Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Bible study
Jim

Thomas the believer.

A week later, His disciples were in the house again, and Thomas waswith them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them, and said "Peace be with you." Then He said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands.Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting, and believe."
Thomas said to Him "My Lord, and my God!"
Then Jesus told him,"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed."
(John 20: 26-29, NIV )

  "My Lord, and my God".
We see this as a beautiful affirmation, a recognition of who Jesus was, and is, in Thomas' eyes. A confirmation of the God Incarnate which He made no effort to deny.
We see it, also, as a confirmatory text demonstrating the bodily resurrection of Christ, and the realisation that by His resurrection, all His teachings are confirmed.
Is there still room for doubt in our faith?
Lexilogio

I was thinking about this passage the other day too.

My main thought was how blessed Thomas had Neenah to have that opportunity for confirmation.
Jim

Yes.
One of the things about the episode which really helped me when I first became a believer - and it still does, for that matter, is that Jesus never condemned Thomas for doubting, despite the evidence both from Christ's teaching, and amazed confirmation of the disciples. He simply gave Thomas the opportunity to deal with his doubts. I know He's done the same with me over the years, and used some of the questions I've raised to lead me into a deeper knowledge of Him.
Some evangelicals say that doubt, or indeed questioning the Gospel, is wrong. I totally disagree; I think it is a healthy way to secure our relationship with Christ, just as it was for Thomas.
bnabernard

I figure it's more a case of challenging what people believe the gospels to say for instance what is Thomas recognising that he would not have recognised from this instance.

Matthew 3:16, 17
Look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw descending like a dove God’s spirit coming upon him. Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said:

This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.

Here is an event that would give thomas freedoom from doubt, but doubt as to the person of the son of God being active and among them without having seen him is another question, and the statement made by the son regarding those who do not benefit from the actual experience of witnessing the son of God alive and active is seeming to the occassion.

The doubt of Thomas would not be as to whether Yashuah was the son of God, that would already have been confirmed, but as to whether he had risen from the tomb, this he could doubt.

Bear in mind that the son was barely recognisable after his ordeal, so reports without actual proof demands a heck of a lot of faith, just as it is needed today for those who cannot see and touch the wounds, gaunt and drained the son would have been a shadow of himself as he returned to health.

bernard (hug)
Jim

Bna;
Thomas didn't say
"My Lord and the Son of God" - He said
"My Lord and my God!"
Jesus did not correct him, so thomas had the right of it.
bnabernard

Jim

What Thomas said was a recognition of Yashuah as his lord and the presence of God through him, my Lord of me and my God of me.
He simply  reafirmed what he had come to doubt because he had not himself seen the risen son untill that time, his doubt that the son had risen was put to rest in his seeing and examining the wounds.
He unlike yourself had to be confirmed, you might be told of a step in front of you and step up when told, or in being told step up you might feel for the step. Trust in others or trust in what you now know for certain.

As I said in the post Thomas had knowledge of the dove and the words of God, had he been present or had he up till now had a doubt in what he  had been told? If he had been present then he would have had his own knowledge and trusted what he saw, but being suspect given the circumstances of Yashuah being given over by Judas, his trust in others is challenged.

The Jew had the inner sanctum God with us, they had gods in therir priests God with us, they had failure on behalf of their priests and their own demands, God not with us.

Many Jews named their children with the name, Yashuah, God with us, they looked to prophecy and hoped while at the same time acknowledging the comming of a messenger. Having the name did not then qualify a person but having God with them 'did'.

Bernard (hug)
bnabernard

Matthew 3:16, 17
Look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw descending like a dove God’s spirit coming upon him. Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said:

This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.
................

My lord of me and my God of me.

when you hold both testimonies together side by side, Gods spirit coming upon him and a voice saying this is My son then there can be no argument, and where there is one I remind people of how Moses performed, how the people felt God was no longer with them in his absence, and how Moses struck the rock when he had been told to speak to it, in the later instance the spirit of God had to be with Moses else striking the rock was more likely to have broke the stick rather than produce water.

bernard (hug)
Jim

My Lord and the god of me?
Not in my Koine  studies - or theinterlinear, it doesn't.
bnabernard

Whatever your inter or outers say Jim you cannot escape the truth of the matter and that is that God was 'with' the son, not become the son.

bernard (hug)
cyberman

bnabernard wrote:
Whatever your inter or outers say


"Whatever"?! Bernard, this seems to read as though you are simply saying "don't confuse me with the facts - my mind's made up"!

