All through my years as a JWs and after I have always wondered about John 20:28 where Thomas says "My Lord and My God" to Jesus. I just could not find a suitable answer for this text to disprove the Trinity doctrine. I really never swallowed the JWs intrepretation of "shock" by Thomas something like "Oh my God" but at the same time I had a gut feeling Trinitarians were hiding something about this verse. I finally received my answer from of all people a JW's elder who is fluent and teaches Hebrew at a University. We argued for months and while I agreed with him about the trinity I still felt JWs were wrong on a lot of things. He explained to me(I am paraphrasing) that John 20:28 Thomas was not directed this phrase to Jesus because in the Greek whenever a person was being addressed as "My Lord" it was always (Mou Kurie) and not (Mou Kurious). At John 20:28 it Thomas says (Mou Kurious) so he explained to me Thomas may have been talking to Jesus but he was directing it to Jehovah God. A parallel verse he brought up was were Jesus says to Peter "Satan" and if trinitarians argue My God has to be directed to Jesus then they will have to say Peter is Satan the Devil. The JW elder has told me not one person from the Born-Again/Trinitarian community has been able to dispute this. So posters are Trinitarians being deceptive about the truth being John 20:28?
Trinitiarian "proof-text" John 20:28 has some problems for "Trinitarians"
by booker-t 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Band on the Run
I am in a Trinitarian denomination. Most of Christianity is Trinitarian. I don't have anything to do with proof texts. The Bible does not state whether a Trinitarian or nonTrinitarian view is correct. I spent a long time doing the research. Both views are extrapolitions from scripture. Also, I would rather discuss it with a theologian than someone trying to beat someone else up in an argument. My father was famous for that.
When this was raised in an informal church group, do we believe the Nicene Creed completely today? The priest said that the Nicene Creed was a clumsy way to describe how we experience God in different ways.
There is absolutely no proof in the Bible. It is whatever you want it to be. You get to choose. I don't know if the framers of the Nicene Creed were certified as Nicene Creed specialists. More likely, a Trinitarian view helped Constantine gain politcal power.
-
sarahsmile
Hello
I like Hebrews when Jehovah is speaking about his son Jesus. It proves Jesus was called God by Jehovah. The Jdubs can write anything and say what ever to decredit Hebrews 1.
Hebrew 1
But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.” [e]Sorry not good with the Holy Spirit as God!
I focus on Jesus and leave the Holy Spirit as God alone.
Also, it is kind of hard to argue with what Thomas said!
For a professor he just stating what the JW believe so I doubt that he is applying scholar opinion. Just trying to convince you.
I heard that he utterred it out of excitment, but I doubt they spoke that way. 1970s, the WT said the samething but would that be like cursing!
Oh my God! I was taught Oh my God was cussing! Is there another scripture to back up they spoke like that?
If something sounds wrong with WT explanation it is wrong!
-
bennyk
I don't know what his being a teacher of Hebrew would have to do with his abilities in koine, but in any event...
... in the Greek whenever a person was being addressed as "My Lord" it was always (Mou Kurie) and not (Mou Kurious).
In the case of John 20:28 the o kurios mou may not be intended as a direct address (and, therefore, would not be in the vocative).
However, the use of the nominative in exclamations can be used as "'a sort of interjectional nominative' (Robertson, p.461) and is a device for emphasis." Also, "[m]any grammarians call attention to the nominative 'in place of' or 'as' a vocative." (Vaughan and Gideon Greek Grammar of the New Testament p.25.)
In Matthew 16:23 and Mark 8:33 Jesus does address Peter as "satan" ("adversary") or "Satan" (presumably metaphorically); the name is in the vocative ( satana ).
-
sarahsmile
I am not sure that Jesus was actually calling Peter Satan. Also, Jesus might be referring to himself as God considering the conversation.
Mark 8:33
You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.
My Lord My God! sound more like acknowledging Jesus as God! Thomas stopped doubting but believed Jesus was his Lord and God.
Not too sure how anyone could compare these scriptures as similar only to prove again Jesus as God.
Good topic! Considering I can not read Hebrew or Greek! lol. I just read the conversation! Lol.
Looking forward to reading what others think.
-
baltar447
Bible is baloney. Trinitarian teachings predate the bible. What's the discussion? bye
-
Magnum
I do not agree with him. We can't tell from the Greek to whom the words were being "directed", but we can tell that nobody, neither Jesus nor Jah was being addressed.
