judge

Because the gospels never say that he is god.

avi

John 20: 28

Codex Sinaiticus:
απεκριθη ο θω μαϲ και ειπεν αυ τω ˙ ο κϲ μου και ο θϲ μου

Hort & Westcott:
apekriqh qwmaV kai eipen autw o kurioV mou kai o qeoV mou

Vulgate:
respondit Thomas et dixit ei Dominus meus et Deus meus

Douay Rheims:
Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God.

avi

Jaybees

Please explain. Is this supposed to be a claim that the gospels say: "Jesus is god?"

aa5874

Jesus was God from the very first chapter of gJohn.

DCHindley

Um, yes.

For those who cannot think outside of the KJV box

John 20:25-28 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. 26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

The Greek text has no variants in this key part:

o (the) kurios (lord) mou (of-me) kai (and) o (the) qeos (god) mou (of-me)

This isn't the only place either. Earlier in John, at 1:18, the the earliest and several major manuscripts* have:

Qeon (god) oudeis (no-one) ewraken (has-seen) pwpote (at-any-time) monogenhs (only-begotten) qeos (god) o (the-one) wn (being) eis (in) ton (the) kolpon (bosom) tou (of-the) patros (father) ekeinos (that-one) exhghsato (explained)

If translated exactly as above, the KJV would have:

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

DCH

*p75 (ca. 200 ce, maybe 2nd or early 3rd century); Sinaiticus-original hand before "corrected" to "Son" (4th century); Vaticanus (4th century); Ephraemi Rescriptus-original hand before "corrected" to "Son" (5th century).

On the other hand, I think most all translations follow the majority Byzantine text (which is exemplified here by Alexandrinus, 5th century) and have instead "only-begotten son" instead of "only-begotten god". Other variants are "only-begotten son of god" and "the only-begotten (one)".

avi

Thank you, very much, DCH, for an EXCELLENT response.

A small point, with regard to P75, so that everyone understands, this papyrus document, ostensibly from the late second or early third century, by handwriting analysis, contains only about 70% of the original text of Luke and John. Unfortunately, the salient portions of John 28 are missing.....P75 does however, contain the passage cited by DCH from John 1: 18.

Gosh, I never realized, until today, that JC is asking a human, Thomas, to touch a ghost, and feel flesh, so, the guy who returned to life after resurrection was apparently STILL HUMAN, i.e. not yet a spirit, since ghosts and spirits don't have flesh......

So, the demand for faith, here, is a request to respect the delusion that phantoms and spirits can not only adopt human form, (not unlike a contemporary holographic image,) but acquire (and preserve--didn't JC meet Thomas 8 days after the resurrection?) human flesh, as well....This passage provides an interesting juxtaposition with Paul's ideas of Kata Sarka (= ~~ Soma) versus Kata Pneuma, doesn't it....?

1 Thessalonians 5:23 Hort and Westcott:
avi

andrewcriddle

More reliable sources mention Apollonius eg Cassius_Dio/67 Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Your response is so outrageous that I am lost for words.

Did you read what you posted?

Even the very author alerts his audience of credibility issues.

Well, I doubt it 9,999 times over.

Toto

:facepalm:

aa5874 has never come clean on his language or cultural background, but this is definite proof that there is a communication problem here.

"This is what actually happened, though one should doubt it ten thousand times over" means that you can doubt it all you want, but it is still true. It is not an invitation to doubt anything.

aa5874

One should doubt you ten thousand times over.

Unless you can PROVE that it actually happened I will INCREASE my doubt as recommended.

I have now upgraded my doubt to ten thousand times and over.

Once you EXAMINE the passage it is CLEAR that the author did NOT even know where the event occurred.

Have a look.

I doubt you KNOW where Apollonius of Tanya really was and the time he was at the possible UNKNOWN location or if Apollonius of Tanya was ever on earth.

Was Apollonius on a lofty rock in Ephesus or somewhere else? And please give the exact location and time.

I doubt ten thousand times over that you can answer my question.