What did Thomas really mean?

[placebofactor]

Thomas said to Jesus, my Lord and my God referring to him as both. Yet the Jehovah's Witnesses say he was speaking of Jesus as Lord and the Father as God. Why is that incorrect?

John 20:28, “And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.” Thomas’s words were a direct address to Jesus. The text explicitly states that Thomas answered and said unto him.

The antecedent of him is Jesus, who had just appeared to Thomas and invited him to touch His wounds, John 20:27. There is no grammatical or contextual indication that Thomas suddenly shifted his words to the Father.

Thomas uses one continuous declaration: “My Lord and my God.” The Greek text is “ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου," both titles are joined by καὶ (“and”), applied to the same person. There is no suggestion of a split reference that Lord = Jesus, and God = Father. The construction is emphatic, not divided.

In John 20:29, Jesus accepts Thomas’s confession: “Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed…” If Thomas had mistakenly addressed the Father, he would have corrected him. Instead, Jesus affirms Thomas’s belief, showing that the confession was directed to Him. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ claim that Thomas meant “Jesus as Lord, the Father as God.” This is grammatically and contextually unsupported. The text itself, in both English and Greek, shows Thomas directly confessing the deity of Christ.

Your thoughts:

[Capbook]

There is only one who is older than the days (time/s, seasons of time, etc.) - the Ancient of Days or the Lord God, who is before all things. Also, there is only one whose dominion is everlasting - the Almighty God whom Daniel saw in his vision through manifestation into a one like a son of man.

Therefore, Capbook, your opinion of two persons in the vision of Daniel is exactly the two manifestations of God.

OneJack, do that mean the two really are the Ancient of Days?

Those two figures, the ancient of days and the one like a son of man, were just two manifestations of the Almighty God in talking with John in his vision. The reality of the ancient of days is still unseen to date.

It's not John's vision, it's of Daniel in the Old Testament.
As you interpret the "Son of God and Son of Man" as the flesh vessel of God the Father.
Do you mean that the "Son of Man" Daniel saw, the flesh vessel already existed?

Sorry for that mistake, it’s Daniel’s vision, btw. The Son of God, during the incarnation of God, was not yet in existence in Daniel’s vision. But the one like a son of man in his vision was a spirit.

What really is the Son of Man to you, a spirit or a flesh?

[OneJack]

OneJack, do that mean the two really are the Ancient of Days?

Those two figures, the ancient of days and the one like a son of man, were just two manifestations of the Almighty God in talking with John in his vision. The reality of the ancient of days is still unseen to date.

It's not John's vision, it's of Daniel in the Old Testament.
As you interpret the "Son of God and Son of Man" as the flesh vessel of God the Father.
Do you mean that the "Son of Man" Daniel saw, the flesh vessel already existed?

Sorry for that mistake, it’s Daniel’s vision, btw. The Son of God, during the incarnation of God, was not yet in existence in Daniel’s vision. But the one like a son of man in his vision was a spirit.

What really is the Son of Man to you, a spirit or a flesh?

If the one like a ‘son of man' you asked me was the one seen by Daniel, I would say he is a spirit, a manifestation of God, and so was the one seen by John in his vision.

[Capbook]

Those two figures, the ancient of days and the one like a son of man, were just two manifestations of the Almighty God in talking with John in his vision. The reality of the ancient of days is still unseen to date.

It's not John's vision, it's of Daniel in the Old Testament.
As you interpret the "Son of God and Son of Man" as the flesh vessel of God the Father.
Do you mean that the "Son of Man" Daniel saw, the flesh vessel already existed?

Sorry for that mistake, it’s Daniel’s vision, btw. The Son of God, during the incarnation of God, was not yet in existence in Daniel’s vision. But the one like a son of man in his vision was a spirit.

What really is the Son of Man to you, a spirit or a flesh?

If the one like a ‘son of man' you asked me was the one seen by Daniel, I would say he is a spirit, a manifestation of God, and so was the one seen by John in his vision.

So, a spirit can be seen, do that mean as God is spirit, He can be seen?

[OneJack]

It's not John's vision, it's of Daniel in the Old Testament.
As you interpret the "Son of God and Son of Man" as the flesh vessel of God the Father.
Do you mean that the "Son of Man" Daniel saw, the flesh vessel already existed?

Sorry for that mistake, it’s Daniel’s vision, btw. The Son of God, during the incarnation of God, was not yet in existence in Daniel’s vision. But the one like a son of man in his vision was a spirit.

What really is the Son of Man to you, a spirit or a flesh?

If the one like a ‘son of man' you asked me was the one seen by Daniel, I would say he is a spirit, a manifestation of God, and so was the one seen by John in his vision.

So, a spirit can be seen, do that mean as God is spirit, He can be seen?

Angels, who are spirit beings, can be seen by humans when God allows, as can elves. The same is true with God. If He allows Mr. Capbook to see Him, He will manifest Himself in whatever form He wishes.

[1213]

The name of Jesus is called Immanuel.

Where can we find this statement [The name of Jesus is called Immanuel] in the bible, verbatim?

So, The Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold! The virgin will conceive and will bring forth a son; and she shall call His name Immanuel.
Isa 7:14

So, where is your statement, ‘The name of Jesus is called Immanuel,’ in Isa. 7:14, verbatim?

Why are you thinking Isa. 7:14 is not speaking about Jesus?

By the way, does this prophecy, which states [Matt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins], also refer to the same son in Isa 7:14 and Isa 9:6?