What is your rationale for dismissing the actual words of what you believe to be an inerrant account with a flippant "Whatever"?
Ketty

In Thomas we have a wonderful example of how GOD understands that we are human and will sometimes have doubts, but it's also a lesson in how our humility and openness to the light, brings gladness to the LORD when we finally 'get it' and see Him as our Lord and our God.

cyberman

What I always wonder when it comes ot Thomas is 'where was he?'. When Jesus appeared the first time, he wasn't there. Now, they were all in hiding, in fear of their lives, so I don't imagine he nipped out to feed the ducks. It must have been something important. While the rest were hiding away he was out and about - maybe teaching, maybe helping, maybe just getting bread to feed the 'church' while they hid. In any case, he had the guts to be out doing stuff, presumably important stuff, while they didn't.
cole209

Re: Thomas the believer.

Jim,

re: “Is there still room for doubt in our faith?”


No.  You can’t doubt the truth about something AND at the same time have faith/belief in that same something.
Jim

Re: Thomas the believer.

OK;
I don't doubt the substantive issues of our faith. But if you substitute 'question' for doubt, then, yes, I have questions.

And I thank God for those questions, because, in dealing with the issue, I have grown in faith and understanding. I firmly believe these doubts/questions are markers, bouys, signposts - use whatever metaphor you want, but they are opportunities to explore the dusty corners or darkened areas of our relationship with God and see that, far from being scary places, they become just another part of growing up to be a child of God.
bnabernard

cyberman wrote:
What I always wonder when it comes ot Thomas is 'where was he?'. When Jesus appeared the first time, he wasn't there. Now, they were all in hiding, in fear of their lives, so I don't imagine he nipped out to feed the ducks. It must have been something important. While the rest were hiding away he was out and about - maybe teaching, maybe helping, maybe just getting bread to feed the 'church' while they hid. In any case, he had the guts to be out doing stuff, presumably important stuff, while they didn't.


Or perhaps he was looking for another Job?

bernard (hug)
Honey 56

bnabernard wrote:



Many Jews named their children with the name, Yashuah, God with us, they looked to prophecy and hoped while at the same time acknowledging the comming of a messenger. Having the name did not then qualify a person but having God with them 'did'.

Bernard (hug)


The difference being of course, that Mary was the only mother who was instructed by YHWH to name her son Yeshua, because he would save His peoplefrom their sins, He was YHWH's only begotten son, he was unique. He was also the only one who was prophesied as The Mighty God, The everlasing Father The  Prince of Peace and  The Wonderful Councellor. Isaiah 9. (there is the Godhead, right there in scripture!)
Yeshua means YHWH saves, Immanuel means God with us.

Honey  
Jim

I have never yet found a convincing argument refuting Thomas' declaration.
I have read various articles trying to twist and turn the statement, citing O.T texts by the bucketload.
But Thomas wasn't theologising. He hadn't time for a concise lesson in hermeneutics. He was simply stating what was in his heart and mind.
The fact that Jesus never refutted Thomas is, of course, equally telling. Had Thomas been wrong in his assumption, Jesus would have corrected him, as He had the other disciples in numerous occasions in all four gospels.
That Jesus let Thomas go shows that He knew Himself to be exactly who Thomas said.
"Lord and God."
Honey 56

A prime example  of this Jim is what the WTBTS teach it's followers, that what Thomas said was merely an exclamation of surprise, "My Lord and My God !".
Which only goes to show that they have no idea of the Hebrew mindset, the believers would never have used the name of YHWH like that, they were so determined not to misuse His name that they never pronounced it, even today the devout Hebrew believers prefer to write it this way 'G-D' or they say 'The Name' or Lord (and as we know from the scriptures there is only one Lord)

At Exodus chapter 20:7 YHWH instructs the Israelites as follows....

"You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God (YHWH), for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses His name".


They were so determined not to break this command that the only people who were permitted to pronounce or write the tetragram were the high priests and then only in certain very special circumstances.

Messiah Yeshua taught us to call YHWH our Father, not by His personal name.

Messiah Yeshua was brought up in this faith, in fact according to the scriptures, He was the 'author and perfector' of it,  and so as you so rightly pointed out, He would neither have condoned the use of this terminology concerning Himself, nor would He have accepted Thomas' worship if He were not entitled to, because the commandments forbid it.(Exodus. 20:1-7)

So the WTBTS's argument does not hold up under proper scrutiny, which only goes to show the importance of us being as the Bereans were, who were commended because they searched the scriptures thoroughly to ascertain whether what they were taught was the truth. (The JW's  are positively discouraged from this by the WTBTS, however)

So the real question is, was The Messiah Yeshua who He indicated He was in both word and deed, or was He a dishonest charlatan.

I know what I believe, because Yeshua 'is the truth, the light and the life' and no sin was ever found in Him.

Amen?

