The WTS arguments are pretty weak here:
***w55 9/1p.543Questions FromReaders***
QuestionsFromReaders
?Trinitarianspoint toJohn20:28 asproofthat Jesus isGod.ThereThomassaid(NW):"MyMasterandmyGod!"How canthisargumentbeanswered?—F.W.,PhilippineRepublic.
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 AGrammaroftheGreekNewTestamentintheLightofHistoricalResearch, on page 461: "The article with the vocative in address was the usual Hebrew and Aramaic idiom, as indeed in Aristophanes we have hopaisakoloúthei. It is good Greek and good Aramaic too when we have Abbáhopatér (Mark 14:36) whether Jesus said one or both. In Matthew 11:26 (nai,hopatér) 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, ouranékaihoihágioi. Indeed the second member of the address is always in the nominative form. Thus Kýrie,hoTheós,hopantokrátor (Rev. 15:3). Compare John 20:28." Page 462: "When Thomas said Hokýriosmoukaihotheósmou (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 hokýriosmoukaihotheós, 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 kýriehotheós is the LXX way of addressing God, not hokýrioskaihotheós. 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 phonéitemehodidáskaloskaihokýrios, and Rev. 4:11 áxiosei,hokýrioskaihotheóshemón, 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?
***g054/22 p.9"Those WhoAre Called‘Gods’"***
‘Why, then,’ one may ask, ‘did Thomas exclaim when seeing the resurrected Jesus, "My Lord and my God!"?’ As already noted, Jesus is a god in the sense of being divine, but he is not the Father. Jesus had just told Mary Magdalene: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to myGodandyourGod." Remember, too, why John wrote his Gospel. Three verses after the account about Thomas, John explained that he wrote so that people "may believe that JesusistheChristtheSonofGod"—not that he is God.—John 20:17, 28, 31.
***
w921/15 p.23 WhatDotheScriptures SayAbout"theDivinityofChrist"?***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.
***
rsp.213Jesus Christ***Does
Thomas’exclamationatJohn20:28provethat Jesusis trulyGod?John 20:28 (RS) reads: "Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’"
There is no objection to referring to Jesus as "God," if this is what Thomas had in mind. Such would be in harmony with Jesus’ own quotation from the Psalms in which powerful men, judges, were addressed as "gods." (John 10:34, 35, RS; Ps. 82:1-6) Of course, Christ occupies a position far higher than such men. Because of the uniqueness of his position in relation to Jehovah, at John 1:18 (NW) Jesus is referred to as "the only-begotten god." (See also Ro,By.) Isaiah 9:6 (RS) also prophetically describes Jesus as "Mighty God," but not as the Almighty God. All of this is in harmony with Jesus’ being described as "a god," or "divine," at John 1:1 (NW,AT).
The context helps us to draw the right conclusion from this. Shortly before Jesus’ death, Thomas had heard Jesus’ prayer in which he addressed his Father as "the only true God." (John 17:3, RS) After Jesus’ resurrection Jesus had sent a message to his apostles, including Thomas, in which he had said: "I am ascending . . . to my God and your God." (John 20:17, RS) After recording what Thomas said when he actually saw and touched the resurrected Christ, the apostle John stated: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31, RS) So, if anyone has concluded from Thomas’ exclamation that Jesus is himself "the only true God" or that Jesus is a Trinitarian "God the Son," he needs to look again at what Jesus himself said (vs. 17) and at the conclusion that is clearly stated by the apostle John (vs. 31).
***
w886/1p.19AccurateKnowledge ofGodand HisSon Leads to Life***"My
LordandMyGod"13
Trinitarians also cite John 20:28 to support their claims. There Thomas said to Jesus: "My Lord and my God!" As shown above, there is no objection to Thomas’ referring to Jesus as a god. Such would be in harmony with the fact that Jesus, in his prehuman existence, certainly was a god, that is, a powerful, divine person. And he certainly has been that since his death and resurrection to heavenly life. Jesus even quoted from the Psalms to show that powerful humans were addressed as "gods." (Psalm 82:1-6; John 10:34, 35) The apostle Paul noted that there were "many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords.’" (1 Corinthians 8:5) Even Satan is called "the god of this system of things."—2 Corinthians 4:4. 14 Christ occupies a position far higher than imperfect men, or Satan. If such can be referred to as "gods," surely Jesus can be, and was, referred to as a god. Because of his unique position in relation to Jehovah, Jesus is "the only-begotten god" (John 1:18), a "Mighty God" (Isaiah 9:6), and "a god" (John 1:1). So there was nothing improper about Thomas’ referring to Jesus in that way. Thomas was saying that Jesus was a god to him, a divine, powerful one. But he was not saying that Jesus was Jehovah, which is why Thomas said, "my" God and not "the" God. 15 Just three verses later, at John 20:31, the Bible states: "But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ theSonofGod." All doubt as to what Thomas may have meant is dispelled here. The Bible writer John clearly says that Jesus is the Son of God, not almighty God himself. ***it-2pp.55-56 JesusChrist***On the occasion of Jesus’ appearance to Thomas and the other apostles, which had removed Thomas’ doubts of Jesus’ resurrection, the now-convinced Thomas exclaimed to Jesus: "My Lord and my God! [literally, "The Lord of me and the God (hoThe·os´) of me!"]." (Joh 20:24-29) Some scholars have viewed this expression as an exclamation of astonishment spoken to Jesus but actually directed to God, his Father. However, others claim the original Greek requires that the words be viewed as being directed to Jesus. Even if this is so, the expression "My Lord and my God" would still have to harmonize with the rest of the inspired Scriptures. Since the record shows that Jesus had previously sent his disciples the message, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and tomyGod and your God," there is no reason for believing that Thomas thought Jesus was the Almighty God. (Joh 20:17) John himself, after recounting Thomas’ encounter with the resurrected Jesus, says of this and similar accounts: "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."—Joh 20:30, 31.
So, Thomas may have addressed Jesus as "my God" in the sense of Jesus’ being "a god" though not the Almighty God, not "the only true God," to whom Thomas had often heard Jesus pray. (Joh 17:1-3) Or he may have addressed Jesus as "my God" in a way similar to expressions made by his forefathers, recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, with which Thomas was familiar. On various occasions when individuals were visited or addressed by an angelic messenger of Jehovah, the individuals, or at times the Bible writer setting out the account, responded to or spoke of that angelic messenger as though he were Jehovah God. (Compare Ge 16:7-11, 13; 18:1-5, 22-33; 32:24-30; Jg 6:11-15; 13:20-22.) This was because the angelic messenger was acting for Jehovah as his representative, speaking in his name, perhaps using the first person singular pronoun, and even saying, "I am the true God." (Ge 31:11-13; Jg 2:1-5) Thomas may therefore have spoken to Jesus as "my God" in this sense, acknowledging or confessing Jesus as the representative and spokesman of the true God. Whatever the case, it is certain that Thomas’ words do not contradict the clear statement he himself had heard Jesus make, namely, "The Father is greater than I am."—Joh 14:28.
These are pretty weak arguments that the WTS feels obligated to make because they have to say something.
It's like interviewing little boys who ALSO slept in the same bed with Michael Jackson. Their statements don't help much so you
use them in any way you can- "I spent many nights in the same bed with him, and he never touched ME."
WTS claims to know the mind of Thomas, or at least what he could have been up to, just as a little boy would think he knew the
mind of Michael Jackson. In reality, we can imagine why Michael never got around to touching EVERY boy, and we can imagine
what Thomas meant.