When I was a devout JW I was out in field service and ran into a Baptist Preacher. We went back and forth about Jesus and the trinity doctrine. I was not to strong on the trinity doctrine so the elder with me took over the conversation with the Preacher. When the Preacher had the elder read John 20:28 the elder said that Thomas was in shock at seeing Jesus raise from the dead and said something like Oh my God! I never did swallow this explaination but pretending it made sense when the elder asked me about it later after we left that preacher's house. How did the elders explain John 20:28 to you when you were a JW or how did you answer this verse when in field service?
How did the elders explain John 20:28 My Lord and My God when you were a JW
by booker-t 8 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
LMS-Chef
Vs.31 calls him the son of god. Hmmm interesting conflict. I don't think anyone really knows. no one I know was there.
-
FairMind
It was explained to me as an exclamation of joyous shcock and not to be taken literally.
-
Check_Your_Premises
So the explanaition for this is that Thomas takes the Lord's name in vain right in front of the guy who just got done getting killed for his sins, and the Lamb just let's it slide.... no admonishment?! If you saw Jesus, would you say, "Holy S$%T"?
Not bloody likely.
-
clarrie
Hi Everyone
I'm new on here - I am not a JW or ever been one and I am a Methodist. I have a friend for 30 years now and I came here out of interest to see what makes her tick!
I have discussed this topic with my son Matthew who is at university. He has an English/Greek copy of the new testament and Thomas is quoted as saying 'The Lord of me and the God of me'.
I love reading the posts on this board and hope it will come in handy when the witnesses come to the door or my friend makes a comment. She doesn't do that very often - although she has made certain remarks - she asked me to pray for her once. She knows that I attend church and I often tell her what was said at the sermon.
-
Narkissos
Hi Clarrie,
If your friend asked you to pray for her I guess she is not a "hardline" JW...
About the topic, Watchtower 1955 9/1:
Questions
from Readers?
Trinitarians point to John 20:28 as proof that Jesus is God. There Thomas said (NW): "My Master and my God!" How can this argument be answered??F. W., Philippine Republic.Jesus is a god. "God" means a strong one. Christ is called "The mighty God" at Isaiah 9:6, "a god" at John 1:1 (NW), and "the only-begotten god" at John 1:18 (NW). Jehovah is not the only god or strong one. The very fact that he is called the Almighty God indicates that there are other gods not so mighty, not almighty like him. So Thomas could call Jesus God, but not THE God, and three verses later Jesus is called "the Son of God," as we read (NW): "But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name." So there was no objection to John?s reporting that Thomas addressed Jesus as a deity, and certainly John does not say that Thomas? address to Jesus was to make us believe that Jesus was The God, but says it was to make us believe Jesus was God?s Son. In this same chapter (20:17, NW) Jesus said: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God." He was not ascending to himself.
But now the trinitarians will say Thomas used the Greek definite article "the" (ho) before "God," proving he called Jesus The God. The article "the" is in the nominative case in the Greek, but the word "God" here is in the vocative case and of such A. T. Robertson says in his A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, on page 461: "The article with the vocative in address was the usual Hebrew and Aramaic idiom, as indeed in Aristophanes we have ho pais akoloúthei. It is good Greek and good Aramaic too when we have Abbá ho patér (Mark 14:36) whether Jesus said one or both. In Matthew 11:26 (nai, ho patér) we have the vocative. When the article is used, of course the nominative form must occur. Thus in Rev. 18:20 we have both together, ourané kai hoi hágioi. Indeed the second member of the address is always in the nominative form. Thus Kýrie, ho Theós, ho pantokrátor (Rev. 15:3). Compare John 20:28." Page 462: "When Thomas said Ho kýrios mou kai ho theós mou (John 20:28), he gave Christ full acceptance of his deity and of the fact of his resurrection." Page 466: "In John 20:28 Thomas addresses Jesus as ho kýrios mou kai ho theós, the vocative like those above. Yet, strange to say, Winer calls this exclamation rather than address, apparently to avoid the conclusion that Thomas was satisfied as to the deity of Jesus by his appearance to him after the resurrection. Dr. E. A. Abbott follows suit also in an extended argument to show that kýrie ho theós is the LXX way of addressing God, not ho kýrios kai ho theós. But after he had written he appends a note to p. 95 to the effect that ?this is not quite satisfactory. For [John] xiii. 13 phonéite me ho didáskalos kai ho kýrios, and Rev. 4:11 áxios ei, ho kýrios kai ho theós hemón, ought to have been mentioned above.? This is a manly retraction, and he adds: ?John may have used it here exceptionally.? Leave out ?exceptionally? and the conclusion is just. If Thomas used Aramaic he certainly used the article. It is no more exceptional in John 20:28 than in Rev. 4:11."
