Does the Christian Bible ever portray the disciples worshipping Jesus?

[Grace Seeker]

I don't see in the passage anything suggested Thomas doubted Jesus as being God and suddenly he discovered it !....

I have never said that Thomas doubted that Jesus was God. If you've thought I've said that, then you're reading into me statements. (He may have doubted, he may have not doubted -- I haven't said either way.) Most likely, if you want my opinion, he had never thought about it at all, just like you've never considered the possibility that my real name might be Jesse Jackson or Billy Graham. For all you know about me either of those might be true, but you've never once considered it, in fact you've thought so little about it you've never doubted that I wasn't them either.

What I have said that Thomas doubted was the other disciples' statements that Jesus was alive.

What is the reason Thomas was thinking that Jesus was Yahweh, the only Most High of the universe, standing there before him?

We are not told. We are only told the reason that he believed Jesus was alive -- namely that he saw him with his own eyes.

Our discussion will not go any further ,before providing me a textual explanation ,why in the context of the passage, Thomas uttered (my lord and My God)....in the sense of discovering that Jesus was Yahweh, the only Most High of the universe, standing there before him....???

Then I guess our discussion is at an end. The passage doesn't tell us why Thomas uttered "my Lord and my God". It only tells us that indeed Thomas addressed Jesus thusly. And the context of the passage bears out that his usage was not merely some sort of exclamatory comment of excitement nor a titular use of the words, but that he was acknowledging Jesus as being both his Lord and his God. John's comments immeidiately following that pericope make it clear that he is using Thomas' comments as substantive declarations backing up his own claims regarding Jesus.

If you find that unsatisfactory, and you still want to get inside Thomas' head, then you are going to have to use a process that brings in other information from other pericopes such as what Keltoi has done above.

 

[Imam]

I honestly appreciate your honest modification of your thoughts regarding the passage under discussion

from


The passage does tell us why Thomas uttered "my Lord and my God"

He would need to see with his own eyes. And then he did. And when he did, he realized that this man whom he had come to know as God's anointed was more than just anointed by God, but was in fact God among them. That is why Jesus praised him for his belief. .

To

The passage doesn't tell us why Thomas uttered "my Lord and my God"

The passage doesn't tell us why Thomas uttered "my Lord and my God". ,What I have said that Thomas doubted was the other disciples' statements that Jesus was alive We are only told the reason that he believed Jesus was alive -- namely that he saw him with his own eyes..

Truly and honestly I appreciate your modification, me being honest and objective in study,If I were you ,I would really do the same..

though I disagree with you in the following:

the context of the passage bears out that his usage was not merely some sort of exclamatory comment of excitement nor a titular use of the words

If we agree that the context of the passage affirms that Thomas doubted the other disciples' statements that Jesus was alive.and after he saw him with his own eyes,he believed he was alive.on the other hand Jesus did absolutely nothing special to provoke Thomas to call him God,as you said,The passage doesn't tell us why Thomas uttered "my Lord and my God",moreover Jesus doesn't say anything about Thomas' statement ,He just emphasizes Thomas' belief that Jesus was really alive , which he doubted......

in light of all that It is wise to arrive to the conclusion:

the phrase "my Lord and my God" is not only at odd with the context but also
claiming that Jesus is Lord and God is a violation of scripture, which asserts that there is One God, the Father and One Lord, Jesus.

"...yet for us there is but one God, the Father...and one Lord, Jesus Christ ...(I Corinthians 8:6)

Glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. -- Romans 15:6.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. -- 2 Corinthians 1:3; Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3.


Ehrman in (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture) highlighted the problem :

Another passage that can be taken to suggest that Christ is "God" himself (i.e., ho theos, with the article) occurs near the end of the Fourth Gospel, and here again one should not be surprised to find scribes modifying the text. Upon seeing the resurrected Jesus, Thomas exclaims, "My Lord and my God" (ho theos mou). The passage has caused interpreters problems over the years; Theodore of Mopsuestia argued that the words were not addressed directly to Jesus but were uttered in praise of God the Father. Modern commentators have also found the phrasing problematic, because unlike the statement of 1:1, where the Word is theos (without the article), here Jesus is expressly entitled ho theos. How can one avoid drawing from this designation the conclusion that he is the one and only "God"? Several scribes of the early church adroitly handled the matter in what can be construed as an anti-Patripassianist corruption: the predecessor of codex Bezae and other Gospel manuscripts simply omitted the article. Jesus is divine, but he is not the one "God" himself. (Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament [Oxford University Press, USA; paperback edition, 1993], p. 266)

John's comments immeidiately following that pericope make it clear that he is using Thomas' comments as substantive declarations backing up his own claims regarding Jesus.

