You know the funny thing is, JW's are counseled not to use euphemisms, yet when Thomas said "My God!" did Jesus counsel him?
WTS hasn't corrected mistakes in NWT on John 20:28.....
by A-Team 212 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
A-Team
Junction Guy, you just hit the point I was trying to make.
-
heathen
Frank -- my take on it is that in Isaiah 9:6 it is talking about future events , the messiah will be called Mighty God yadda yadda , not that he was at that time worthy of the title. I believe that Jesus was promoted after his resurection , like it says , he became less than an angel to be exalted over all things. Mathew 28:18 is a good cross reference where jesus himself says he is given all authority in heaven and earth . So apparently somebody gave him that possition not that he always had it .
-
JosephMalik
a-team,
Well it is much simpler than what the WT says anyway. By now we should all know that the word God is not identity. It could be in most cases, but most certainly not in this text. My God also applied to Kings and others to such Jews there present. This was also normal use. As both King and Savior the expression My God is appropriate. Thomas was not surprised but recognized the importance of the man now standing before him. Thomas as well as the others knew the difference between such use and the true God, so there would be no confusion as to what was meant.
Joseph
-
AlphaOmega
Gopher...
What did Ted Jaracz say when the Devil suddenly appeared in his room?
"Oh my GOD!!"
Genius !
The other thing about John 20:28 that they overlook is that the Greek is the same "Ho Theos" that they say only applies to Jehovah. (Check out the Kingdom Interlinear Translation and the appendix of the Big Brown NWT. No way around it.
http://www.macgregorministries.org/jehovahs_witnesses/kit.html
If this is an exclamation of surprise, why didn't Jesus rebuke Thomas for blasphemy ?
-
Death to the Pixies
AlphaOmega said:
Genius! The other thing about John 20:28 that they overlook is that the Greek is the same "Ho Theos" that they say only applies to Jehovah. (Check out the Kingdom Interlinear Translation and the appendix of the Big Brown NWT. No way around it.
Moule says:
“It John xx. 28 O kurios mou kai o Qeos mou, it is to be noted that a substantive in the Nominative case used in a vocative sense and followed by a possessive could not be anarthrous the article before Qeos may, therefore, not be significant.” Moule An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2d ed.
I say: Or it might be significant, but I doubt it. Especially If modern Trin scholarship regonizes "Ho theos" as a quasi-proper name for the Father (I believe Murray Harris does) then the Son could not be "Ho Theos" in that way too without identifying him as the Father. It appears that the article in John 20:28 is just an exception with a fairly uncomplicated explanation. It has been awhile since I looked at anything Trinity related, so I could be wrong on all counts. Also it should be noted that Satan is "ho theos" because of context and grammatical exceptions at 2 Corinthians 4:4.
-
JosephMalik
If this is an exclamation of surprise, why didn't Jesus rebuke Thomas for blasphemy ?
AlphaOmega,
Because it was a proper expression and shows that our Lord's teachings were at least getting through to someone. After all and by the same author (John) in His own defense our Lord said: 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
So now they knew such use would have been proper anyway even though our Lord did not use if regarding himself. Thomas used it so no rebuke was necessary as it was correct. No need to make more of it than what was simply stated. Yes Jesus is my God, King, Saviour and such but not the Supreme Being, the Father, Yahweh as He is know in scripture to which He guides us to be re-united as well.
Joseph
-
Frank75
Frank -- my take on it is that in Isaiah 9:6 it is talking about future events , the messiah will be called Mighty God yadda yadda , not that he was at that time worthy of the title. I believe that Jesus was promoted after his resurection , like it says , he became less than an angel to be exalted over all things. Mathew 28:18 is a good cross reference where jesus himself says he is given all authority in heaven and earth . So apparently somebody gave him that possition not that he always had it .
Heathen:
I honestly think you should take another look at the verses. The true test of scripture is not making it fit to some future context, but looking at it as the author wrote it and how his ancient audience would have viewed it. The bottom line there is they referred to Jehovah the subject God as "Mighty". There is also Psalm 24:8 " Jehovah strong and mighty" . Again Jehovah is called "Mighty" (use is same Hebrew word gibbor). Then Luke 1:49 Mary says, "for the Mighty One has done great things for me—holy is his name." Then Jeremiah 32:18 " the [true] God, the great One, the mighty One, Jehovah of armies being his name".
I really don't think it is a big deal. So much arguing and debating over something that is obscure (not clearly explained) in the bible. In other words it has to be exegetically explained like you did above. "Well what was meant there was....." etc.
However when scriptures are plain and clearly stated they are ignored. Such as Jesus saying, "If someone in authority "impresses" you into service 1 mile go with him 2" yet the dubs reject compulsory service, even though they recognized the authority as divinely instituted. Or Matt 18:15-17, which clearly says sins should be handled "between you and him alone" and later Jesus said "77 times you should forgive" etc.
I am being the devils advocate on this subject, it is the dogmatism of both sides that does not escape exposure, yet people can be so defensive and intolerant. It is a given that if you were raised a dub you will be prone to keeping the particular Unitarian view of that tradition. (there are many Unitarian viewpoints as you no doubt know). Likewise the one reared in a Trinitarian tradition is going to lean to that view.
Can't we just live and let live and honestly recognize that it is not important?
Frank75
PS How do you explain John 2:19 "Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Was Jesus telling the truth there? Was it he who raised himself from the dead? Would not saying "tear down this temple and God will raise this up" been more accurate and less offensive/stumbling to his audience?
-
AlphaOmega
Mobile now so formatting doesn't work sorry .......Joseph said.......... Yes Jesus is my God, King, Saviour and such but not the Supreme Being, the Father, Yahweh as He is know in scripture to which He guides us to be re-united as well..... ......... .......... Do you mean that Jesus is God, not the Father.... AND not THE deity ? ...... ................... Sorry might not have taken all your post "in"... stupid PDA formatting. AO
-
Leolaia
A number of posters have suggested (perhaps facetiously) that the expression ho theos mou was analoguous to the English and French exclamatory expressions My God! and Mon Dieu! (in which the pragmatic reference is to the situation -- not a literal deity), but it should be pointed out that this is NOT a Greek expression and should not be anachronistically presumed in the passage. Similarly, the English expression should not anachronistically be interpreted as a vocative appeal to God, anymore than "holy cow!" addresses a particular sacred bovine.