So, since the use of the definite article was made before the form of address to anybody, Thomas? use of the definite article does not force his use of God to mean The God, Jehovah. Jehovah was not begotten, but existed without beginning. But according to John 1:18 (NW) Christ was the only god or strong one directly begotten or created by Jehovah, however.
So Jehovah is The God; Jesus Christ is one of many who are called gods. Satan is called "the god of this system of things," Moses was said to be as god to Pharaoh, and in the Psalms men are called gods, and Jesus referred to this and argued that hence the Jews should not say he blasphemed when he said he was God?s Son. And the apostle Paul said there are many called gods. But to argue that these many different ones called gods are, by virtue of this fact, The God Jehovah would be absurd. Similarly, it is absurd to try to argue that Thomas? reference to Jesus as god proves Jesus is The God, and doubly so when just three verses later Jesus is identified as God?s Son.?2 Cor. 4:4, NW; Ex. 7:1; Ps. 82:6; John 10:35; 1 Cor. 8:5.
Incidentally, in view of the existence of so many called gods, does it not establish the need for The God, the Almighty God, to have a distinguishing name, that is, Jehovah?
-
XBEHERE
Narkissos interesting article. When I was a full believer in this religion I would say that the explanation is reasonable. But seriously.. Jesus corrects Peter for merely saying "..lord be kind to yourself..." and is so indignant at the money changers that he turns their tables over and tells them to get out and yet he does not correct Thomas for calling him god? In fact he tells him "happy is he because he has seen and believes.." This is not consistent with his past behavior is it?
Anyone want to take a stab at this one?
-
Narkissos
One structural detail: at some point 20:28f was the last word of the gospel, immediately followed by the first conclusion in v. 30f. Chapter 21 was obviously added later, with a second conclusion.
This makes highly unlikely that the text would close on a casual, untheological, trivial or otherwise unimportant statement. Just as the extant conclusion of Matthew ("I am with you all days...") echoes the beginning ("Emmanuel" -- God with us) according to the classic device of inclusio, the conclusion of John echoed the Prologue ("the Word was God"). And yes, from the author's standpoint "my Lord and my God" (v. 28) aptly summed up what "believing" stands for (v. 29,31).
-
Sunspot
So the explanaition for this is that Thomas takes the Lord's name in vain right in front of the guy who just got done getting killed for his sins, and the Lamb just let's it slide.... no admonishment?! If you saw Jesus, would you say, "Holy S$%T"?
CYP,
Actually, I think I might say "OMG" because it's so common in speech for today!! It's said every day-at least a dozen times a day-on TV, and for every possible occasion. I've fallen into the pattern of saying that---now that I don't have to monitor my speech and continuously censor myself.
I'd be willing to bet that saying "OMG" in surprise, wouldn't have been used at all back in Jesus' time. I'd have to agree with you that Jesus would have probably been more than a bit offended if anyone had said that!
Fer cryin' out loud, we couldn't (shouldn't) say "Gosh" or "Gee" when we were JWs. How stupid was that? I mean, we could LIE to those who we felt weren't allowed to hear hear the truth, but we didn't DARE say "golly gee" when the Speech Police were around!
I only remember this scripture (Joh 20:28) being discussed one time, and I don't recall what the explanation was. Apparently I must have swallowed it. I usually did.
Annie