How do Jehovah's Witnesses respond to John 20:28 where Thomas reacts to the risen Christ?

Jehovah's Witnesses do not dispute that Jesus is "a god". He is not Almighty God. He is not Jehovah, the Father.

The word used at John 20:28 is "theos". Strong's concordance says of the word "theos" that it means: "of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity"

That "with G3588" is the "definite article" thing again. "Ho" is the word in Greek that means "THE God" not "a god" That word is missing in this instance.

Thomas wasn't calling Jesus "God Almighty" or Jehovah or The Father, he was acknowledging that Jesus was a powerful son of God.

Some of the ways the Bible uses this word "theos" is explained in Strong's concordance when he says: "1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities"

Or "4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way

a) God's representative or viceregent

1) of magistrates and judges"

Yes there are other definitions in Strong's that indicate the word can refer to the "supreme diety" or "ho theos" Jehovah God but in this instance that isn't what Thomas was saying. Jesus always pointed to HIS Father as "my God and your God". John 20:17 (in the very same chapter of the Bible as the scripture you quoted).

The Bible is not in error. The error is in the minds of those who speak English. We think of God as only well God, the creator, the one who made heaven and earth. The Greek word for god is not so specific unless the word "the" is in front of it. Then you know it refers only to Almighty God.

So if this word "theos" according to definition number 4 can be used with reference to "magistrates and judges", couldn't it be that Thomas was saying "my Lord and my judge"? in essense? Someone appointed as God's representative (as in definition 4a?).

The thing of it is, the Bible must be consistent throughout. Either Jesus IS God or he is not. Since he claims to have a God, is it logical that he is also that same God?

For purposes of clarification, those who do not believe that Jesus is God Almighty do not deny the divinity of Christ. Possessing divinity (as all divine beings do – including angels and demons) is not synonymous with being God Almighty.

Having said that, were I to suppose, for the purpose of this discussion, that the account concerning Thomas is testimony in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, how am I to reconcile this with the very forthright testimony of such scriptures as John 17:3 and John 20:17? In both of these scriptures, Jesus himself pointedly makes reference to a person entirely different from himself as God Almighty. In the first instance, Jesus prays to Him; in the second instance, after his resurrection, being in the same nature as when he appeared to Thomas, Jesus tells Mary that he is going to ascend to Mary's God and his own God.

I shall leave the response of Jehovah's Witnesses to John 20:28 in the capable hands of others inasmuch as an explanation has been given in exhaustive detail dozens of times. Whatever the meaning of John 20:28, it cannot be construed as contradicting other scriptures that deal with the nature of Jesus our Lord. Even Jesus himself said, at John 10:35: in the New Revised Standard that: " scripture cannot be annulled." Using John 20:28 to support belief that Jesus is Jehovah God Almighty, irrespective of other scriptures that deal with the same subject, is 'annulling' those other scriptures.

Hannah J Paul

Trinitarians 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 pre-human 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.

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.

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 the Son of God.” 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 is true that this verse suggest that Jesus is a god... or divine as other translation translate it. But it does not suggests that Jesus is the only true God or that he is co-equal with the Almighty God.

Taking your Logic a step further Norman " IF" Thomas called Jesus "God", and Just a few Verses earlier where Jesus tells Mary at (John 20:17) Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and Your Father and to my God and Your God.

Then we have 2 Gods. One Human since it is believed that Christ took back his own body - and the other " God" would be Spiritual.So Jesus would be "God", and at the Same time saying he has a God- who in this scripture would be his Father.Plus the Holy Spirit is Never Mentioned in this passage of scripture.It is no wonder then that the Trinity doctrine is one of the most divisive pieces of Religious confusion ever perpetrated on Mankind.

Your Logic is Flawed.

Another point to remember, is that there is nor 'proof' that the expression (God of me) actually applies to Jesus.

The bible has many examples where Jesus as Lord, and his God are both talked about in the same sentence.

Eph 1:2Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

Rom 15:6so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Rev 1:2who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 5and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood-

6and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father--

Final the context of John Chapter 20, and the entire gospel of John is to prove that Jesus is the Son of God, and not "God the Son"

Jesus uses the expression "God of me" prior to his death, after his death, but prior to being glorified in heaven, and after being glorified in heaven.

.

Questions From Readers

● Trinitarians point to John 20:28 as proof that Jesus is God. There Thomas said (NW): “My Master and my God!” How can this argument be answered?—F. W., Philippine Republic.

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 A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, on page 461: “The article with the vocative in address was the usual Hebrew and Aramaic idiom, as indeed in Aristophanes we have ho pais akoloúthei. It is good Greek and good Aramaic too when we have Abbá ho patér (Mark 14:36) whether Jesus said one or both. In Matthew 11:26 (nai, ho patér) 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, ourané kai hoi hágioi. Indeed the second member of the address is always in the nominative form. Thus Kýrie, ho Theós, ho pantokrátor (Rev. 15:3). Compare John 20:28.” Page 462: “When Thomas said Ho kýrios mou kai ho theós mou (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 ho kýrios mou kai ho theós, 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 kýrie ho theós is the LXX way of addressing God, not ho kýrios kai ho theós. 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 phonéite me ho didáskalos kai ho kýrios, and Rev. 4:11 áxios ei, ho kýrios kai ho theós hemón, 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?

I think they explain it as either that he's exclaiming or that the 'my God' part was deliberately added later by Trinitarians to use it as proof for Jesus being God.

i agree. but don't worry watchtower will twist it some way .