My Lord and my God - Shema Trinity

[Wootah]

Thomas says, "My Lord and my God."

https://biblehub.com/text/john/20-28.htm

What did he mean to claim about Jesus?

[tam]

Peace to you,

Wootah, please explain to me how saying "my God" in praise and amazement OF God, is blasphemy?

That's not what he's saying, Tam.

But that is what I said, Pinseeker, and which Wootah is questioning.

The fact is that Thomas is responding to Jesus; the two are in direct dialogue. If Thomas were saying "my God" in the way that some here construe it, then there is really no difference between that and saying "God damn" or some other vain swearing expression.

What does this have to do with my post (post 30), that Wootah is responding to?

That does not mean that Christ - the Son of God - is God Most High, the Most Holy One of Israel, whose name is Jah; who is both the God and Father OF Christ.

Right, God the Father is the Most High. But Jesus proceeds from God, as does the Holy Spirit. This means they come in obedience to God the Father, but they do the work of God -- because they are of God and thus God -- on earth. Actually Jesus only did this for a short time, but will do so again when He returns; right now He is seated at God's right hand, meaning in God's power, and is our High Priest according the order of Melchizadek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God (Hebrews 7, 8). The Holy Spirit is the agent of God's power on earth right now.

I'm assuming (and could be wrong) that this thread was not meant to be a free-for-all, lets discuss the trinity doctrine and if it is true or not. Rather, this thread is specific to the phrase of the OP and if it supports the trinity or at least if it supports that Christ is God (Most High).

I mean look. I talk as if I understand the triune Godhead completely. I don't. No mere mortal ever did, does, and possibly ever will, even in Glory. At least in this life, we just can't wrap our finite brains around it.

Yes, there might be a reason for that, Pinseeker: in that it is not true and therefore did not come from the Truth (Christ).

But it's true. It is God's truth, which is unassailable. All we can do in the end is accept it in humility.

OR... we can simply listen to Christ and remain in His word. Accept as true what HE teaches... and just not worry about the teachings and traditions of men.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 58 by PinSeeker]

The odd thing is, I have quoted so many scriptures to you. How many have you quoted to me? 0. There will be a day when all things will be set straight. When it happens I hope you will take the Bible's side and not your religion.

[PinSeeker]

The odd thing is, I have quoted so many scriptures to you. How many have you quoted to me? 0.

Actually that's incorrect, because I've used the scriptures you yourself have quoted, explained your missing the point(s) and focusing on the wrong things (like sentence types), purposely trying to steer this conversation down dead ends, etc. That's all that's been necessary.

There will be a day when all things will be set straight.

That, there will, certainly. I agree. I join you in very much looking forward to it. We will see Him just as He is. That will be a great and glorious day.

When it happens I hope you will take the Bible's side and not your religion.

Right back at you, my friend. Right back at you.

Grace and peace to you, 2timothy316.

[PinSeeker]

Wootah, please explain to me how saying "my God" in praise and amazement OF God, is blasphemy?

That's not what he's saying, Tam.

But that is what I said, Pinseeker, and which Wootah is questioning.

Right, but in his response to your post (30), he said (and I quote), "Do you really think this was the moment when Thomas finally understood we are all gods? Look at the obfuscation in this whole thread of basic language. Allow yourself that the simplest explanation might be correct." The simplest explanation being that he was acknowledging Christ as Lord and God. And Wootah is not saying that saying "my God" in praise and amazement is necessarily blasphemy. Which is exactly what I just said.

The fact is that Thomas is responding to Jesus; the two are in direct dialogue. If Thomas were saying "my God" in the way that some here construe it, then there is really no difference between that and saying "God damn" or some other vain swearing expression.

What does this have to do with my post (post 30), that Wootah is responding to?

Just this, that in exclaiming, "My Lord and my God," because he is speaking directly to Jesus and answering -- as the Holy Spirit says through John in immediately before at the end of verse 27 -- Christ's admonition to be not unbelieving but believing. Thomas is actually obeying Christ in verse 28. I agree with you that he is praising both his Lord and His God, but he is also acknowledging his newly gained belief that Christ Jesus is his Lord and his God. Thus, Wootah is correct in saying, "...the simplest explanation (is) correct.

this thread is specific to the phrase of the OP and if it supports the trinity or at least if it supports that Christ is God (Most High).

Mmmm... I don't think that's quite right. I don't think anybody is claiming what we read in John 20 affirms that Christ is God Most High. At least I hope not. But Christ does proceed from God, as does the Holy Spirit, which means that They are necessarily the second and third Persons of the triune Godhead and the One True God. The three persons just have different roles. God the Father is the Most High, God the Son completed the work of redemption on the cross and now intercedes for us before God the Father as our High Priest, and God the Holy Spirit is the personification of God's will and power on earth in and through each of us.

