Thomas didn't believe Jesus is God

[Runningman]

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.

John 20:17 says that Jesus' brothers' God is the Father. When Thomas said "my God" in John 20:28 then the context is about the Father being Thomas' God. The context and Greek grammar, as have been demonstrated in this thread, are that Thomas didn't believe Jesus is God. For example, Thomas didn't say "you are my God" or do anything that would indicate he felt Jesus was God.

No one in the Bible believed Jesus is God. The testimony of Jesus is that he is a man sent by God to serve God and do His will. He prayed to God, worshipped God, and instructed others to do the same. He referred to Father as the only true God. The proof is crystal clear that Jesus isn't God.

 

[Free]

John 20:17 says that Jesus' brothers' God is the Father. When Thomas said "my God" in John 20:28 then the context is about the Father being Thomas' God.

The immediate context is of the resurrected Christ repeating Thomas's declarations for evidence back to him, despite Jesus not having been there when Thomas stated them. He invites Thomas to investigate the evidence and Jesus says that Thomas believes based on Thomas saying, "The Lord of me and the God of me."

If you want to look at wider context, then you must include all the passages I've provided, that you've ignored, which clearly show Jesus's deity. Again, you're taking certain statements about Jesus's humanity and using them to trump those of his deity. That is simply not proper hermeneutics. You'll notice that I am not taking the verses which speak of his deity and using them to trump those of his humanity. Proper hermeneutics is to take both groupings of verses and make sense of them together, without one trumping the other.

The context and Greek grammar, as have been demonstrated in this thread, are that Thomas didn't believe Jesus is God. For example, Thomas didn't say "you are my God" or do anything that would indicate he felt Jesus was God.

The grammar has proven nothing of the sort. You're again fallaciously begging the question by assuming what Thomas would have said or done. The context proves Thomas was calling Jesus his Lord and his God.

Again, the wording is 'Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!".' Thomas is saying to Jesus, "The Lord of me and the God of me." Either Thomas says both things to the Father, without any mention of it, or he says both things to Jesus, which is explicitly stated.

No one in the Bible believed Jesus is God.

John did, Thomas did, Paul did, Matthew did, the writer of Hebrews did, etc. This means that all the disciples and apostles did. Did they wrestle with it? For sure, probably for quite some time, as it was a new revelation.

The testimony of Jesus is that he is a man sent by God to serve God and do His will. He prayed to God, worshipped God, and instructed others to do the same.

You're skipping all the verses I gave from Jesus himself. He claims: the name I Am (John 8:58); to have existed prior to being born (John 3:13; 6:38, 62; 8:23; 12:46; 13:3; 16:27-28); that he shared in the glory of the Father prior to creation (John 17:5); that the Father loved him prior to creation (John 17:24). He also accepts worship from the disciples (Matt 2:11; 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38).

He referred to Father as the only true God.

Yes, but that doesn't preclude him from also being truly God.

The proof is crystal clear that Jesus isn't God.

The proof is very much that he is truly God and truly man.

 

[tigger 2]

The Greek word proskuneo (or proskyneo) is defined in the 1971 trinitarian United Bible Societies' A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 154: "[Proskuneo] worship; fall down and worship, kneel, bow low, fall at another's feet."

Even trinitarian W. E. Vine writes in his An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 1247:

"PROSKUNEO ... to make obeisance, do reverence to (from pros, towards, and kuneo, to kiss), is the most frequent word rendered 'to worship'. It is used for an act of homage or reverence (a) to God ...; (b) to Christ ...; (c) to a man, Matt. 18:26." ("Obeisance," of course, shows "respect, submission, or reverence" - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1961.)

Noted Bible scholar J. H. Thayer defines proskuneo:

"prop. to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence ... hence in the N. T. by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication. It is used a. of homage shown to men of superior rank [position] ... Rev. 3:9 .... b. of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ, to heavenly beings [angels]" - p. 548, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House Publ., 1977.

The Hebrew word most often translated "worship" is shachah, and it is usually rendered as proskuneo in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Unger and White say of this word: "Shachah ... 'to worship, prostrate oneself, bow down.'" And, "The act of bowing down in homage done before a superior [in rank] or a ruler. Thus David 'bowed' himself [shachah] before Saul (1 Sam. 24:8). Sometimes it is a social or economic superior to whom one bows, as when Ruth 'bowed' [shachah] to the ground before Boaz (Ruth 2:10)." - Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, 1980, Thomas Nelson Publ., p. 482.

