My Thomas : Why did Jesus not rebuke him ?

Lampokey

JW doctrine teaches that Jesus was not God.I do not know if is doctrime , but I also get the idea that JWs believe the Bible to be completely and literally correct.

Luke 18:19 : Jesus asks a ruler "Why do you call me good? Nobody is good , except one , God".

How , then , do JWs explain John 20:28 , where Thomas says "My Lord and MY GOD!"

If Jesus was NOT God , He would certainly rebuke a disciple for blasphemy.So , why did He not set Thomas straight ? Possibly He did not hear him?

Either Jesus WAS God , and in Luke 18:19 , He was not denying this , but rather merely trying to ascertain if the man believed He was God.Then we have the problem of squaring this with the "lemi , lemi sabaccthani" quote.

Or , John's account is wrong.This means JWs must concede that the Bible is NOT fully correct.

I would sincerely welcome the thoughts of current JWs on this.

under74

I wish I was better at this kind of stuff.....all I know is JWs can interpret it however they want because they use the NWT which is their own translation.....

Narkissos? Leolaia? Blondie......Gary Buss? Anyone else? One of them is going to look at this thread and be able to tell you something--give you some insight into something I know nothing about.

Wish I could be more help to you Lampokey

(I'm working being smart when it comes to the Bible)

Will Power

Welcome Lampokey

unless the WT has had new light in this area, they DO believe that there are mistakes in the bible.

* The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126 *

Sometimes a member of a class will refuse to engage in the canvassing for the books because there are some mistakes in the books, and says his conscience will not permit him to put books in which there are mistakes into the hands of the people. Of course this is another method that the enemy adopts to confuse the minds and furnish an excuse for not being faithful to the Lord. As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible and there has never been a book written yet that is perfect that has been written by any human hand.

This is their convenient "ace in the hole" to excuse any "adjustments" they've had to make to back up their "unique" interpretations.

edited to add: Their interpretation of the comment Thomas made is that it was an exclamation as in "Oh My God - would you look at that !"

will

Above quote from http://quotes.watchtower.ca/bible_errors.htm LONG LIVE THIS SITE ! "We will Never Surrender" churchill

A Paduan

" No one can confess that Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit "

JustTickledPink

They say that he didn't call him God directly, he called him "a God" or "my God" more as use of a title, than calling him the Almighty God.

They said something like he was giving him respect and praise but did not say he was the BIG god, merely a smaller god.

Some stupid explanation.

Narkissos

At some point of its development, before chapter 21 was added, 20:28 was the final narrative of the Gospel and formed a perfect inclusio with 1:1: from the initial affirmation that the eternal logos was "God" in the beginning to the final recognition of "God" in the crucified Revealer.

Although it is an ambiguous formulation, I doubt that Mark 10:18// ("Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone") implies the same kind of thinking. Nowhere in the synoptic Gospels is Jesus identified to God. Those are rather the words of a prophet who doesn't claim personal authority (cf. the following references to "the commandments").

As a result, I think we are left with two different christologies. And on such a subject "right" and "wrong" are meaningless words imo.

melmac

I never understood what the fuss is all about. I don't believe in the Trinity, yet I see no problem in calling Jesus "God".

Psalms 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

John

10:34

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

10:35

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

10:36

Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Forscher

My read on that passage was that Thomas was using that expression much as we say "Oh my God!" when we are shocked or something. That expression under such circumstances is pretty much universal in all cultures and languages. Even the Soviets couldn't eliminate it entirely under their secular atheism.

LittleToe

Melmac:Generally it isn't a problem for Trinitarians or Unitarians.
It IS a problem for WTS Theology (??oxymoron alert??), though.

Forscher:He would have been stoned on the spot for blasphemy, had that been part of his common vernacular!
That rendering is a JW get-around that is about as watertight as a sieve.

Edited to add post-facto: As Narkisos will now go on to demonstrate

Narkissos

Forscher,

My read on that passage was that Thomas was using that expression much as we say "Oh my God!" when we are shocked or something. That expression under such circumstances is pretty much universal in all cultures and languages. Even the Soviets couldn't eliminate it entirely under their secular atheism.

I can understand that "Oh my God!" is a trivial expression in English because it is countlessly attested in the same stereotyped form for this very same absolute and interjectional use... Afaik this is not the case of ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou or even ho theos mou in 1st-century Greek. I'd be interested in contrary evidence.

Such an interpretation, would it be linguistically possible, woud remain unlikely in a saying introduced by apekrithè Thômas kai eipen autô, litt. "Thomas answered and said to him."

Stupidest among stupid is the (WT) suggestion that the referent changes in the middle of the sentence, meaning: "My Lord and 'Oh my God!'"

My Thomas : Why did Jesus not rebuke him ?

*** The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126 ***

Share this

* The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126 *