He is correct in saying that when one was being addressed as "Lord" the Greek word "kurie" was used. That's the vocative case.
English example: "Joe, bring me the hammer." "Joe" is vocative. Joe is being addressed as "Joe". It's different from "Joe brought me the hammer." In this case, "Joe" is nominative case. It's the subject of the sentence. Joe is not being addressed as "Joe".
Greek example: "My lord [Kurie], you are the one that knows." The elder is being addressed as "lord", so "lord" is in vocative case.
At Joh 20:28, the vocative case "kurie" is not used, so, in my opinion, no one is being addressed. Jesus is not being addressed, and neither is Jah. I used to think that maybe when John realized what was going on, he looked up to heaven and referred to Jah as bing "my lord", but I don't think the Greek allows for that. As I said, since "lord' is not in the vocative case, I don't think anybody is being addressed.
What case of the word "lord" was used at Joh 20:28? "kurios". Nominative case, the cased used for subjects and predicte nouns. Examples: "Joe brought me the hammer" (nominative case - "Joe" is subject of sentence). "My cousin is Joe" (also nominative case, but here "Joe" is not the subject, but is a predicate noun).
So, main point: At Joh 20:28, evidently nobody is being addressed since "kurios" is nominative case, not vocative. It seems that the word is serving as a subject or predicate noun. I tend to think it was serving as a predicte noun and that John was actually saying "you are my lord [kurios]" with the words "you are" not stated, but understood.
It would be like this. Suppose I live in medieval times and there is some dispute as to who is the king in the land in which I live. I witness a man perform an act that proves he's the king. I look at him in awe and simply say "my king". I'm not addressing him as "my king"; I'm meaning something like "you are my king".
So I think John was saying, in effect, "you are my lord". Now, we are still left with the issue of at whom he was looking or to whom he was directing the words. My first guess would be Jesus. But I believe it is possible that he could have, at the moment of his realization, looked up and said to Jah "my Lord and my God", meaning "Jah, you are truly my Lord and my God".
However, the latter doesn't seem as logical because as far I know John wasn't doubting whether Jah was Lord and God; it was Jesus he was doubting. If John had questioned the existence of Jah and had seen Jesus perform a miracle, then I feel that the latter could have made sense. Seeing Jesus perform a miracle could have increased his belief in Jah. But again, I'm not aware of his doubting Jah.
The JW's point about Peter is not even relevant as far as I can tell. Peter was being addressed as "Satan". The Greek word was "Satana" (vocative case). But nobody believes Jesus was saying that Peter was literally Satan. What's the guy's point? I'm not seeing it. Peter was addressed as "Satan" but I agree that he isn't Satan, so what? What's his point? Nobody was being addressed at Joh 20:28. The Greek word under consideration is nominative, not vocative. I see no relevance.
-
Magnum
I don't know what his being a teacher of Hebrew would have to do with his abilities in koine, but in any event...
I was thinking the same thing. And was it modern Hebrew or Biblical Hebrew?
In the case of John 20:28 the o kurios mou may not be intended as a direct address (and, therefore, would not be in the vocative).
However, the use of the nominative in exclamations can be used as "'a sort of interjectional nominative' (Robertson, p.461) and is a device for emphasis." Also, "[m]any grammarians call attention to the nominative 'in place of' or 'as' a vocative." (Vaughan and Gideon Greek Grammar of the New Testament p.25.)
I also agree with that.
-
sarahsmile
Interesting but I think Thomas was talking to Jesus when he said.
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him(Jesus), “My Lord and my God!”
29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas,[ d ] because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen andyet have believed.
I think it would be safe to not see Jesus and say to him,"My Lord my God!"
It is really about believing that Jesus is Lord and God.
Not too sure if this scripture proves Trinity but it prove Thomas refer to Jesus as his Lord and his God.
JWs do not believe they should call Jesus God so arguing with them is a waste of time.
Your right! this scripture does not disprove God is Jesus a portion of Trinity.
Magnum good job!
Booker-t most Christians do not feel the need to think any other way and they are confused with JW doctrines. Christendom are all wrong and JW over reasoning is right. Not!
-
designs
How can you trust anything in the New Testament wasn't the result of later Bishops and their agenda.