Have you read John's comments !?

29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.


by using the term; the Christ, the Son of God ,John could have backed up his own claims regarding Jesus from anywhere else but Thomas' phrase "my Lord and my God" !!!!

In sum and substance the text may only make sense if it is like that:

John20:26
week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then 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." 28Thomas said to him, "My Lord!"
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."


Accepting it any other ways, would bless you with a passage has more holes in it than a backdoor screen.....

arguing with altered scriptures is futile

The altered ,forged scripture ,eg John 20:28, is easy target ,and doesn't resist the objective study......

 

[جوري]

Does the Christian Bible ever portray the disciples worshipping Jesus?

No, It doesn't

The one they worshipped ,is the same one whom Jesus prayed to :

Luk 11:1 Now Jesus was praying in a
certain place, and when he finished, one of
his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to
pray, as John taught his disciples.”
Jesus’ answered
Mat 6:9 Pray then like this: "Our Father
in heaven, hallowed be your name.
:10 Your kingdom come, your will
be done, on earth as it is in heaven




In
John 20:28
was Thomas thinking that Jesus was Yahweh, the only Most High of the universe, standing there before him,and why?

before any further discussion with you,I need short, direct answer with textual proof....

you should read the texts that follow where Jesus PBUH says 'get thee behind my satan' after Thomas parted with those words 'my lord'.. which any scribe could have re-arranged

 

[Grace Seeker]

you should read the texts that follow where Jesus PBUH says 'get thee behind my satan' after Thomas parted with those words 'my lord'.. which any scribe could have re-arranged

M, you need to take a look at the text again. Jesus makes no such comment following Thomas' declaration. I think you are confusing things from different parts of the Bible with each other.

 

[جوري]

I didn't say it was right after it, I said in the following passages which any scribe could have rearranged to fit desired meaning!

all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

I didn't say it was right after it, I said in the following passages which any scribe could have rearranged to fit desired meaning!

all the best

You said:

you Jesus PBUH says 'get thee behind my satan' after Thomas parted with those words 'my lord'..

Now here is everything that comes after Thomas words "my Lord":

John 20

28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.


John 21

1Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Tiberias. It happened this way: 2Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. 3"I'm going out to fish," Simon Peter told them, and they said, "We'll go with you." So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.
4Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.

5He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?"
"No," they answered.

6He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.

7Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, "It is the Lord," he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. 8The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards. 9When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread.

10Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have just caught."

11Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. 12Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." None of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord. 13Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 14This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?"
He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."

17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. 18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"

20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"

22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

I suggested to you that you look at the text again. It is obvious that you didn't. The line you refer to is not to be found any place after Thomas' statement. It isn't even directed to Thomas. It is directed to Peter and occurs much earlier in the story of Jesus' life. It also is not recorded in the book of John at all, which is where Thomas calls Jesus "my Lord."

M, you often ask good questions. But you also throw around unfounded accusations and claim things are in scripture that are not as you say they are. This is just another of those many cases. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you were merely confusing things from one part of the Bible with another. A simple search you could have done for the phrase you claimed followed Thomas' comment in John, "get thee behind my (sic) satan" on www.biblegateway.com would have turned up Matthew 16:23 and Mark 8:33 and enabled you to correct yourself. But you continue to hold unwaveringly to a false belief.

 

[جوري]

Matthew 16:13-19 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they said, “Some [say] John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” He said unto them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered and said unto him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but my Father who is in heaven.”And I also say unto you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
However, immediately after this Peter is strongly reprimanded and called Satan.
Matthew 16:20-23 Then he charged the disciples that they should tell no man that he was the Christ. From that time Jesus began to show unto his disciples, that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, be killed, and the third day be raised up. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, “Be it far from you, Lord: this shall never be unto you.” But he turned, and said unto Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan: you art a stumbling-block unto me: for you have in mind not the things of God, but the things of men.”

that the incident is reported differently in Mark:
Mark 8:29 And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and said unto him, “You are the Christ.”
And in Luke:
Luke 9:20 And he said unto them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answering said, “The Christ of God.”
Note that Jesus’ question is exactly the same, but Peter’s response is different in all three passages.


easy to re-arrange passages? I think so!
enough said?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Yep. I told you where it was. And it isn't where you said it was or involving who you said it involved in your post above.

In other words you reported mistaken information.

But to suggest a scribe re-arranged information from one book (the Gospel of John) to another (one of the synoptics)? The Gospel of John wasn't written yet when those gospels were completed. Remember?

 

[جوري]

Sure, that is exactly what I am suggesting given the that the incident is reported differently in Mark:
Mark 8:29 And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and said unto him, “You are the Christ.”
And in Luke:
Luke 9:20 And he said unto them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answering said, “The Christ of God.”
Note that Jesus’ question is exactly the same, but Peter’s response is different in all three passages.