Perhaps the most famous Biblical Hebrew scholar of all, Gesenius, tells us in Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, p. 813, (#7812), 'Shachah':

"(1) to prostrate oneself before anyone out of honor .... Those who used this mode of salutation fell on their knees and touched the ground with the forehead ..., and this honor was not only shown to superiors, such as kings and princes, 2 Sam. 9:8; but also to equals; Gen. 23:7."

The act described by proskuneo (or shachah) was of bowing or kneeling, and it generally indicated an act of respect and a display of one's willingness to submit to or serve another person who occupied a superior position, regardless of his nature (somewhat similar to a salute in the military today). It was done, of course, in its very highest sense to God alone, but it was also done, in a lower sense of the same word, to kings, angels, prophets, etc. That is why proskuneo is translated "prostrated himself before" at Matt. 18:26 NASB, even though the KJV uses "worship" there. Notice how other trinitarian translations render that verse (RSV and NIV for example) where a servant "worships" [proskuneo] his master. And that is why, in the account of the man blind from birth whom Jesus healed, we see that man giving proskuneo to Jesus at John 9:38. The ASV, in a footnote for John 9:38, says,

"The Greek word [proskuneo] denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here [Jesus], or to the Creator."

 

[tigger 2]

The "I am" argument is fallacious.

Cross-References in Trinitarian Reference Bibles


Some trinitarian editors and publishers of trinitarian Bibles have added cross-references to the original translations. That is, they have superscripts and notes which refer one scripture to one or more other scriptures. The reference may indicate an actual quote from the OT found in the NT. Or it can indicate a similar meaning, event, or even just similar wording found in other scriptures. For example, in the New American Standard Bible (NASB), Reference Edition, Foundation Press, 1975, the trinitarian NT editors chose John 1:1; 17:5, 24 as all the references for John 8:58. Not one reference to Ex. 3:14 or Isaiah or any other OT scripture where God says "I am"! Obviously these trinitarian scholars did not accept the extremely poor "I AM" evidence! (The trinitarian OT editors, however, did choose this approach at Ex. 3:14.) And the very trinitarian Revised Standard Version, American Bible Society, 1971 ed. also has only Jn 1:1; 17:5, 24 as references for John 8:58! (In this case the trinitarian OT editors also did not refer Ex. 3:14 or verses in Isaiah, etc. to Jn 8:58!) These trinitarian scholars, therefore, did not accept the "I AM" argument as valid!


Other Translations
Some of those trinitarian translators go even further than merely not capitalizing at John 8:58 and further clarify the probable meaning in English and thereby refute the deceptive "I AM" interpretation of a few trinitarians.

These translations (most by trinitarians) render ego eimi at John 8:58 as:

(1) “I HAVE BEEN”[4] - alternate reading in 1960 thru 1973 reference editions of NASB
(2) “I HAVE BEEN” - The New Testament, G. R. Noyes
(3) “I HAVE BEEN” - “The Four Gospels” According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest, A. S. Lewis
(4) “I HAVE ALREADY BEEN” - The Unvarnished New Testament
(5) “I HAVE EXISTED” - The Bible, A New Translation, Dr. James Moffatt
(6) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1964 ed., Beck
(7) “I EXISTED” - An American Translation, Goodspeed
(8) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams
(9) “I EXISTED” - New Simplified Bible
(10) “I WAS IN EXISTENCE” - Living Bible
(11) “I WAS ALIVE” - The Simple English Bible
(12)“I WAS” - Holy Bible - From the Ancient Eastern Text, Lamsa
(13)“I WAS” - Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1st ed. (Also see Young’s Concise Critical Commentary, p. 61 of “The New Covenant.”).
(14) “I WAS” - The Syriac New Testament, Jas. Murdock
(15) “I WAS” - H. T. Anderson
(16) “I WAS” - Twentieth Century New Testament
(17) "I EXISTED" - New Living Translation (NLT)

(From my I AM study: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/i-am-part-1.html

 

[Free]

The Greek word proskuneo (or proskyneo) is defined in the 1971 trinitarian United Bible Societies' A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 154: "[Proskuneo] worship; fall down and worship, kneel, bow low, fall at another's feet."

