[Written a number of years ago, but somewhat edited now]
Maybe Jesus did not correct Thomas in John 20:28ff because the apostle did not render "worship" to him, but rather just acknowledged him as God's Shaliach (in so many words). While it is possible that John used a nominative Ὁ Κύριός and ὁ Θεός for the vocative forms κύριε and θεέ, Max Zerwick observes that the construction Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου is "nom. w. art. for voc. sec. 34; if not rather an exclamation" (A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament)
While I have traditionally tended to view Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου as an example of one NT writer employing nominatives for vocatives, I now think that there is good evidence for possibly understanding this construction as a nominative of exclamation. Firstly, out of the approximately 88 times that Jesus is addressed as "Lord" in Scripture, the vocative form κύριε is utilized. Never is Κύριός used when Jesus is addressed--Jn 20:28 would be the only exception. Moreover, the papyrological evidence also tends to favor the nominative of exclamation idea. Κύριός (as a nominative of address) is not used in the papyri, as far as I know, when one person is addressing another. Even if Thomas called Jesus "my God and Lord" though, the text still does not present a genuine problem for Jehovah's Witnesses in view of how ELOHIM/QEOS is used elsewhere in Scripture and extra-biblical writings.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Sean,
ReplyDeleteHolding and I have butted heads through the years, but he can be a nice guy too. But what he and other Trinitarians will say is that the word "God" refers to the divine substance which each person instantiates or to which each person bears an indentity relationship. They might illustrate how each person can be divine, but yet be a distinct person, by appealing to Peter, James, and John (all humans, but three distinct persons). The analogy has its own problems, but a Trinitarian might claim that all analogies are limited.
What Trinitarians mean when they deny that Jesus is God--usually--is that he's not the divine substance or he's not the Father, or he's not the whole of the godhead, but he's still fully divine (almighty, omniscience, omnipresent, etc).
If Holding is making the claims you mention above, then I would indeed be confused by his disagreement with Arius. Maybe he'll clarify what he means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/my+god
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom wehat I remember, Trinitarians normally try to avoid the problem you mention regarding the divine essence by arguing that the persons are "virtually" identical to the divine essence, not identical in the absolute sense. This problem was heavily discussed in the Middle Ages. It was concluded (as Augustine had previously written) that each divine person is not identical with another divine person in the godhead, but there does remain a point of identity with the godhead itself (in terms of divine attributes).
ReplyDeleteYes, I do believe that Jehovah is more divine than the angels; and most theologians and believers that I know (beloning to almost any church) would agree. So I'm not sure what Holding is suggesting.
I like Matt and James, but I don't want to enter a fray with either gentleman at present. But I must say that Matt's answer doesn't seem to be an attempt to show the plausibility of the Trinity, but it looks like he's trying to demonstrate why the doctrine is not unreasonable--because it eludes human comprehension. So Calvin spoke concerning double predestination: it's a mystery. I don't see an answer there as to how three persons can be one God.
Best!
ReplyDelete"And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in me, does not believe in me but in Him who sent me. He who sees me sees Him who sent me" - John 12:44-45
A couple of videos for you on this topic...
John 20:28 & The Blind Guides
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP5NuVAaOWM
John 20:28 & The Failure of Trinitarian Academia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-B7U0kIy8Q
.
It's the either/or perspective I have a problem with. The overall context is set by John 6:46 & 14:9. It is Thomas & his understanding - light dawns. John 20:24, 25 14:9-11.
ReplyDeleteYes Jesus is the agent but isn't the dawning of Thomas aimed at the agent's lesson & understanding the works.