Yes, it's a digression from the thread, and Soapy, you appear to absolutely obsessed with undermining the doctrine of the trinity - you have started countless threads on this forum, and 99% of them are refutations of the trinity.
I'm with you, that I absolutely despise and repudiate the doctrine, and am convinced that it is the most diabolical and blasphemous tenet in all of Christendom - one cannot be saved believing in the trinity, as far as I am concerned
As far as your question goes: I don't quite understand what you're asking. Man can be called gods, as Jesus himself pointed out using the OT Scriptures, and, even more so, the context was that he was dispelling any beliefs that he was claiming to be God. Thus, Thomas called him god in the manner that Moses, the angels, and the judges of old were called gods. Anyone with bestowed authority and power may be considered a god in the eyes of men who are of lesser stature.
Uzzah died for putting his hands on the ark, how much more did Thomas deserve to die by putting his finger inside God's body (as you seemed to imply) - trinitarianism is absurd and utterly deranged.
Yes, you are right. I am obsessed with distressing the claim of Trinitarians whenever and where ever I can. It’s my calling.
It’s always the satanic way that when a revelation against false belief is presented, that someone should attempt to quash it before it causes damage to the trinitarian fallacy.
My point is maybe something you missed. I said it but you don’t perceive it: If Thomas had ‘seen and touched’ GOD, and there is no commentary about the reactions of the other ten disciples, there are two questions that must be brought to attention concerning the PROOF by Trinitarians that Jesus is… YHWH, in effect, GOD, in fact!
- Only Thomas claimed he had seen and touched ‘Almighty God’. That’s not the ‘god’ that you seem to be insinuating - ‘god’ that I’ve written about many times and asked about definitions that only you seem to have answered to. Why did only Thomas exclaim as he did despite there being ten other disciples being in the same arena? And this only reported in the gospel of John, the most trinitarian-based book in the Bible scriptures?
- How could the eleven disciples, especially Peter, (and Thomas!!) simply go back to their ‘day jobs’ if they had recently witnessed and been in the presence of the one almighty God of the Jews?
No!, Thomas had not witnessed ‘almighty God’ confined in flesh as a man, Jesus. This truth should be used to dispel that explicit trinity claim. I am to understand that you desire that it should not be presented even though it impinges on a valid reason for the reaction of the then disciple, Peter: to wit, he had seen the risen Christ (not God in flesh) and, despite that, had led the other disciples into going back to lack of belief. The fishing incident sharply drew him back to the task Jesus had set him as leader, for.
It is therefore a simple answer to his reaction / and it flummox me as to how there are so many other opinions on the matter. Peter was set by Jesus Christ as a leader; what other conceivable reason could there be for his reaction when he realises that he has misled himself and those under his charge - is this not another example of ‘Jonah’: ‘I have sinned and am unworthy of the glory as leader that you set upon me!’.
But Jesus knew that if was a hard thing for Peter to endure and simply showed him the way back, that though he, Jesus, was no longer there to guide them, he would send them the gift that God had promised them, a gift that would remain with them eternally, would never leave them as he had to, and would continue to teach them, uphold them, guide them, remind them, empower them, strengthen them in all things they were to encounter going forward.
It's an encouraging account.