Thus I'll leave it for others to make up their mind.. as to correct content and sequence!

all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

Sure, that is exactly what I am suggesting given the that the incident is reported differently in Mark:
Mark 8:29 And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and said unto him, “You are the Christ.”
And in Luke:
Luke 9:20 And he said unto them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answering said, “The Christ of God.”
Note that Jesus’ question is exactly the same, but Peter’s response is different in all three passages.

Thus I'll leave it for others to make up their mind.. as to correct content and sequence!

all the best

Agreed, I'll leave it for others to make up their mind to what was the correct content and sequence of events in any of the Gospels. And I will once again point out that what you are talking about now is NOT the same thing that you were saying when you posted:

you should read the texts that follow where Jesus PBUH says 'get thee behind my satan' after Thomas parted with those words 'my lord'.. which any scribe could have re-arranged

But I'll leave it for others to make up their mind as to whether that is from confusion, ignorance, carelessness, or what?

 

[جوري]

given that we had this discussion before and that I have clarified meaning on multiple posts here including the lack of consensus on your bibles at what actually took place in the form of dialogue, and my above thank you for quoting 'texts that follow' you don't get to put your desired meaning to my thoughts, anymore than you get to put your desired interpretation for the passages. Else anyone an interpret as they desire using Luke or Mark..

all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

Else anyone an interpret as they desire using Luke or Mark..

all the best

I'm sorry, I don't understand the meaning of your final sentence. Could you please explain, or state again using other words?

 

[جوري]

refer to my post with biblical quotes.. it isn't brain surgery!

all the best!

 

[جوري]

Agreed, I'll leave it for others to make up their mind to what was the correct content and sequence of events in any of the Gospels. And I will once again point out that what you are talking about now is NOT the same thing that you were saying when you posted:

actually it is a last ditch act of desperation on your part, my intended meaning is clear to all and cemented with quotes, just judging from the feedback I have received from members!
There is no need to get belligerent just because Christianity seems in a tizzy with every post that poses some Q on logic!

all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

refer to my post with biblical quotes.. it isn't brain surgery!

all the best!

"Else anyone an interpret as they desire using Luke or Mark.." isn't an intelligible sentence either. If you don't care to clarify we can just move on.

actually it is a last ditch act of desperation on your part, my intended meaning is clear to all and cemented with quotes, just judging from the feedback I have received from members!
There is no need to get belligerent just because Christianity seems in a tizzy with every post that poses some Q on logic!

all the best

You say you that your intended meaning is clear and imply that you have posted with a degree of logic. They escape me. I have yet to see the connection you are trying to draw between the comment that Thomas makes to Jesus in John 20:28 "My Lord, and my God." and the " "get thee behind me satan" comment that Jesus makes to Peter (recorded in parallel passages in the synoptics: Matthew 16:23 and Mark 8:33).

You assert that scribes could change things. Yeah, they could. But asserting that they could does not mean that they did.

You offer no evidence to support a conclusion either that they did in the case of the comment made by Thomas (the most plain assertion of your original post on the subject -- "Jesus PBUH says 'get thee behind my satan' after Thomas parted with those words 'my lord'.."), or that there could be any connection between Johanine passage and the passage in the synoptics.

Where is the logic in any of that?

 

[جوري]

"Else anyone an interpret as they desire using Luke or Mark.." isn't an intelligible sentence either. If you don't care to clarify we can just move on.

Just add a C to an it becomes CAN denotes anyone can interpret on the meaning of Jesus' alleged godhood using Luke or Mark where the passages read differently.. is that clear enough for you to understand?

You say you that your intended meaning is clear and imply that you have posted with a degree of logic. They escape me. I have yet to see the connection you are trying to draw between the comment that Thomas makes to Jesus in John 20:28 "My Lord, and my God." and the " "get thee behind me satan" comment that Jesus makes to Peter (recorded in parallel passages in the synoptics: Matthew 16:23 and Mark 8:33).

And I have quite explained that it is a very possible scribal rearrangement that is if he indeed called him 'my god'

You assert that scribes could change things. Yeah, they could. But asserting that they could does not mean that they did.

and neither does asserting that Jesus is god when nothing in the bible portrays him as such, including the passages you quote which are at odds with other passages covering the same subject!

Where is the logic in any of that?

lots more logic than a man/god with a mother and a hovering spirit me thinkus!

all the best

 

[ragdollcat1982]

The Quran says Jesus ascended to heaven just before the crucifixion (or something like that), so unless Allah made Jesus appear to the disciples neither of the explanations is compliant with Islam..