Even trinitarian W. E. Vine writes in his An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 1247:

"PROSKUNEO ... to make obeisance, do reverence to (from pros, towards, and kuneo, to kiss), is the most frequent word rendered 'to worship'. It is used for an act of homage or reverence (a) to God ...; (b) to Christ ...; (c) to a man, Matt. 18:26." ("Obeisance," of course, shows "respect, submission, or reverence" - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1961.)

Noted Bible scholar J. H. Thayer defines proskuneo:

"prop. to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence ... hence in the N. T. by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication. It is used a. of homage shown to men of superior rank [position] ... Rev. 3:9 .... b. of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ, to heavenly beings [angels]" - p. 548, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House Publ., 1977.

The Hebrew word most often translated "worship" is shachah, and it is usually rendered as proskuneo in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Unger and White say of this word: "Shachah ... 'to worship, prostrate oneself, bow down.'" And, "The act of bowing down in homage done before a superior [in rank] or a ruler. Thus David 'bowed' himself [shachah] before Saul (1 Sam. 24:8). Sometimes it is a social or economic superior to whom one bows, as when Ruth 'bowed' [shachah] to the ground before Boaz (Ruth 2:10)." - Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, 1980, Thomas Nelson Publ., p. 482.

Perhaps the most famous Biblical Hebrew scholar of all, Gesenius, tells us in Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, p. 813, (#7812), 'Shachah':

"(1) to prostrate oneself before anyone out of honor .... Those who used this mode of salutation fell on their knees and touched the ground with the forehead ..., and this honor was not only shown to superiors, such as kings and princes, 2 Sam. 9:8; but also to equals; Gen. 23:7."

The act described by proskuneo (or shachah) was of bowing or kneeling, and it generally indicated an act of respect and a display of one's willingness to submit to or serve another person who occupied a superior position, regardless of his nature (somewhat similar to a salute in the military today). It was done, of course, in its very highest sense to God alone, but it was also done, in a lower sense of the same word, to kings, angels, prophets, etc. That is why proskuneo is translated "prostrated himself before" at Matt. 18:26 NASB, even though the KJV uses "worship" there. Notice how other trinitarian translations render that verse (RSV and NIV for example) where a servant "worships" [proskuneo] his master. And that is why, in the account of the man blind from birth whom Jesus healed, we see that man giving proskuneo to Jesus at John 9:38. The ASV, in a footnote for John 9:38, says,

This is exactly what I said before: this is an argument Trinitarians can't win. Supposedly because John 20:28 doesn't say that Thomas worshipped Jesus that therefore, he wasn't acknowledging Jesus as God. But, when verses do say that Jesus is worshipped, it's "well, he wasn't worshipped in that way; he was being shown respect."

JWs rig the game so that the interpretation is always in their favour, even when it contradicts Scripture. It's playing fast and loose with Scripture to support already held beliefs.

The same word is used here:

Rev 5:12 saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!”
Rev 5:13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!”
Rev 5:14 And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped. (ESV)

Rev 7:11 And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, (ESV)

Rev 11:16 And the twenty-four elders who sit on their thrones before God fell on their faces and worshiped God, (ESV)

Rev 19:4 And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who was seated on the throne, saying, “Amen. Hallelujah!” (ESV)

"The Greek word [proskuneo] denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here [Jesus], or to the Creator."

This is, of course, begging the question. It means an act of reverence or homage, but it also means to pay divine worship, to adore.

 

[Free]

The "I am" argument is fallacious.

Then show exactly how it is fallacious. Simply claiming it is doesn't make it so. There are solid reasons as to why Jesus is claiming the name I Am.

