Thomas... My Lord and my God

[Pancho Frijoles]

Let me repeat here 8 absurdities or inconsistencies that derive from thinking that Thomas was calling Jesus God in John 20:28.
There may be many more, but these 8 came to my mind.

ABSURDITY 1. Perhaps Jesus did not really know who his disciples worshiped. He had just said to the woman (John 20:17) that The Father was the God of his disciples... the same God that Jesus had.

ABSURDITY 2. Perhaps the woman did not bring Jesus message in John 20:17 to the apostles. So, they didn't realize that it was Father, and not Jesus, the One they should consider God.

ABSURDITY 3. Perhaps Thomas was a dissident and didn't share the conviction of the disciples travelling to Emaus, who were concerned about Jesus being killed and his ministry aborted or defeated.

ABSURDITY 4. Thomas was not a dissident and share the conviction of the disciples travelling to Emaus, but these two disciples faked their sadness. They actually knew that Jesus was God so there was nothing to worry about in regard of Jesus being crucified and his mission aborted.

ABSURDITY 5. Perhaps, even after Pentecost, Thomas did not share the conviction of Peter. Peter preached Jesus to the Jews as the Servant of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

ABSURDITY 6. Perhaps Peter was a dissident and that's why he preached Jesus as the Servant of the God of Abraham. In contrast, Thomas was doing on the side the right thing: preaching Jesus as God. Why didn't Luke write about it? Perhaps Luke did not know it, or did not agree with Thomas, or did not give any relevance to the doctrine of Jesus deity in the apostle's preaching, as to write it down in the Book of Acts.

ABSURDITY 7. Paul either didn't get the memo from Thomas or chose to be a dissident. That's why, in every single instance in which He mentions the Father and Jesus within the same sentence, and wants to use the term "God" and the term "Lord", Paul assigns the title "God" to the "Father" and the title "Lord" to Jesus. If Paul would have agreed with Thomas, he would had leveraged every opportunity... or at least most of those opportunities, to use "God" and "Lord" to refer to Jesus.

ABSURDITY 8. Perhaps Thomas was really Pagan in his heart of hearts: he believed that a god could take flesh, be touched and eat fish. A god, he thought, could be sent by another god, speak on behalf of another god and raised from dead by another god, let alone sit at the right of another god, and still be god. That's why he easily recognized Jesus as god when he saw it alive.

 

[mikesw]

This is a list of 8 absurdities or inconsistencies that derive from thinking that Thomas was calling Jesus God.
There may be many more, but these 8 came to my mind.

Pancho Frijoles provides obvious examples of the absurdities of his absurdities. The more he lists the more absurd he sounds in his rejections.

ABSURDITY 1. Jesus did not really know who his disciples worshiped. He had just said to the woman (John 20:17) that The Father was the God of his disciples... the same God that Jesus had.

Number 1 almost has some sense to it. But Jesus can speak both from an incarnate perspective and being subject to God in that sense. More importantly he shares to Mary her status with God, as gaining this benefit in Christ.

ABSURDITY 2. The woman did not bring Jesus message in John 20:17 to the apostles. So, they didn't realize that it was Father, and not Jesus, the One they should consider God.

Number 2 just is an ignorant objection by failing to distinguish the incarnate Son from the Father within the Godhead. Pancho provides no argument against the Trinity here

ABSURDITY 3. Thomas was a dissident and didn't share the conviction of the disciples travelling to Emaus, who were concerned about Jesus being killed and his ministry aborted or defeated.
Num

Number 3 does not make any sense about anything. Update: Pancho is saying the disciples did not know he is God -- that is what Pancho is saying. However, it was not all disciples that even heard of John 17. Even if they had thought so, they were not expecting Christ's death, which overshadowed everything they hoped for in Christ living among them.

ABSURDITY 4. Thomas was not a dissident and share the conviction of the disciples travelling to Emaus, but these two disciples faked their sadness. They actually knew that Jesus was God so there was nothing to worry about in regard of Jesus being crucified and his mission aborted.

Number 4 assumes that all the disciples were aware of the divinity of Christ. Pancho misses that the gospels' description of the Pharisees' readiness to stone Christ were recognized at by the disciples as a testimony to Jesus being part of the Godhead. Pancho's misreading is not grounds to reject the divinity of Christ.

ABSURDITY 5. Even after Pentecost, Thomas did not share the conviction of Peter. Peter preached Jesus to the Jews as the Servant of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Number 5 sort of misquotes Acts 3:13. Jesus as incarnate came as a servant of God. This is also Jesus' example to the followers. This does not deny the deity of Christ. So we see another of the absurdities of Pancho's absurdly wrong points.

ABSURDITY 6. Peter was a dissident and that's why he preached Jesus as the Servant of the God of Abraham. In contrast, Thomas was doing on the side the right thing: preaching Jesus as God. Why didn't Luke write about it? Perhaps Luke did not know it, or did not agree with Thomas, or did not give any relevance to the doctrine of Jesus deity in the apostle's preaching, as to write it down in the Book of Acts.