The Jewish historian Joesephus wrote to the trial and execution of Christ. The Romans were meticulous record keepers. I believe that Christ was crucified. Whether or not he was God incarnate is a whole other debate.

 

[جوري]

the writing of Josephus (100) c.e contain two passages,, the longer one a christian interpolation, for its glowing description is one no orthodox jew would accept -- the second passage has been scrutinized by Schuror, Zahn, von Dobschutz, juster and other scholars, and they regarded the words ''the brother of Jesus, him called christ;; as a further interpolation ...

 

[Grace Seeker]

And I have quite explained that it is a very possible scribal rearrangement that is if he indeed called him 'my god'

You are dealing with completely unrelated books, to suggest that something said in John was re-arragned from there into one of the synopitics or vice versa is really stretching creduality. It makes more sense to simply say that they fictionalized the whole thing -- after all that's what I suspect you believe anyway. Why call it rearrangement when there is no evidence to support that not only with that verse, but with any other passages connecting John and any of the synoptics?


Rearrangement of one of the synoptic gospels (say Mark) in composing the other two (Matthew and Luke) highly likely. Never disputed that for a minute. But that isn't what you are talking about when you talk about the passage referring to Thomas from John and the passages where Jesus speaks to Peter and calls him Satan. And it certainly isn't what you said in introducing the topic where you implied that the passages about Peter being called satan followed later in the same gospel. I showed that it didn't and you've still completely ignored that you made an error.


Your form of logic boils down to "The Bible says it; I'll believe what I want to believe about it and not believe what I don't want to believe about it; and that settles it." And then you get a few of your fellow doubts to applaude you and you feel vindicated by the process. It is just an opinion statement, one you are entirely entitled to; so, good luck with that, but don't call it logic.

 

[جوري]

You are dealing with completely unrelated books, to suggest that something said in John was re-arragned from there into one of the synopitics or vice versa is really stretching creduality. It makes more sense to simply say that they fictionalized the whole thing -- after all that's what I suspect you believe anyway. Why call it rearrangement when there is no evidence to support that not only with that verse, but with any other passages connecting John and any of the synoptics?

let me pull a grace seeker... have no idea what 'synopitics' or 'creduality' means? in (I know how you love to be lost in semantics when all else fails) and I just felt it important to point out the error as you were so gracious to do a post ago
now, to play along which books of the bibles should I subscribe to as to not be a heretic your opinion? they describe the same event with different said words one of them denotes the central theme of your worship and the other two don't agree.. you believe it doesn't matter all together since they are not God's word they are 'inspired' by men whose names and authorship is actually quite elusive.. why the re-arrangement in lieu of forgery -- simple, it makes it more in concert with the other two passages!

Rearrangement of one of the synoptic gospels (say Mark) in composing the other two (Matthew and Luke) highly likely. Never disputed that for a minute. But that isn't what you are talking about when you talk about the passage referring to Thomas from John and the passages where Jesus speaks to Peter and calls him Satan. And it certainly isn't what you said in introducing the topic where you implied that the passages about Peter being called satan followed later in the same gospel. I showed that it didn't and you've still completely ignored that you made an error.

I'd love to throw you a bone, frankly I didn't even look at your citations as the majority of what you write is a great deal of fictional nonsense.. the verses are apart, I have said as much and quoted as much, the passage has been laying in my mail box since February, I wouldn't have brought it up at all if I were waiting for you to tell me which verse they follow.. as for my reasoning, well I have already explained in the above reply-- how much longer do you want to protract this? I sense that TV evangelist in you creeping out for some bible thumping!~

Your form of logic boils down to "The Bible says it; I'll believe what I want to believe about it and not believe what I don't want to believe about it; and that settles it." And then you get a few of your fellow doubts to applaude you and you feel vindicated by the process. It is just an opinion statement, one you are entirely entitled to; so, good luck with that, but don't call it logic.

Judging from the number of your fellow Christians who don't subscribe to your brand of Christianity right here on board even, I believe the only one who wishes a 'vindication' is you just seeing how much you labor to put your two cents on every post.. and No, I gain nothing and lose nothing from an approval.. I have always maintained the road to God is a solo journey.. I don't need a sermon of hand clappers and organ musos to get an approval.. and I don't subscribe to if you can't dazzle them with science baffle them with Bull **** either.. the more complicated and convoluted and shrouded in mystery the more fallacious it is...

God is one? or God in a man/spirit/and a father and a mother, self-immolating, dies, forsakes and now akin to water as I see analogies peddled left and right to explain his being and you want to talk logic?.. I think the choice is obvious ( as that is all it comes down to)

all the best