by jonathan dough 40 Replies latest watchtower bible
Hi, jonathan dough.
How is it written in the Aleppo Codex?
I indicated it to you as "the 10th line from the top."
For what purpose did you require the scanning picture?
(Of course, it is written in Hebrew.)
In that part, it is written as
"Elohai va-Adonai"
(meaning: "my God and my Lord").
It begins from the 7th character (letter) from the right on that line (the 10th line), and is to the 15th character.
http://aleppocodex.org/images/x2/477.jpg
possible
I indicated it to you as "the 10th line from the top."
For what purpose did you require the scanning picture?
In that part, it is written as "Elohai va-Adonai" (meaning: "my God andmy Lord").
Thank you for explaining that. It is just one more reason supporting the argument that Jesus was, and is, God as mentioned in the first entry of this thread; ie., that Thomas did think of the risen Christ as God and that he was not simply talking to God in those verses as the JWs falsly teach.
that he was not simply talking to God in those verses as the JWs falsly teach.
Actually JWs do not teach that. They have occasionally resorted to that explanation in the past but generally the WT admits that "my God" is addressed to Jesus, only in a weak or derived sense.
Jonathan said: that he was not simply talking to God in those verses as the JWs falsly teach.
nark: Actually JWs do not teach that. They have occasionally resorted to that explanation in the past but generally the WT admits that "my God" is addressed to Jesus, only in a weak or derived sense.
By "talking to God" I mean "directed to God," and their idea that Thomas was somehow talking to Jesus but actually directing that talk to God is just more convoluted hair-splitting double-speak on their part. If you talk to someone while standing in their presence can you really be directing that to someone else? Doesn't seem reasonable since it says Thomas was answering Jesus (John 20:26-29). He wasn't answering the heavenly Father.
They teach it "may" have been "directed to God," pursuant to the Reasoning book and/or Should You Believe in the Trinity tract." As you know the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Thomas thought of Jesus as no more than a special human occupying a “position far higher” than men and judges who were addressed as “gods” in the Old Testament (see John 10:34, 35 RS; Ps 82:1-6) (Reasoning, 213). Thus, Jesus was “like a god” (Should You Believe, Chapter 9).
As just mentioned, they also suggest “that Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment spoken to Jesus but directed to God” (ibid.) none of which makes sense, particularly in light of Psalm 35:23 and John 1:1 which the Catholics regard as "a literary inclusion with the first verse of the gospel: “and the Word was God” (NAB notes John 20, 28).
In either event they deny that Thomas thought of Jesus as "God" but the sum of evidence suggests otherwise given the fact that Jesus said He would resurrect Himself, and he stood before Thomas resurrected. Hope that clarifies what I intended to say.
Just to clarify, the Catholics regard verse 28 (not John 1:1) as "a literary inclusion with the first verse of the gospel: “and the Word was God” (NAB notes John 20, 28).
sorry for being dumb... so what's the conclusion on this?
I think the Apostle John, by the time he wrote his Gospel had come to a very clear understanding of the divinity of Christ, and he explains it well from the very first verse. He includes Thomas clear statement to further help us.
The WT has to wriggle and use silly reasoning ,even telling us what Thomas believed, how do they know ? otherwise they would have to agree with the mainstream Christians that Jesus is God. They just love to be different, it doesn't matter how wrong.
Love
Wobble
JD:
What I meant to point out is that the WT did not really settle on any one "correct" exegesis of John 20:28; this itself is characteristic if you think of it. They are absolutely assertive about the one and only "correct" understanding of their own prooftexts (they would never admit, for instance, that the "other sheep" in John 10:16 could also refer to the Gentiles). But when it comes to "anti-prooftexts" so to say, i.e. texts they cannot argue from but have to explain away, they do not "lock" the interpretation.
This imo is useful tactics in several ways: (1) in the defensive part of a doctrinal discussion they appear less dogmatic, hence more "reasonable" than their adversaries; (2) the audience gets the (wrong) impression that several interpretive hypotheses among which they do not choose are somehow stronger than the one they oppose (a fallacy, since logically only one of them can be "right"); (3) it characteries the "anti-prooftexts" as difficult or obscure, and move them to the periphery of the debate (contrary to their prooftexts which they treat as if they were crystal-clear), even if they are actually climactic in the text (as is the case of John 20:28, especially when you consider that the book once ended there, whence the inclusio with 1:1).
The three interpretations of John 20:28 which the WT retains as possible without choosing between them are, in effect: (1) "Jesus, my lord! Jehovah, my God!" (an exclamation addressed to two distinct persons, which sounds overly farfetched even for a NWT reader); (2) "Jesus, my lord and my god" (in principle ruled out by the capitalisation of "God" in the NWT, but still mentioned as a possible explanation by WT literature); (3) "Jesus, my Lord and my God" implying that the Father (= Jehovah in WT doctrine) is addressed through Jesus (not besides Jesus as in option # 1).
Option # 3 is not that far from the Johannine perspective, especially as developed in 14:6ff:
Thomas (!) said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?" Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him."
Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?
N.B.: Jesus is not the Father but the Father is in Jesus, hence reached, known and seen through Jesus.
It is not at all impossible imo that the scene in chapter 20 portrays Thomas as finally "seeing" the Father (= God) in Jesus (whom he already addressed as Lord in chapter 14). This is an important nuance, which differs from both (neo-)Arian (including JW) and Trinitarian uses of this text.
[Unrelated detail, I'm nitpicking only because you come across as very assertive: it is fairly meaningless to say that "the Catholics regard verse 28 (not John 1:1) as "a literary inclusion with the first verse of the gospel: “and the Word was God” (NAB notes John 20, 28)". Catholic official dogma does not "lock" exegesis as your wording implies. Catholic scholars are largely free to discuss and disagree about the original meanings of particular texts, a fortiori broader literary consideration such as the inclusio structure (with which I agree in that particular case), even in books which are granted the official imprimatur, and the church is not officially committed to their views.]
Narkissos,
An excellent post :)
That view of "God IN Jesus" is one that Ihave had many a discussion with JW's and RC alike, LOL !
Its funnt though that it CAN be a common ground for all to meet on.
For the vast majority of Trinitarians and non-trinitarians alike, all agree that God was IN Jesus and that Jesus was In God, they were indeed One.
To what EXTENT that means , well, that's a different story !
We are lucky that for us this is not a life or death issue,for Arius and others it was, excommunication meant starvation and death.
I know some Fundies will argue that if you get it wrong you will burn in Hell, or if they are Witlesses you will die at the Big A ,but if an understanding of this was so important it would have been spelled out in the Bible in simple terms,the life or death stuff is, such as making Jesus your Father ,and knowing Him as THE Way The Truth and The Life.
I think a lot of the problem is people understanding what is meant by various terms i.e "My Father and I are one" but a good thing is just to prayerfully and with an open heart read the Bible.
Love
Wobble