I mean look. I talk as if I understand the triune Godhead completely. I don't. No mere mortal ever did, does, and possibly ever will, even in Glory. At least in this life, we just can't wrap our finite brains around it.

Yes, there might be a reason for that, Pinseeker: in that it is not true and therefore did not come from the Truth (Christ).

Nope. It's just our inability to attain to the high and wonderful knowledge of our great God (Psalm 139:6; Romans 11:33). We can attain to the truth of it, but we can't completely grasp it.

But it's true. It is God's truth, which is unassailable. All we can do in the end is accept it in humility.

OR... we can simply listen to Christ and remain in His word. Accept as true what HE teaches... and just not worry about the teachings and traditions of men.

The disagreement is only in what God is actually saying in John 20. (Heh, heh... "only," as if that's a small thing... ...) I disagree that we should totally disregard the teachings of men; we should discern which ones are correct in relating God's holy Word to us. This hearkens back to our discussion about whether we need teachers or not. God would not have gifted people in knowledge and teaching spiritually if there was no need.

Peace again to you...

And to you also. The Lord bless you and keep you.

[2timothy316]

The odd thing is, I have quoted so many scriptures to you. How many have you quoted to me? 0.

Actually that's incorrect, because I've used the scriptures you yourself have quoted, explained your missing the point(s) and focusing on the wrong things (like sentence types), purposely trying to steer this conversation down dead ends, etc. That's all that's been necessary.

All I have seen you do is use eisegesis to make a scripture whatever you want it to say. That is not Bible evidence. Eisegesis is a known flawed way to interpret the Bible, yet you continue to think I'll accept it when I will not. These 'missed points' are a product of eisegesis not anything real to be considered.


Definition of eisegesis

: the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eisegesis

The above is what you're doing and I can't take the way you read your own ideas into scripture seriously. Until you use exegesis the discussion is a dead end.

[PinSeeker]

The odd thing is, I have quoted so many scriptures to you. How many have you quoted to me? 0.

Actually that's incorrect, because I've used the scriptures you yourself have quoted, explained your missing the point(s) and focusing on the wrong things (like sentence types), purposely trying to steer this conversation down dead ends, etc. That's all that's been necessary.

All I have seen you do is use eisegesis to make a scripture whatever you want it to say. That is not Bible evidence. Eisegesis is a known flawed way to interpret the Bible, yet you continue to think I'll accept it when I will not. These 'missed points' are a product of eisegesis not anything real to be considered.


Definition of eisegesis

: the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eisegesis

The above is what you're doing and I can't take the way you read your own ideas into scripture seriously. Until you use exegesis the discussion is a dead end.

No, you just disagree with my exegesis and the resulting clear inferences that can be made, that's all. And I understand. We disagree. It's stubbornness and lack of humility that lead to dead ends.

Grace and peace to you, 2timothy316.

[tam]

[Replying to post 63 by PinSeeker]

Peace to you Pinseeker, and thank you for your wish of peace as well!


I hope you don't mind, but I think I will wait and continue the discussion about what Wootah meant... with Wootah. If he is so inclined that is. It is a bit much to discuss with you what Wootah may or may not have meant. I can see already that the point is being lost in the confusion.



But if you have anything that you wish to address from my post 30, please feel free to do that.


Peace again to you!

[PinSeeker]

I hope you don't mind, but I think I will wait and continue the discussion about what Wootah meant... with Wootah.

That's just fine with me; suit yourself. Just trying to be helpful. I am about 99.9% sure that, if he responds, he will basically say, "What PinSeeker said."

I can see already that the point is being lost in the confusion.

Yeahhhh... I don't think so. But I'll leave that for brother Wootah to address.

But if you have anything that you wish to address from my post 30, please feel free to do that.

No, I think Wootah is doing just fine.

Peace again to you!

To you also.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 56 by Wootah]

John 20:28 also see posts 3, 15, 32 above.

I have already used the example of Jonathan apparently calling David "Jehovah": the parallel between 1 Samuel 20:12 (where Jonathan’s words appear to be directed to David: “... Jonathan saith unto David, ‘Jehovah, God of Israel - when I search my father, about this time tomorrow ....’� - Young’s Literal Translation, cf. KJV) and John 20:28 (where Thomas’ words appear to be directed to Jesus: “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’�).