Cross-References in Trinitarian Reference Bibles


Some trinitarian editors and publishers of trinitarian Bibles have added cross-references to the original translations. That is, they have superscripts and notes which refer one scripture to one or more other scriptures. The reference may indicate an actual quote from the OT found in the NT. Or it can indicate a similar meaning, event, or even just similar wording found in other scriptures. For example, in the New American Standard Bible (NASB), Reference Edition, Foundation Press, 1975, the trinitarian NT editors chose John 1:1; 17:5, 24 as all the references for John 8:58. Not one reference to Ex. 3:14 or Isaiah or any other OT scripture where God says "I am"! Obviously these trinitarian scholars did not accept the extremely poor "I AM" evidence! (The trinitarian OT editors, however, did choose this approach at Ex. 3:14.) And the very trinitarian Revised Standard Version, American Bible Society, 1971 ed. also has only Jn 1:1; 17:5, 24 as references for John 8:58! (In this case the trinitarian OT editors also did not refer Ex. 3:14 or verses in Isaiah, etc. to Jn 8:58!) These trinitarian scholars, therefore, did not accept the "I AM" argument as valid!


Other Translations
Some of those trinitarian translators go even further than merely not capitalizing at John 8:58 and further clarify the probable meaning in English and thereby refute the deceptive "I AM" interpretation of a few trinitarians.

These translations (most by trinitarians) render ego eimi at John 8:58 as:

(1) “I HAVE BEEN”[4] - alternate reading in 1960 thru 1973 reference editions of NASB
(2) “I HAVE BEEN” - The New Testament, G. R. Noyes
(3) “I HAVE BEEN” - “The Four Gospels” According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest, A. S. Lewis
(4) “I HAVE ALREADY BEEN” - The Unvarnished New Testament
(5) “I HAVE EXISTED” - The Bible, A New Translation, Dr. James Moffatt
(6) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1964 ed., Beck
(7) “I EXISTED” - An American Translation, Goodspeed
(8) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams
(9) “I EXISTED” - New Simplified Bible
(10) “I WAS IN EXISTENCE” - Living Bible
(11) “I WAS ALIVE” - The Simple English Bible
(12)“I WAS” - Holy Bible - From the Ancient Eastern Text, Lamsa
(13)“I WAS” - Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1st ed. (Also see Young’s Concise Critical Commentary, p. 61 of “The New Covenant.”).
(14) “I WAS” - The Syriac New Testament, Jas. Murdock
(15) “I WAS” - H. T. Anderson
(16) “I WAS” - Twentieth Century New Testament
(17) "I EXISTED" - New Living Translation (NLT)

(From my I AM study: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/i-am-part-1.html

Let's look at the YLT, as an example. It renders ego eimi in Exo 3:14 as I AM but doesn't do so in John 8:58. They also translate it as "I am" in John 8:24, 13:19, and 18:5-6. What would be the reason for translating the same Greek phrase differently? That question goes for any translation that does that.

Also, the context matters. Why would the Jews want to stone Jesus for simply saying that he existed before Abraham? There would have been nothing blasphemous about that. But stoning is the punishment for blasphemy.

And that some Trinitarian scholars don't translate John 8:58 as "I Am," doesn't mean that they are correct.

 

[Runningman]

The immediate context is of the resurrected Christ repeating Thomas's declarations for evidence back to him, despite Jesus not having been there when Thomas stated them. He invites Thomas to investigate the evidence and Jesus says that Thomas believes based on Thomas saying, "The Lord of me and the God of me."

Correct, he wasn't saying to Jesus "you" are the God of me. Remember, Jesus in John 20:17 already told us who Thomas' God. Jesus said that's the Father.

If you want to look at wider context, then you must include all the passages I've provided, that you've ignored, which clearly show Jesus's deity. Again, you're taking certain statements about Jesus's humanity and using them to trump those of his deity. That is simply not proper hermeneutics. You'll notice that I am not taking the verses which speak of his deity and using them to trump those of his humanity. Proper hermeneutics is to take both groupings of verses and make sense of them together, without one trumping the other.

The wider context repeatedly debunks the deity of Jesus.

The grammar has proven nothing of the sort. You're again fallaciously begging the question by assuming what Thomas would have said or done. The context proves Thomas was calling Jesus his Lord and his God.

The grammar has been proven to be as such that it is not possible that Thomas was calling Jesus his God.

Again, the wording is 'Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!".' Thomas is saying to Jesus, "The Lord of me and the God of me." Either Thomas says both things to the Father, without any mention of it, or he says both things to Jesus, which is explicitly stated.

You can repeat it as many times as you wish and your answer will be a correction about what Jesus said in John 20:17 where he already said Thomas' God is the Father. Jesus is no one's God in scripture.

John did, Thomas did, Paul did, Matthew did, the writer of Hebrews did, etc. This means that all the disciples and apostles did. Did they wrestle with it? For sure, probably for quite some time, as it was a new revelation.

No one in the Bible believed Jesus is God. Jesus didn't even believe he is God.

You're skipping all the verses I gave from Jesus himself. He claims: the name I Am (John 8:58); to have existed prior to being born (John 3:13; 6:38, 62; 8:23; 12:46; 13:3; 16:27-28); that he shared in the glory of the Father prior to creation (John 17:5); that the Father loved him prior to creation (John 17:24). He also accepts worship from the disciples (Matt 2:11; 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38).

And yet none of them come right out and say "Jesus is God" or "Jesus is Lord God Almighty" etc. What you have is called opinion and interpretation, a eisegetical "reading into" the scripture and making a deduction.

Unitarians enjoy explicit declarations of what they believe:

Begin here:
John 1
3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

Yes, but that doesn't preclude him from also being truly God.

John 17:3 rules anyone aside from the Father from being God.

The proof is very much that he is truly God and truly man.

Proof would be too strong of a word to use. For example, the Bible doesn't explicitly say Jesus is a "God Man."

 

[Free]

Correct, he wasn't saying to Jesus "you" are the God of me. Remember, Jesus in John 20:17 already told us who Thomas' God. Jesus said that's the Father.

What do you mean, “correct”? I’ve said precisely the opposite. There is one and only one way to understand this verse: Thomas was calling Jesus his Lord and his God.

The wider context repeatedly debunks the deity of Jesus.

Is that why you keep ignoring all passages I post that clearly prove Jesus’s deity? I would really like to know why you keep ignoring them and then repeat the same debunked arguments.

The grammar has been proven to be as such that it is not possible that Thomas was calling Jesus his God.

Where, exactly, has that been shown?

You can repeat it as many times as you wish and your answer will be a correction about what Jesus said in John 20:17 where he already said Thomas' God is the Father. Jesus is no one's God in scripture.

If he isn’t God, then no one is saved. If someone doesn’t believe he is God, then they are not saved (John 4:24; Rom 10:9-13).

No one in the Bible believed Jesus is God. Jesus didn't even believe he is God.

I have given numerous passages that you have ignored many times. Perhaps you should start addressing them.

And yet none of them come right out and say "Jesus is God" or "Jesus is Lord God Almighty" etc.

Thomas did. He did exactly that. The problem is that you have to explain away a very clear statement because your preconceived beliefs won’t allow you to believe.

What you have is called opinion and interpretation, a eisegetical "reading into" the scripture and making a deduction.

That’s your way of dismissing arguments and verses that you don’t want to deal with. It’s actually fallacious and very dishonest.

Unitarians enjoy explicit declarations of what they believe:

Begin here:
John 1
3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

John 17:3 rules anyone aside from the Father from being God.

Those agree perfectly well with the Trinity. A unitarian God is deficient and cannot be the true God of the Bible, as I have pointed out previously. (Another argument which has also gone unaddressed more than once.)

Proof would be too strong of a word to use. For example, the Bible doesn't explicitly say Jesus is a "God Man."

It doesn’t need to. It clearly tells us that he is God in human flesh; that he was God in nature and emptied himself by becoming a man. Since God can never cease to be God, otherwise he wouldn’t be God, Jesus is both truly God and truly man.

 

[Runningman]

What do you mean, “correct”? I’ve said precisely the opposite. There is one and only one way to understand this verse: Thomas was calling Jesus his Lord and his God.

The only way to understand this verse is that Thomas' God is the Father as Jesus plainly said in John 20:17. Jesus being the God of his disciples isn't a Biblical doctrine.

Is that why you keep ignoring all passages I post that clearly prove Jesus’s deity? I would really like to know why you keep ignoring them and then repeat the same debunked arguments.

Jesus' points about Thomas' God being the Father are not debunked. Jesus never called Thomas his God.

Where, exactly, has that been shown?

tigger 2 showed it in post #117.

If he isn’t God, then no one is saved. If someone doesn’t believe he is God, then they are not saved (John 4:24; Rom 10:9-13).