Honey
Jim

Yes!
Sometimes we're guilty of over-emphasis, citing chapter and verse to verify our claims.
Thomas didn't have that luxury. He didn't have the Torah or Tanakht before him to quote chapter and vers.
All  he had was a heart full of sheer wonder, love and praise - and he opened it, letting his mouth do the worship!
That Jesus DIDN'T immediately rebuke, correct, theologise or in any way divert thomas from his act of love shows that Jesus was either a lying fraud - or YHWH, God Incarnate.
There can be no middle road in this instance.
No wriggle room is possible.
bnabernard

 
(two icons of me splitting me sides laughing)

Do carry on there's no good comedies on telly

bernard (hug)
Honey 56

bnabernard wrote:
 
(two icons of me splitting me sides laughing)

Do carry on there's no good comedies on telly

bernard (hug)


Please don't keep the joke to yourself, why not share what it is that you find so humerous?

Honey
Farmer Geddon

Sorry. But as soon as you lot mention the Gospel According to John I lose interest.

If ever there was a Gospel written by someone who misunderstood what 'Jesus' was teaching, it was from these guys..

It should be removed from the stories in the NT, just because it is so misleading...
Honey 56

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Sorry. But as soon as you lot mention the Gospel According to John I lose interest.

If ever there was a Gospel written by someone who misunderstood what 'Jesus' was teaching, it was from these guys..

It should be removed from the stories in the NT, just because it is so misleading...


Don't apologise Farmer, you are entlitled to your opinion.

However, as a believer I am assured that all of the scriptures are God breathed and useful for teaching etc., I also believe that God Almighty is capable of protecting His word to us.

What about John 1, 2 nd 3 and Revelation, should all of these be removed also, do you think?

Also if the bible is read and studied in it's entirety, as it exists today, there are no loose ends, it is all tied up and connected, one parts bears out another perfectly.
Just  IM humble O.

Honey

P.S. I am really interested on  your understanding of what Messiah Yeshua was actually teaching? (if it isn't what John understood it to be)
Honey 56

Jim wrote:
My Lord and the god of me?
Not in my Koine  studies - or theinterlinear, it doesn't.


Hi Jim,
I've just noticed this post!

That is a NWT version of the scripture if I ever saw one.

The Greek says "The Lord of I and the God of I"
Most translations correctly write it as My Lord and God.
Only the WTBTS could split hairs and try to mislead in this way!  

Honey
Farmer Geddon

Actually you are correct.

Christianity is based on the writings of "john".

All the other "gospels" should be removed.. as lies.
bnabernard




ooooo stopit I'm doing my best to take them seriously  

bernard (hug)
Farmer Geddon

Indoctrination -  another Logos they don't understand!!
bnabernard

They won't be happy till they can get a log    in me eye
Honey 56

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Actually you are correct.

Christianity is based on the writings of "john".

All the other "gospels" should be removed.. as lies.


So put another way Farmer, how does the teaching at John differ from the teaching in the rest of the gospels and what exactly was Messiah Yeshua's teaching?
In your opinion?


honey
bnabernard

Want a bit of John Honey, heres a bit and gives you a begoten son from a consort to God.
Take a couple of aspirin in advance.

Roll out the dizzy heads  
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn.html

bernard (hug)
Jim

Good grief, Bernie!
You don't seriously expect us to get into the Gnostic writings, do you?
After all. they post date even the latest scriptural document (probly Revelation ) by over a century and a half!
bnabernard

Jim wrote:
Good grief, Bernie!
You don't seriously expect us to get into the Gnostic writings, do you?
After all. they post date even the latest scriptural document (probly Revelation ) by over a century and a half!


Go on get your boots wet Jim, you listen to new light anough don't you, lets face it you are hardly a member of the original thinking mob that conjoured up the tripe about a triune God.

Anyhow it's easier for you than the rest of us you got a screen reader,
though I suggest you have a medic on standby for your reader as well as aspirin for yourself. (laugh)

bernard (hug)
Jim

New Light?
I'm not going into the murky depths of Scots Presbyterianism here, Bernie - "Auld Lichts" and "New Lichts" are past tense.
So, for any serious Christian, is Gnosticism.
bnabernard

Jim wrote:
New Light?
I'm not going into the murky depths of Scots Presbyterianism here, Bernie - "Auld Lichts" and "New Lichts" are past tense.
So, for any serious Christian, is Gnosticism.


Cor blimey Jim, just as well they never thought that back in the day else they would have told the likes of Abraham, melechizedeck, Moses, ect to poke their Godly knowledge and aquaintence, mind you thats probably the thinking that stoped so many from getting on board the ark (laugh)

Yes I do agree Jim realy but as for gnosis it is a greek concept and you know what I say about that innit. (laugh)

bernard (hug)

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Bible study
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum