jesus in Revelation.

 

[tigger 2]

Free wrote: "There are a number of assumptions there. The interesting thing is, while both "Lord" and "God" are nominative, the definite article for both is vocative."

Sorry, but , although the vocative does borrow the nominative article, it is still the nominative article. There is no vocative article as such.

 

[Free]

“The vocative is the case used in addressing a person .... kurie [kurie] (O Lord), Θee (O God) ... are almost the only forms found in the N.T.” - pp. 14, 15, The New Testament Greek Primer, Rev. Alfred Marshall, Zondervan, 1978 printing.


This is especially true of “Lord” and “my Lord” in both the Septuagint and the New Testament. Kurie, not kurios, is the form used when addressing someone as “Lord” or “My Lord.” (“God,” Θεε, however, is not so certain. In fact it is very rare in the NT which normally uses the nominative Θεὸς in address).

We can see a good example of this vocative form, which is used in addressing a person as “Lord,” at 3 Kings 1:20, 21 (1 Kings 1:20, 21 in modern English Bibles) in the ancient Greek of the Septuagint: “And you, my Lord [kurie mou], O King ...” - 3 Kings 1:20, Septuagint. Then at 3 Kings 1:21 we see the same person (King David) being spoken about (but not addressed) in the same terms as Jn 20:28: “And it shall come to pass, when my Lord [ho kurios mou] the king shall sleep with his fathers .... - 3 Kings 1:21, Septuagint.

We also find Thomas himself, at Jn 14:5, addressing Jesus as “Lord” by using kurie. And, when addressing the angel at Rev. 7:14, John himself says kurie mou (“My Lord”)! There are 33 uses of kurie in the Gospel of John alone. Here are a few of them: John 9:38; 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 12:38 (from OT quote-'Jehovah' as kurie); 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37; 14:5. (Compare these with an actual identification of the lord: “it is the lord [kurios],” John 21:7 – Also, for Colwell’s Rule fans, note the use of the article and the word order of the clause in the two clauses identifying the Lord here.)

Therefore, it is probably safe to say that when John wrote down the incident with Thomas at Jn 20:28 and used the nominative form for “My Lord” [Kurios] he was not saying that Thomas was addressing Jesus as “My Lord and my God”! For all the uses of "Lord" in address, see my further study: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2016/04/all-uses-of-vocative-noun-of-address.html

So, again, there is not even one valid, certain example in the entire New Testament to back up the trinitarian assertion that the nominative kurios in John 20:28 should be understood as a vocative. But there are many straightforward, indisputable examples (120 of them in the Received text; 119 in the newer texts) to show that kurios at John 20:28 was not intended as a noun of address signifying identification.

It’s unfortunate for your position that Rev 4:11 has the very same construction as John 20:28. So much for “not even one valid, certain example in the entire New Testament to back up the trinitarian assertion that the nominative kurios in John 20:28 should be understood as a vocative.”

There simply is no reason to not understand Thomas as calling Jesus both his Lord and his God.

 

[tigger 2]

Yes, the Received text uses “kurie” at Rev. 4:11: “Worthy are you Lord [“kurie”] to receive the glory and ….” So all examples of address to the Lord in John’s writings are “kurie” in the Received Text.

The Nestle’s Greek New Testament Text (my copy is the 21st edition) has: “Worthy are you the Lord [“kurios”] and the God of us to receive ….” Here “kurios” appears to be the appositive of the nominative “you.”

The Westcott and Hort text (1881 rev.) is identical to the Nestle text quoted above.

The Byzantine / Majority Text (1995) : “Worthy are you the Lord [“kurios”] and the God of us the holy to receive ….”

So except for the Received Text which uses “kurie” alone as a noun of address, the major NT texts use “kurios” as an apparent appositive for the nominative “you” (without the use of the introductory “kurie” found in some manuscripts).

Nevertheless, upon re-examination of Sinaiticus, I see that it reads: “Worthy are you Lord [“kurie” (abbrev.)] the Lord [“kurios” (abbrev.)] and God of us to receive….”

Here we see the noun of address is the vocative “kurie” and the appositive for it is the nominative “kurios.” This is perfectly in line with the NT Greek grammar for appositives of vocatives.

So in this ancient manuscript we see John addressing someone as “Lord” by using the vocative “kurie” (as he does everywhere else in his writings).

The conclusion is that some manuscripts at Rev. 4:11 use “kurie” as the noun of address, and others do not use “kurie” at all but instead use “you” as the noun of address and “kurios” as the appositive for it.

In either case it still is true that John ALWAYS used the vocative “kurie” as the noun of address and never used “kurios” for that purpose. This means that John 20:28 does not have Thomas ADDRESSING Jesus as “Lord.”

 

[tigger 2]

The only one that seems to use kurios in address is at Rev. 4:11. However, kurios at Rev. 4:11 can be interpreted in at least three ways: noun of address, appositive, or predicate noun (and the Received Text uses kurie here also - 120 out of 120!).

........................................................

(CEV) Rev. 4:11 "Our Lord [kurios] and God,[vocative] you are worthy to receive glory, honor, and power. You created all things, and by your decision they are and were created." - CEV.

(KJV) Rev. 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord,[kurie in Received Text] to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.


(NASB) Revelation 4:11 "Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, [appositives for 'You'] to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created."


(RSV) Revelation 4:11 "Worthy art thou, our Lord and God, [appositives for 'thou'] to receive glory and honor and power, for thou didst create all things, and by thy will they existed and were created."


(ASV) Revelation 4:11 Worthy art thou, our Lord and our God, [appositives for "thou"] to receive the glory and the honor and the power: for thou didst create all things, and because of thy will they were, and were created.


(Modern Language Version) Revelation 4:11 Worthy are you, our Lord and our God, [appositives for 'you']


(World English Bible) Revelation 4:11 “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, [appositives for 'you']


(AB) Revelation 4:11 Worthy are You, our Lord and God, [appositive for "You"]...


English Revised Version Worthy art thou, our Lord and our God, [appositive for "thou"]...


Twentieth Century New Testament 'Worthy art thou, our Lord and God, [appositive for "thou"] ...'


(The New Testament - A New Translation in Plain English, Charles K. Williams) Worthy art Thou, our Lord and God, [appositive for "Thou"]...


(Jerusalem Bible) Revelation 4:11 "You are our Lord and our God," [Predicate nouns!]


...............................................................

Even if you should refuse to accept that the scholars who translated NASB, RSV, ASV, MLV, WEB, etc. have actually rendered "our Lord and our God" as appositives instead of nouns of address, you cannot honestly deny that the scholars who translated the Jerusalem Bible have rendered them as predicate nouns (not nouns of address)!!


This is not a clear, undisputed passage and, therefore, is not acceptable evidence. Coupled with the above translations by a number of noted scholars is the fact that there are about 120 clear uses of the vocative kurie as a noun of address but nowhere is kurios (nominative case) clearly used as a noun of address!

 

[Free]

The only one that seems to use kurios in address is at Rev. 4:11. However, kurios at Rev. 4:11 can be interpreted in at least three ways: noun of address, appositive, or predicate noun (and the Received Text uses kurie here also - 120 out of 120!).

........................................................

(CEV) Rev. 4:11 "Our Lord [kurios] and God,[vocative] you are worthy to receive glory, honor, and power. You created all things, and by your decision they are and were created." - CEV.

(KJV) Rev. 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord,[kurie in Received Text] to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.


(NASB) Revelation 4:11 "Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, [appositives for 'You'] to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created."


(RSV) Revelation 4:11 "Worthy art thou, our Lord and God, [appositives for 'thou'] to receive glory and honor and power, for thou didst create all things, and by thy will they existed and were created."


(ASV) Revelation 4:11 Worthy art thou, our Lord and our God, [appositives for "thou"] to receive the glory and the honor and the power: for thou didst create all things, and because of thy will they were, and were created.


(Modern Language Version) Revelation 4:11 Worthy are you, our Lord and our God, [appositives for 'you']


(World English Bible) Revelation 4:11 “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, [appositives for 'you']


(AB) Revelation 4:11 Worthy are You, our Lord and God, [appositive for "You"]...


English Revised Version Worthy art thou, our Lord and our God, [appositive for "thou"]...


Twentieth Century New Testament 'Worthy art thou, our Lord and God, [appositive for "thou"] ...'


(The New Testament - A New Translation in Plain English, Charles K. Williams) Worthy art Thou, our Lord and God, [appositive for "Thou"]...


(Jerusalem Bible) Revelation 4:11 "You are our Lord and our God," [Predicate nouns!]


...............................................................

Even if you should refuse to accept that the scholars who translated NASB, RSV, ASV, MLV, WEB, etc. have actually rendered "our Lord and our God" as appositives instead of nouns of address, you cannot honestly deny that the scholars who translated the Jerusalem Bible have rendered them as predicate nouns (not nouns of address)!!


This is not a clear, undisputed passage and, therefore, is not acceptable evidence. Coupled with the above translations by a number of noted scholars is the fact that there are about 120 clear uses of the vocative kurie as a noun of address but nowhere is kurios (nominative case) clearly used as a noun of address!

And, yet, the context of Thomas's declaration can only be understood as he is saying Jesus is both his Lord and his God. This is the conclusion of John's gospel, which begins with showing the deity of Jesus, the equality of the Son with the Father. That continues throughout his gospel. So it makes sense that the disciples finally understood who Jesus was claiming to be.

Not to mention, that arguing it to be an appositive doesn't help your position. Since an appositive provides additional information, just as the examples you give provide additional information for "thou," who does "the Lord of me and the God of me" provide additional information about?

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" (NASB)

Thus confirming the appositive is providing additional information about Jesus.