Number 6 does not identify why what Peter says has to reflect what Thomas noted. That does nothing to deny Thomas's mention of Jesus as God. Pancho assumes, without scripture support, that the deity of Christ is part of the salvific message. Christ's deity explains how the gospel has substance but does not tell people what to do to be reconciled with God.

ABSURDITY 7. Paul either didn't get the memo from Thomas or chose to be a dissident. That's why, in every single instance in which He mentions the Father and Jesus within the same sentence, and wants to use the term "God" and the term "Lord", Paul assigns the title "God" to the "Father" and the title "Lord" to Jesus. If Paul would have agreed with Thomas, he would had leveraged every opportunity... or at least most of those opportunities, to use "God" and "Lord" to refer to Jesus.

Number 7 again tries to nullify the testimony of Thomas and assume that everyone has to walk around and say Jesus is God. That is an absurdity of absurdities.

ABSURDITY 8. Thomas was really Pagan in his heart of hearts: he believed that a god could take flesh, be touched and eat fish. A god, he thought, could be sent by another god, speak on behalf of another god and raised from dead by another god, let alone sit at the right of another god, and still be god. That's why he easily recognized Jesus as god when he saw it alive.

Number 8 reflects the greatest absurd point shared. It should be obvious to anyone who studies scripture that the Trinitarian doctrine acknowledges God is one. The Trinitarian doctrine formed by recognizing multiple persons in the Godhead without disrupting that oneness. It is surprising that Pancho highlights his own absurdity statement by using red text.

Hopefully it is true that he does not actually represent the beliefs or position of the Baha'i Faith as he notes in his signature:

I'm a Baha'i. The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely my own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Baha'i Faith or

I would hope they would disavow everything shared here.

The divinity of Christ was shared in obscure ways. Even when hearing these things, the disciples would not really make sense of it. It was only after receiving the Holy Spirit did the Apostles remember details and be able to put them in context.

This is the pretty much the same debunking that I shared in this link: Previous debunking of these absurd arguments

 

[Titus]

Let me repeat here 8 absurdities or inconsistencies that derive from thinking that Thomas was calling Jesus God

John 20:28,
Thomas replied, my Lord and my God

He called Jesus God right here. Those are his very words.

Sir, show me another character in the Bible that called another man God?
Men don't refer to other men as God.

It's an absurdity to claim Thomas wasn't referring to Jesus as God when that's exactly what he said.

If Jesus was just a man he would have corrected Thomas.
Jesus never corrected him.

Do you know any man that has no physical Father?
Men are not created that way.

Know any man that was born of a virgin with no Dad?
Its impossible for a man to not have a physical man as his father.

Only way Jesus could be 100% man is for his Dad to be Joseph.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

John 20:28,
Thomas replied, my Lord and my God

He called Jesus God right here. Those are his very words.

I believe Thomas said "Lord" to Jesus and "God" to The Father who had raised Jesus from the dead.
This is consistent with the apostolic message, repeated over and over the Scriptures, that God (The God of Israel, The Father) raised Jesus from dead.

If you want to believe that Thomas called Jesus "God", I respect that belief... but then, I would encourage to reflect and respond to the 8 inconsistencies/absurdities I have listed.

 

[mikesw]

I believe Thomas said "Lord" to Jesus and "God" to The Father who had raised Jesus from the dead.
This is consistent with the apostolic message, repeated over and over the Scriptures, that God (The God of Israel, The Father) raised Jesus from dead.

If you want to believe that Thomas called Jesus "God", I respect that belief... but then, I would encourage to reflect and respond to the 8 inconsistencies/absurdities I have listed.

Pancho has to disbelieve the text to make that division of meaning. The gospel could have just said that or clarified Thomas's meaning. And again Pancho refers again to his debunked absurdities.

 

[Titus]

I believe Thomas said "Lord" to Jesus and "God" to The Father who had raised Jesus from the dead.
This is consistent with the apostolic message, repeated over and over the Scriptures, that God (The God of Israel, The Father) raised Jesus from dead.

If you want to believe that Thomas called Jesus "God", I respect that belief... but then, I would encourage to reflect and respond to the 8 inconsistencies/absurdities I have listed.

Name a man who has no physical Dad that is just a man?
Show in natural biology how this occurs?

Your definition of a 100% man is a person who's Father is God, no physical Dad and a virgin women.
That is an absurd definition of 100% man as I've ever heard.

 

[Peterlag]

Heres one example,
John 20:28,
- Thomas replied, My Lord and my God

You missed it.

“My Lord and my God.” A very likely way to understand John 20:28 is that Thomas had realized the power of God working in Jesus, and in saying “my Lord and my God” he was pointing out that Jesus did reveal God in a unique and powerful way. In seeing the resurrected Jesus, Thomas clearly saw both the Lord Jesus, and the God who raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus always taught that he only did what God guided him to do, and said that if you had seen him you had seen the Father. In that light, there is good evidence that “doubting Thomas” was saying that in seeing Jesus he was also seeing the Father.