This is also found in the ancient Greek translation of the Septuagint (1 Kings 20:12) where the word kurios is used instead of the vocative kurie!

The significant point here is that, although the scripture shows Jonathan speaking to David, it apparently literally calls him (David) “O LORD God of Israel�!! (For a straightforward literal translation see 1 Samuel 20:12 in the King James Version.)

You can bet that, if modern Bible translators wanted to find “evidence� that made King David also appear to be equally God (Quadrinarians?), they would continue to translate this scripture addressed to David just as literally as they do John 20:28 to “prove� that Jesus is equally God!

We could interpret Matt.16:23 similarly: Jesus “said unto Peter, ‘Get thee behind me, Satan [Satana - vocative, noun of address].’� Here Jesus apparently addresses Peter as “Satan�! But we know full well that Satan is someone else entirely.

Jesus was speaking directly to Peter all right (as the scripture literally says) but actually directing his words to another person who was not visibly present but who could still hear him, nevertheless. This would be parallel to the interpretation of Jn. 20:28 that Thomas was speaking to Jesus but actually addressing his words to another person who was not visibly present but who could hear him, nevertheless.

I think, however, that this is a less likely explanation simply because I do not believe this expression by Thomas is an address to anyone. If Thomas had said, “You are my Lord and my God,� we might have reason for the traditional interpretation. Or if he had addressed Jesus with the intent of saying something further (e.g. “My Lord and my God, why have you returned to us?�), it could also be indicative of the usual trinitarian interpretation. But there is no indication of any intent by Thomas to follow up an “address� with anything further as is normally required of nouns of address. (cf. Acts 1:6; 22:8; Rev. 7:14.)

Furthermore, a search throughout the entire NT Greek text shows:

The very fact that the words of Thomas are not a complete statement show that it is probably the abbreviated form of a common expression or doxology and not a statement of identification such as “you are my lord and my god.� Whereas doxologies and other common expressions are sometimes abbreviated to the point of not being complete statements, statements of identification appear to be complete statements (certainly in the writings of John, at least), e.g., Jn 1:49, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.� - NASB. Cf. Jn. 6:14, 69; 7:40, 41; 9:17; 11:27; 21:7.

Furthermore, in the writings of John, when using the term “Lord� in address to another person, a different form of the NT Greek word is always used instead of the form found at John 20:28 (ho kurios mou).

“The vocative is the case used in addressing a person .... κ��ιε [kurie] (O Lord), Θee (O God) ... are almost the only forms found in the N.T.� - pp. 14, 15, The New Testament Greek Primer, Rev. Alfred Marshall, Zondervan, 1978 printing.

This is especially true of “Lord� and “my Lord� in both the Septuagint and the New Testament. Kurie (κ��ιε), not kurios (κ��ιός), is the form used when addressing someone as “Lord� or “My Lord.� (“God,� Θεε, however, is not so certain. In fact it is very rare in the NT which normally uses the nominative Θεὸς in address.).

We can see a good example of this vocative form, which is used in addressing a person as “Lord,� at 3 Kings 1:20, 21 (1 Kings 1:20, 21 in modern English Bibles) in the ancient Greek of the Septuagint: “And you, my Lord [κ��ιε μου], O King ...� - 3 Kings 1:20, Septuagint. Then at 3 Kings 1:21 we see the same person (King David) being spoken about (but not addressed) in the same terms as Jn 20:28: “And it shall come to pass, when my Lord [Ὁ κ��ιός μου] the king shall sleep with his fathers .... - 3 Kings 1:21, Septuagint.

We also find Thomas himself, at Jn 14:5, addressing Jesus as “Lord� by using κ��ιε.

And, when addressing the angel at Rev. 7:14, John himself says kurie mou (“My Lord�)!

There are 33 uses of kurie in the Gospel of John alone. Here are a few of them: John 9:38; 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37; 14:5. (Compare these with an actual identification of the lord: “it is the lord [kurios],� John 21:7.)


All uses of kurie (vocative form or noun of address for kurios: "lord, sir, master.") - 120 in NT. There are No undisputed uses of the nominative form (kurios) as a noun of address in the NT. But the abbreviated John 20:28 uses kurios !


Therefore, it is safe to say that when John wrote down the incident with Thomas at Jn 20:28 and used the nominative form for “My Lord� [Kurios] he was not saying that Thomas was addressing Jesus as “My Lord and my God!�

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 4 by Wootah]

We are cognizant of the Greek. Translated to English it becomes "my Lord and my God." It means the same. It has been expressed many times here on this forum that Thomas was merely giving voice to amazement at what God had done in resurrecting Jesus, and uttered an exclamation.