Not according to scripture. If he is God then God died and no one is saved. If he is God then he actually didn't die and no one was really sacrificed but a body of flesh. The only way the crucifixion makes sense, and for good reason, is if Jesus is a man, God's chosen servant, anointed to be the Messiah. This is exactly what the Bible explicitly says.

I have given numerous passages that you have ignored many times. Perhaps you should start addressing them.

Yes, but I am not letting this thread get derailed down miscellaneous theological rabbit holes if I can help it.

Thomas did. He did exactly that. The problem is that you have to explain away a very clear statement because your preconceived beliefs won’t allow you to believe.

There is no explaining required. Jesus said Thomas' God is the Father then Thomas said "my God" so therefore he was calling the Father his God.

Those agree perfectly well with the Trinity. A unitarian God is deficient and cannot be the true God of the Bible, as I have pointed out previously. (Another argument which has also gone unaddressed more than once.)

Jesus said a Unitarian God is the most important thing. Notice there is nothing about God being three in scripture.

Mark 12
29Jesus replied, “This is the most important: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.

It doesn’t need to. It clearly tells us that he is God in human flesh; that he was God in nature and emptied himself by becoming a man. Since God can never cease to be God, otherwise he wouldn’t be God, Jesus is both truly God and truly man.

Scripture doesn't need to tell us that Jesus is God and Man? Where did you get the idea that Jesus is God in human flesh then? After that let's talk about what idolatry is.

 

[Free]

The only way to understand this verse is that Thomas' God is the Father as Jesus plainly said in John 20:17.

Thomas is speaking to and only to Jesus. He literally means that Jesus is his Lord and his God.

Jesus being the God of his disciples isn't a Biblical doctrine.

It absolutely is. One cannot be saved without believing that Jesus is also truly God (John 4:24; Rom 10:9-13).

Jesus' points about Thomas' God being the Father are not debunked.

I have never said that the Father isn't Thomas's God. Jesus always points to the Father and as the Son who is in submission to the Father, he states that the Father is his God. That the Father is God and that Jesus states the Father is his God in no way preclude the Son from also being God.

Jesus never called Thomas his God.

Obviously.

tigger 2 showed it in post #117.

My post is #117, but nowhere has it been debunked.

Not according to scripture. If he is God then God died and no one is saved. If he is God then he actually didn't die and no one was really sacrificed but a body of flesh.

He is both God and man.

The only way the crucifixion makes sense, and for good reason, is if Jesus is a man, God's chosen servant, anointed to be the Messiah. This is exactly what the Bible explicitly says.

If Jesus was only a man, then his sacrifice, as a creature, cannot be sufficient for all the sins of humans that have been and ever will be committed. Each of us would have to die for our own sins. Yet, we would have to have been perfect in order for that to provide atonement, which means no one can ever be saved. Jesus would then have saved himself but no one else.

Yes, but I am not letting this thread get derailed down miscellaneous theological rabbit holes if I can help it.

They relate directly to this discussion as they form part of the context of who Jesus is and who God is. They are absolutely necessary. I suspect you ignore them because they cannot fit into your theology, so you must. That's the only reason I can see.

There is no explaining required. Jesus said Thomas' God is the Father then Thomas said "my God" so therefore he was calling the Father his God.

Again, the verse clearly states that Thomas "said to [Jesus]," which means it was only to Jesus. To say that he is speaking to the Father is reading one's theological desires into the text.

Jesus said a Unitarian God is the most important thing. Notice there is nothing about God being three in scripture.

Mark 12
29Jesus replied, “This is the most important: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.

As I have pointed out before, this is conflating two very different ideas: monotheism and the nature of God. This is a statement of monotheism only. A unitarian god is not the God of the Bible, as there is not a single verse which clearly or explicitly states that God is only one person.

Scripture doesn't need to tell us that Jesus is God and Man?

It doesn't need to say "Jesus is God and man," since it has numerous verses that show he is God and numerous other verses that show he is a man.

Where did you get the idea that Jesus is God in human flesh then?

Do you not even remember that you just said above that you didn't want to address all those verses I provided because you were "not letting this thread get derailed down miscellaneous theological rabbit holes"? You are being exceedingly dishonest.