We have to remember that Thomas’ statement occurred in a moment of surprise and even perhaps shock. Only eight days earlier, Thomas had vehemently denied Jesus’ resurrection. Thomas could no longer deny that Jesus was alive and that God had raised him from the dead. Thomas, looking at the living Jesus, saw both Jesus and the God who raised him from the dead. When Thomas saw the resurrected Christ, he became immediately convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead. But did he suddenly have a revelation that Jesus was God? That would be totally outside of Thomas’ knowledge and belief. Jesus had never claimed to be God despite Trinitarian claims that he had.

In other places in the Bible where the apostles speak about the resurrection of Jesus, they do not declare “This proves Jesus is God!” Rather, they declare that God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead. The confession of the two disciples walking along the road to Emmaus demonstrated the thoughts of Jesus’ followers at the time. Speaking to the resurrected Christ, whom they mistook as just a traveler, they talked about Jesus. They said Jesus “was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and they crucified him." The disciples thought Jesus was the Messiah, a “Prophet” and the Son of God, but not God Himself.

Are we to believe that somehow Jesus taught the Trinity, something that went against everything the disciples were taught and believed, but there is no mention of Jesus ever teaching it anywhere, and yet the disciples somehow got that teaching? That seems too incredible to believe. There is no evidence from the gospel accounts that Jesus’ disciples believed him to be God, and Thomas upon seeing the resurrected Christ was not birthing a new theology in a moment of surprise.

 

[Titus]

My Lord and my God.” A very likely way to understand John 20:28 is that Thomas had realized the power of God working in Jesus, and in saying “my Lord and my God” he was pointing out that Jesus did reveal God in a unique and powerful way. In seeing the resurrected Jesus,

I don't get convicted by assumptions and speculation.

 

[Titus]

“My Lord and my God.” A very likely way to understand John 20:28 is that Thomas had realized the power of God working in Jesus, and in saying “my Lord and my God” he was pointing out that Jesus did reveal God in a unique and powerful way. In seeing the resurrected Jesus, Thomas clearly saw both the Lord Jesus, and the God who raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus always taught that he only did what God guided him to do, and said that if you had seen him you had seen the Father. In that light, there is good evidence that “doubting Thomas” was saying that in seeing Jesus he was also seeing the Father.

We have to remember that Thomas’ statement occurred in a moment of surprise and even perhaps shock. Only eight days earlier, Thomas had vehemently denied Jesus’ resurrection. Thomas could no longer deny that Jesus was alive and that God had raised him from the dead. Thomas, looking at the living Jesus, saw both Jesus and the God who raised him from the dead. When Thomas saw the resurrected Christ, he became immediately convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead. But did he suddenly have a revelation that Jesus was God? That would be totally outside of Thomas’ knowledge and belief. Jesus had never claimed to be God despite Trinitarian claims that he had.

In other places in the Bible where the apostles speak about the resurrection of Jesus, they do not declare “This proves Jesus is God!” Rather, they declare that God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead. The confession of the two disciples walking along the road to Emmaus demonstrated the thoughts of Jesus’ followers at the time. Speaking to the resurrected Christ, whom they mistook as just a traveler, they talked about Jesus. They said Jesus “was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and they crucified him." The disciples thought Jesus was the Messiah, a “Prophet” and the Son of God, but not God Himself.

Are we to believe that somehow Jesus taught the Trinity, something that went against everything the disciples were taught and believed, but there is no mention of Jesus ever teaching it anywhere, and yet the disciples somehow got that teaching? That seems too incredible to believe. There is no evidence from the gospel accounts that Jesus’ disciples believed him to be God, and Thomas upon seeing the resurrected Christ was not birthing a new theology in a moment of surprise.

Now if you can give a rational explanation for a mere man that has no divinity in him whatsoever, who's Father was God. Then I'll consider you are not taking Scripture out of context.

 

[mikesw]

Now if you can give a rational explanation for a mere man that has no divinity in him whatsoever, who's Father was God. Then I'll consider you are not taking Scripture out of context.

He is pretty much copying and pasting the same ideas without any reflection on the weaknesses and errors pointed out. There is no indication of refinements when his errors are pointed out.

 

[Titus]

He is pretty much copying and pasting the same ideas without any reflection on the weaknesses and errors pointed out. There is no indication of refinements when his errors are pointed out.

Matthew 13:16,
- but blessed are your eyes for they see and your ears for they hear

 

[Peterlag]

Now if you can give a rational explanation for a mere man that has no divinity in him whatsoever, who's Father was God. Then I'll consider you are not taking Scripture out of context.

It's the word "mere" man that I have a problem with. What does the word "mere" have to do with the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the resurrected Lord and Christ to the Christian.