I think so.

[OneJack]

The name of Jesus is called Immanuel.

Where can we find this statement [The name of Jesus is called Immanuel] in the bible, verbatim?

So, The Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold! The virgin will conceive and will bring forth a son; and she shall call His name Immanuel.
Isa 7:14

So, where is your statement, ‘The name of Jesus is called Immanuel,’ in Isa. 7:14, verbatim?

Why are you thinking Isa. 7:14 is not speaking about Jesus?

I’m asking you where the phrase, ‘The name of Jesus is called Immanuel,’ is in Isa. 7:14, verbatim? I’m not yet saying anything about Jesus, but here you are putting your words in my mouth by asking me ‘Why are you thinking Isa. 7:14 is not speaking about Jesus? Does this mean that your statement, verbatim as quoted, is not a part of Isa 7:14?

By the way, does this prophecy, which states [Matt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins], also refer to the same son in Isa 7:14 and Isa 9:6?

I think so.

Since those three verses point only to the son that was born of Mary, it follows that the names Immanuel, Counselor, Wonderful, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace, and Jesus were the seven names given by God to that son. Therefore, the right words to say are ‘The name of the son [ born of Mary] is called Immanuel,’ or ‘The name of the son [ born of Mary] is called Eternal Father,’ or ‘The name of the son [ born of Mary] is called Jesus,’ and so on. Do you agree?

[1213]

...
Since those three verses point only to the son that was born of Mary, it follows that the names Immanuel, Counselor, Wonderful, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace, and Jesus were the seven names given by God to that son. Therefore, the right words to say are ‘The name of the son [ born of Mary] is called Immanuel,’ or ‘The name of the son [ born of Mary] is called Eternal Father,’ or ‘The name of the son [ born of Mary] is called Jesus,’ and so on. Do you agree?

But, it is not said verbatim "he is called", it says "his name is called". I don't think the meaning is then what you say it is.

[Capbook]

Sorry for that mistake, it’s Daniel’s vision, btw. The Son of God, during the incarnation of God, was not yet in existence in Daniel’s vision. But the one like a son of man in his vision was a spirit.

What really is the Son of Man to you, a spirit or a flesh?

If the one like a ‘son of man' you asked me was the one seen by Daniel, I would say he is a spirit, a manifestation of God, and so was the one seen by John in his vision.

So, a spirit can be seen, do that mean as God is spirit, He can be seen?

Angels, who are spirit beings, can be seen by humans when God allows, as can elves. The same is true with God. If He allows Mr. Capbook to see Him, He will manifest Himself in whatever form He wishes.

But we are discussing about your flesh vessel "Son of Man" not the angels seen by Daniel. Now the flesh vessel become as you've said a spirit.
As the Son of Man (not the angels) being spirit, as God being spirit, can He be seen per your interpretation.

Do you believe that man can see God Himself?
You even interpret that man will die hearing the actual voice of Jesus. Is that true?
How much more seeing God Himself, even as you claim to have direct access to your Jesus, I believe you did not see Him.

[OneJack]

...
Since those three verses point only to the son that was born of Mary, it follows that the names Immanuel, Counselor, Wonderful, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace, and Jesus were the seven names given by God to that son. Therefore, the right words to say are ‘The name of the son [ born of Mary] is called Immanuel,’ or ‘The name of the son [ born of Mary] is called Eternal Father,’ or ‘The name of the son [ born of Mary] is called Jesus,’ and so on. Do you agree?

But, it is not said verbatim "he is called", it says "his name is called". I don't think the meaning is then what you say it is.

I just followed your premise on Immanuel [The name of Jesus is called Immanuel]. If you want verbatim statement, here they are as prophesied:

Isa 7:14. “……shall call ‘his’ name Immanuel.”

Isa 9:6. “….. ‘his’ name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.“

Matt 1:21. “…..thou shalt call ‘his’ name Jesus,………”

To whom did the ‘his’ in the three prophecies above point to? Who exactly was that man whose name shall be Immanuel, Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace, and Jesus?

[Capbook]

...
Since those three verses point only to the son that was born of Mary, it follows that the names Immanuel, Counselor, Wonderful, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace, and Jesus were the seven names given by God to that son. Therefore, the right words to say are ‘The name of the son [ born of Mary] is called Immanuel,’ or ‘The name of the son [ born of Mary] is called Eternal Father,’ or ‘The name of the son [ born of Mary] is called Jesus,’ and so on. Do you agree?

But, it is not said verbatim "he is called", it says "his name is called". I don't think the meaning is then what you say it is.

I just followed your premise on Immanuel [The name of Jesus is called Immanuel]. If you want verbatim statement, here they are as prophesied:

Isa 7:14. “……shall call ‘his’ name Immanuel.”

Isa 9:6. “….. ‘his’ name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.“

Matt 1:21. “…..thou shalt call ‘his’ name Jesus,………”

To whom did the ‘his’ in the three prophecies above point to? Who exactly was that man whose name shall be Immanuel, Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace, and Jesus?

But the Father said His name forever is "יהוה " you always missed to mention.

Exo 3:15  And Elohim said further to Mosheh, “Thus you are to say to the children of Yisra’ěl, ‘יהוה Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Aḇraham, the Elohim of Yitsḥaq, and the Elohim of Ya‛aqoḇ, has sent me to you. This is My Name forever, and this is My remembrance to all generations.’