After that let's talk about what idolatry is.

This would be a rabbit hole. So, why do you want to talk about it after saying you didn't want to let "this thread get derailed down miscellaneous theological rabbit holes"?

 

[tigger 2]

To understand what may have really been intended by Thomas, let’s first examine it as if the words were not directly applied to Jesus. Notice the parallel between 1 Samuel 20:12 (where Jonathan’s words appear to be directed to David: “... Jonathan saith unto David, ‘Jehovah, God of Israel - when I search my father, about this time tomorrow ....’” - Young’s Literal Translation, cf. KJV) and John 20:28 (where Thomas’ words appear to be directed to Jesus: “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’”).

The significant point here is that, although the scripture shows Jonathan speaking to David, it apparently literally calls him (David) “O LORD God”!! (For a straightforward literal translation see 1 Samuel 20:12 in the King James Version.) You can bet that, if modern Bible translators wanted to find “evidence” that made King David also appear to be equally God (Quadrinarians?), they would continue to translate this scripture addressed to David just as literally as they do John 20:28 to “prove” that Jesus is equally God!

Instead, we see many modern translations adding words to bring out what they believe may have been originally intended. There is absolutely no reason for this addition except the translators believe from the testimony of the rest of the Bible that David is not Jehovah God. So something else must have been intended here.

Translators from about 200 B.C. (Septuagint) until now have been guessing (and disagreeing) at exactly what was intended here. It was probably some common idiom of the time such as: “I promise you in the sight of the LORD the God of Israel” - NEB, or, as found in the ancient Septuagint: “Jonathan said unto David, ‘The Lord God of Israel knows that....’”

Robert Young, the translator of Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible, the translators of the KJV, and the translators of The Holy Scriptures, Jewish Publication Society of America (JPS), 1917, decided that it was better not to even guess and left it more literally as: “And Jonathan saith unto David, ‘Jehovah, God of Israel - when I search my father....’”

A significant interpretation by the NIV is, “By the LORD God of Israel” which is an oath by Jonathan meaning, probably, “I swear by the LORD God....” (cf. Tanakh translation by JPS, 1985). Perhaps the most-used interpretation is: “Jehovah, the God of Israel, (be witness)....” - ASV (cf. NASB, RSV, AT, NKJV). The very trinitarian ETRV renders it: “Jonathan said to David, ‘I make this promise before the Lord [Jehovah], the God of Israel….’”

Since the context of John 20 (indeed, the context and testimony of the entire Bible) does not confirm the trinitarian belief that the Messiah is equally God, John 20:28 could just as honestly be translated with some addition comparable to that of 1 Sam. 20:12.

So, keeping in mind the interpretations for 1 Sam. 20:12 and the context of John 20:28 (where Jesus tells Thomas to believe, Thomas answers, and his answer convinces Jesus that Thomas finally, completely believes that Jesus has actually returned from the dead), let’s use an interpretation similar to that of 1 Samuel.

(27 “Then Jesus said to Thomas .... ‘Believe!’

(28 “Thomas answered, ‘My Lord and my God (be witness) [that I do believe now]!’. {Or,

following the NIV example above, ‘(I swear by) my Lord and God [that I do believe]!’}.”

(29 “Then Jesus told him, ‘You believe because you have seen me.’” - Based on the Living
Bible translation of John 20:27-29

Another interpretation is that Thomas’ words might be a doxology, or praise, such as “My Lord and my God be praised.” In that sense the words would still be aimed directly at the only true God (the Father alone).

But in any case, the phrase is not an address to Jesus.

 

[Free]

To understand what may have really been intended by Thomas, let’s first examine it as if the words were not directly applied to Jesus. Notice the parallel between 1 Samuel 20:12 (where Jonathan’s words appear to be directed to David: “... Jonathan saith unto David, ‘Jehovah, God of Israel - when I search my father, about this time tomorrow ....’” - Young’s Literal Translation, cf. KJV) and John 20:28 (where Thomas’ words appear to be directed to Jesus: “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’”).

