My Thomas : Why did Jesus not rebuke him ?

by Lampokey 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  zen nudist

  Such an interpretation, would it be linguistically possible, woud remain unlikely in a saying introduced by apekrithè Thômas kai eipen autô, litt. "Thomas answered and said to him."

  even if you are techincally correct, building a radical departing belief from traditional judahism on such statements to concoct a trinity theory seems more than a stretch.... I find it more than curious that not a single person in the entire bible bothers to TEACH a trinity doctrine to anyone else and yet so many feel it is a crucial doctrine and necessary for salvation.... seems to me Jesus, if he existed in the first place, would consign those anal enough to hate their brothers over such stupidity to gehenna (^_^)
• 

  MM090503

  WOW, everybody has some great thoughts on this. In respect to all. I was raised Catholic and knew about the trinity, but not sure if I really belived in it till now. My bf has been studying with JW's and we are trying to do a lot of research on religion (it's not going that great, he still believes all the crap JW's have told him even if I can show him concrete evidence). His biggest thing is not believing in the Trinity. If he can't see how 3 can be in one, there's no chance (I don't think). We have talked about this quite a bit. The last thing my bf said he needed to get straight was how is Jesus "a god"? I tried to tell him thats only a watchtower thing but he ignores it. We've read several passages where Jesus is reffered to as God. I think in reading numerous passages this has helped me in understanding the trinity and believe in it. They best way I can explain the trinity is this way:

  Think about the properties of water: Water can be a solid (ice) a liquid (water itself) or it can be a gas or vapor ( steam). Is that not 3 in one??? Put it into a frying pan and you will see all three. If we want ice we freeze water, If we want water from ice we melt it and if we want steam we will make it really hot.

  Now think about God. We have God who is ruler of all. We needed something to save us from our sins. God became a life form for us (Jesus). Then we have the Holy Spirit to come upon us. When you think of it in this prospective, God has taken these forms when the situation was most apropriate and when we needed him to be there. Just like when we need the different forms of water(not that you really do, but it's an example).

  Maybe this will help and I'd like to hear other's thoughts on this.
• 

  Narkissos

  Zen Nudist,

  I didn't even allude to the Trinity (4th-century doctrine).

  But it's a fact that the Fourth Gospel, from the beginning (Prologue) to the end (Thomas), toys with the idea of ascribing some "godship" to its "Jesus" (which doesn't resemble the Synoptics' character anyway).

  About Judaism: which Judaism exactly is the Gospel of John to be compared with? It shows a clear opposition to pharisaic Judaism ("the Jews" are enemies; the expulsion of Judeo-Christians from pharisaic synagogues, which actually took place some time after 70, is alluded to in 9:22). Strict monotheism was the official doctrine of the Jerusalem Sadducees and Pharisees, but was not necessarily fully accepted in all Israel. The Samaritans are mentioned favorably in John (4). The Essenes, although monotheists, had a fondness for divine-like apocalyptic figures (e.g. Enoch's Son of Man). The Hellenistic Jew Philo has a logos theology which closely resembles John's.

  So there is nothing extraordinary that the Johannine movement, which obviously had some sectarian Jewish but also Gentile roots, developed its particular theology after having cut its bounds with Judaism for some time. This has nothing to see with a "historical Jesus" of course.
• 

  upside/down

  mm090503- look up the thread "IS JESUS G_D" for some neat comments on your observation.

  u/d
• 

  LittleToe

  MM09:I wouldn't tackle the Trinity at all. Simply show the "deity" of Christ, as shown by John's gospel in particular. The JW's don't even believe that, and so your job is done, regarding his study...

  ...because if he's gonna believe the bible is infallible (a WTS teaching) he also is gonna have difficulty aligning the gospel of John with Jesus having no deity (also a WTS teaching).
• 

  Leolaia

  Just to agree with what Narkissos has just said, the christology of the Gospel of John is certainly not the same as that of Luke, and it is pretty clear that, as an expression of faith, Thomas' confession is meant to be understood in light of John 1:1 and other statements in the gospel hinting at the deity of Christ. Modern English expressions like saying "Oh my God" are entirely foreign to the thought of the gospel, in which Thomas was addressing Jesus (eipen autó, "saying to him") as "my Lord" and as "my God". The phrase should instead be understood in light of similar expressions in the Greek OT, especially the following:

  "And they opened wide their mouth upon me, they said, 'Aha, aha, our eyes have seen it.' You have seen it, O Lord, break your silence, O Lord, don't withdraw yourself from me. Awake, O Lord, and attend to my judgment, even to my cause, my God and my Lord (ho theos mou kai ho kurios mou)" (Psalm 35:21-23; LXX).

  The phrasing is very similar to John 20:28 (ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou), and the appellation occurs after saying "Our eyes have seen it," which inside the context of John is relevant to Thomas making his declaration after seeing the crucifixion wounds on Jesus' body, and Jesus' statement in the following verse: "Blessed are the ones who believe having not seen (idontes)"; the same verb occurs in Psalm 35:21 (eidan). Moreover, referring to God as "Lord my God" (kurios ho theos mou) is a frequent expression in the Greek OT (Deuteronomy 26:14; Joshua 14:8; 2 Samuel 24:24; 1 Kings 3:7; Psalm 7:3, 30:12, 109:26; Jeremiah 31:18; Zechariah 11:4, 14:5, etc., as well as in pseudepigraphal works such as Ascension of Isaiah and Joseph and Asenath). Thomas' confession is along the same lines.
• 

  Leolaia

  Think about the properties of water: Water can be a solid (ice) a liquid (water itself) or it can be a gas or vapor ( steam). Is that not 3 in one??? Put it into a frying pan and you will see all three. If we want ice we freeze water, If we want water from ice we melt it and if we want steam we will make it really hot.

  This is a form of modalism, in that the same entity is something in one state and something else in another. This idea was considered early in the history of the church, but was rejected because it would have meant that there was no Son and Father existing at the same time (contrary to John 1:1, and any other scripture in which the Son talks about his relationship with the Father), or no Son and the Holy Spirit existing at the same time (contrary to many other scriptures, similarly), and that Son would have raised himself up from the dead. It was recognized early on that there needed to be such distinctions within God, hence the concept of the three Persons who each are "God" (that is, they together comprise "God," being undivided in essence between each other).
• 

  melmac

  Now you hit the nail in the head, Little Toe. While I don't believe the trinity, John's Gospel makes a point of Jesus' divinity. Let's say I'm somewhere in between Jdubs and other denominations, on this issue.
• 

  MM090503

  I know you can't exactly look at the properties of water and come pair them equally, but it is a way to help some people make some kind of sense out of it. I'm very new to all of this and still learning. So I apologize if my ideas aren't exactly that great, but I know what helps me. I'm also very open to suggestions.
• 

  upside/down

  mm- the illustration of the water makes a great point of showing the different qualities of H20. But it doesn't make a great argument that ice is the same as steam etc. It shows commonality not equality.

  good try though... keep it up

  u/d