Re: Trinity Q&A
- The WT Society has given the following two possible interpretations of John 20:28:Addressing the resurrected Jesus, the apostle Thomas exclaimed: "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28) This and other accounts were "written down that [we] may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God." And Thomas was not contradicting Jesus, who had sent His disciples the message: "I am ascending to . . . my God and your God." (John 20:17, 30, 31) So Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God. Thomas may have addressed Jesus as "my God" in the sense of Christ's being "a god," though not "the only true God." (John 1:1; 17:1-3) Or by saying "my God," Thomas may have been acknowledging Jesus as God's Spokesman and Representative, even as others addressed an angelic messenger as though he were Jehovah.Compare Genesis 18:1-5, 22-33; 31:11-13; 32:24-30; Judges 2:1-5; 6:11-15; 13:20-22. - p.23, 15 Jan. 1992 WT.Men and angels being called "gods" in scripture was clearly revealed in the "MyGod" link.The Society has also noted that the form of the NT Greek words used in John 20:28 for "my Lord," kurios, (and, by attachment, "My God") are not those which are used in address (kurie). The "MyGod" link provided on this site shows that in detail. In fact, when "Lord" was clearly used in address (such as "Lord, [kurie] whom shall we go away to?" - Jn 6:68), the special form kurie was always used.There are other interpretations for John 20:28.The "MyGod" link here explains that a very early trinitarian Christian scholar understood the expression at John 20:28 to be an exclamation. This would be like someone today seeing an amazing event and exclaiming, "My God!"The "My God" link explains how, since it is not used in address to Jesus, "my lord and my god" is an incomplete statement. It does not say, for example, "YOU ARE my lord and my god."It was shown how such incomplete statements concerning God in scripture are sometimes commonly understood expressions of the time . We may see, "God is my witness" or "God be praised" shortened to the point of an incomplete statement because the reader of that time was so familiar with the expression that the writer didn't need to use all the words to be understood.A familiar example in English would be the common expression (originally) of "God be with ye" when someone was leaving. This common expression was gradually shortened until today we say "goodbye."As was explained in the "MyGod" link we can see an excellent example of this in 1 Samuel 20:12 "... Jonathan saith unto David, `Jehovah, God of Israel - when I search my father, about this time tomorrow ....'" - Young's Literal Translation, cf. KJV.This is literally saying that David is Jehovah, God of Israel! However, since translators understand that David is not the God of Israel, they supply the added words which they believe were commonly understood by the incomplete staement "Jehovah, God of Israel."So, in most Bible translations, we see translators adding "understood" words to make a commonly understood expression of the time:"I promise you in the sight of the LORD the God of Israel" - NEB; "Jehovah, the God of Israel, (be witness)...." - ASV (cf. NASB, RSV, AT, NKJV); "I swear by the LORD God...." (cf. Tanakh translation by JPS, 1985; etc.So, the incomplete expression at John 20:28 could well be something like: "I swear by my Lord and my God [that I now believe]." Or, "My Lord and my God be witness [that I now believe]."Of course there is much more in the "MyGod" link, but I think this is enough to get the idea.
--- In JWquestionsemail@example.com, superwrench1970 <no_reply@...> wrote:
> Actually, superwrench1970 is just a reference to what I do as a
> career. My understanding of what Thomas said was similar to if I had
> looked up and seen my wife standing in the doorway. Kind of an
> exclamation of surprise, but actually calling Jesus God. I read
> through the link and actually got a little out of it but did not get
> what the author was talking about. Can someone explain it to me in
> laymans terms?
> --- In JWquestionsfirstname.lastname@example.org, Paul Leonard
> anotherpaul2001@ wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Let the Bibles' own explanation clear it up.
> > (John 20:31) 31 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.
- They were obviously seeking ways to simply make Jesus look bad, they all hated him because of him being honest and outspoken.
7But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Mathew 3:7
33And when the demon was driven out, the man who had been mute spoke. The crowd was amazed and said, "Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel."
34But the Pharisees said, "It is by the prince of demons that he drives out demons."
2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
So we see that they used everything Jesus said to disprove him before the people somehow.
--- In JWquestionsemail@example.com, Steve Klemetti
> rgwir wrote:
> > John 5:18 says:
> > "For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill
> > Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling
> > God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."
> > What is this scripture saying?
> (John 5:14-18) . . .After these things Jesus found him in the temple and
> said to him: "See, you have become sound in health. Do not sin anymore,
> in order that something worse does not happen to you." 15 The man went
> away and told the Jews it was Jesus that made him sound in health. 16 So
> on this account the Jews went persecuting Jesus, because he was doing
> these things during Sabbath.
> Notice that here it said "on this account" meaning that because of the
> healing on the sabbath they persecuted him.
> 17 But he answered them: "My Father has kept working until now, and I
> keep working." 18 On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all
> the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but
> he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God. . ."
> Again, it says "on this account". He made the statement and they
> interpreted it. Their interpretation was that
> "calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God". but that was
> the interpretation of the Jews and it was incorrect.
> How can calling God one's own father make him equal to God/?