The significant point here is that, although the scripture shows Jonathan speaking to David, it apparently literally calls him (David) “O LORD God”!! (For a straightforward literal translation see 1 Samuel 20:12 in the King James Version.) You can bet that, if modern Bible translators wanted to find “evidence” that made King David also appear to be equally God (Quadrinarians?), they would continue to translate this scripture addressed to David just as literally as they do John 20:28 to “prove” that Jesus is equally God!

Instead, we see many modern translations adding words to bring out what they believe may have been originally intended. There is absolutely no reason for this addition except the translators believe from the testimony of the rest of the Bible that David is not Jehovah God. So something else must have been intended here.

Translators from about 200 B.C. (Septuagint) until now have been guessing (and disagreeing) at exactly what was intended here. It was probably some common idiom of the time such as: “I promise you in the sight of the LORD the God of Israel” - NEB, or, as found in the ancient Septuagint: “Jonathan said unto David, ‘The Lord God of Israel knows that....’”

Robert Young, the translator of Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible, the translators of the KJV, and the translators of The Holy Scriptures, Jewish Publication Society of America (JPS), 1917, decided that it was better not to even guess and left it more literally as: “And Jonathan saith unto David, ‘Jehovah, God of Israel - when I search my father....’”

A significant interpretation by the NIV is, “By the LORD God of Israel” which is an oath by Jonathan meaning, probably, “I swear by the LORD God....” (cf. Tanakh translation by JPS, 1985). Perhaps the most-used interpretation is: “Jehovah, the God of Israel, (be witness)....” - ASV (cf. NASB, RSV, AT, NKJV). The very trinitarian ETRV renders it: “Jonathan said to David, ‘I make this promise before the Lord [Jehovah], the God of Israel….’”

I really have no idea how you can think this is the same.

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.”
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (ESV)

1Sa 20:12 And Jonathan saith unto David, 'Jehovah, God of Israel—when I search my father, about this time to-morrow or the third day , and lo, good is towards David, and I do not then send unto thee, and have uncovered thine ear—
1Sa 20:13 thus doth Jehovah do to Jonathan, and thus doth He add; when the evil concerning thee is good to my father, then I have uncovered thine ear, and sent thee away, and thou hast gone in peace, and Jehovah is with thee, as he was with my father; (YLT)

The context of 1 Sam 20:12 includes verse 13, which clearly shows that Jonathan is making an oath to God. Not to mention that David is only a man. The context of John 20:28 is Thomas speaking to, and only to, Jesus, at the very end of John's gospel, which begins with and contains throughout, numerous implicit and explicit claims to the deity of Jesus. These claims are then repeated and supported throughout the rest of the NT.

Since the context of John 20 (indeed, the context and testimony of the entire Bible) does not confirm the trinitarian belief that the Messiah is equally God, John 20:28 could just as honestly be translated with some addition comparable to that of 1 Sam. 20:12.

John 20:28 absolutely confirms the deity of Jesus, and thereby the doctrine of the Trinity, being consistent with the entire revelation contained in Scripture.

So, keeping in mind the interpretations for 1 Sam. 20:12 and the context of John 20:28 (where Jesus tells Thomas to believe, Thomas answers, and his answer convinces Jesus that Thomas finally, completely believes that Jesus has actually returned from the dead), let’s use an interpretation similar to that of 1 Samuel.

(27 “Then Jesus said to Thomas .... ‘Believe!’

(28 “Thomas answered, ‘My Lord and my God (be witness) [that I do believe now]!’. {Or,

following the NIV example above, ‘(I swear by) my Lord and God [that I do believe]!’}.”

(29 “Then Jesus told him, ‘You believe because you have seen me.’” - Based on the Living
Bible translation of John 20:27-29

So, you're arguing that Jesus isn't Lord either, yet we know he is. Not that is matters. The context is entirely different than that of 1 Sam 20:12. Of course, you have no problem adding words in that don't belong in order to change the meaning since the NWT sets the precedent for doing so.

It's one thing to add words to smooth out a translation. It's quite another to add words that competely change the meaning.

Another interpretation is that Thomas’ words might be a doxology, or praise, such as “My Lord and my God be praised.” In that sense the words would still be aimed directly at the only true God (the Father alone).

No, that is not a legitimate interpretation.

But in any case, the phrase is not an address to Jesus.

It absolutely is a phrase attributed in its entirety to Jesus and only Jesus.