Should we colonize Mars or fix Earth first?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should we colonize Mars or fix Earth first?". Your opponent's style: Richard Feynman

If Jesus is not God, why does the Apostle Thomas look directly at Jesus after the resurrection and say, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28)? In the Bible, God is very strict about not calling anyone else "God." If Jesus wasn't God, why didn't he correct Thomas right then and there for being "wrong" or "blasphemous"?

I appreciate the setup, but you're loading the question. Thomas's exclamation doesn't require divine identity—it's an expression of worship and allegiance, common in Jewish culture for acknowledging authority. Calling someone "Lord" (kyrios) was standard honorific language; it didn't automatically mean deity. More critically, Jesus *did* correct people claiming false divinity. He rebuked the rich young ruler for calling him "good," saying only God is good. If Thomas's statement was genuinely blasphemous, silence would contradict Jesus's pattern of correction. What's your evidence that "My Lord and my God" *must* mean ontological divinity rather than reverential address?

1. The "Theos" Argument In John 20:28, Thomas doesn't just use a generic title. He uses the definite article: Ho Kyrios mou kai ho Theos mou—literally, "The Lord of me and the God of me." In the Greek New Testament, ho Theos (with the article) is almost exclusively reserved for the one Supreme God. If Thomas were just being "reverent" to a superior, he would have used a different term. By calling him Theos with the definite article, he is identifying Jesus with the God of the Old Testament. 2. The Lack of Rebuke You mentioned the "Rich Young Ruler" (Mark 10:18), but Trinitarians interpret that differently. Jesus didn't say, "I am not God"; he asked, "Why do you call me good?"—challenging the man to realize that if he acknowledges Jesus is truly "good," he is implicitly acknowledging he is God. In contrast, with Thomas, Jesus blesses him for his statement: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29). If Thomas had just committed the ultimate sin (idolatry), Jesus’s blessing would be a massive contradiction of the First Commandment. 3. The "I AM" Claims To bolster the case that Thomas was right, look at John 8:58. Jesus says, "Before Abraham was born, I am." He didn't say "I was," he used the present tense Ego Eimi. His Jewish audience immediately picked up stones to kill him. My question to you: If Jesus was just a "mighty son" or a human messenger, why did his own people—who knew the Law better than anyone—constantly try to execute him for blasphemy (claiming to be God), and why didn't he ever clear up the "misunderstanding" by saying, "Wait, I'm just a servant"? What’s your defense for why the experts in the Law thought he was claiming to be God if he wasn't?

You're conflating two separate issues. Yes, Thomas used "ho theos"—but the article doesn't prove identity; it marks *the* God *to Thomas*. People called Roman emperors "god" with articles too. Context matters. On the "I am" claim: ego eimi is perfective, not uniquely divine. Plenty of Jewish figures made similar claims without claiming deity. The stoning attempt proves *they interpreted* it as blasphemy, not that Jesus *claimed* divinity. Jesus never explicitly said "I am God." He said things *implying* it to his listeners, which is different. Your logic assumes their interpretation was correct—but that's circular reasoning. Why assume first-century Jewish legal experts correctly understood metaphysical claims about an unprecedented figure?

But let's pivot to the "Agent vs. Author" problem. If Jesus is just a high-ranking agent (like an ambassador), he should only do what an agent does. However, the New Testament attributes the creation of the entire universe to him. The "Creator" Argument In Colossians 1:16-17, it says of Jesus: "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." In the Old Testament (Isaiah 44:24), Jehovah says: "I am the Lord, the Maker of all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself." My challenge to your position: If Jehovah says he created everything alone and by himself, how can the New Testament say Jesus created all things? If Jesus is a created being (as you argue from Colossians 1:15's "firstborn"), then he would have had to create himself, which is a logical impossibility. If he is an "assistant" creator, then Jehovah lied in Isaiah when He said He did it "alone." How do you reconcile a "Mighty Son" being the Creator of the universe without making him the one true God?

You've got a false trilemma. "Firstborn of creation" means *preeminence*, not temporal origin—standard Jewish royalty language. David was "firstborn" over creation metaphorically too. On Colossians 1:16-17: Paul uses *dia* (through/by means of), not *apo* (from). This is agency language. God works *through* his agent—like a king's decree executed by a servant. Isaiah's "alone" doesn't exclude mediation; it excludes *rival* gods. A subordinate agent doesn't contradict monotheism. Your trilemma assumes only two options: full divinity or contradiction. You're missing the third: genuine subordination with genuine agency. Why does "alone" demand Jesus can't be God's chosen instrument?

The "Worship" Problem (Latria vs. Dulia) In the Bible, there is a hard line that no "agent"—no matter how high—can cross: Receiving Worship. In Revelation 22:8-9, when John tries to worship an angel (a high-ranking agent of God), the angel stops him and says, "Do not do it! ... Worship God!" Yet, in Hebrews 1:6, God says of Jesus: "Let all God’s angels worship him." And in Philippians 2:10-11, it says that at the name of Jesus, "every knee should bow... and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord." My challenge to your "Agent" defense: If Jesus is a created being or a subordinate agent, why is he receiving the exact same physical and verbal worship that the Old Testament says belongs only to Jehovah (Isaiah 45:23)? If an angel (a perfect agent) refused worship because it belongs only to God, why does Jesus—the "perfect agent" in your view—accept it? By accepting worship, isn't Jesus either committing idolatry or confirming he is the One God? How do you explain a "subordinate" being receiving the worship reserved for the Creator?

You're equivocating on "worship." Proskuneo (bowing) doesn't always mean *latria* (divine worship). People bowed to kings, judges, and angels in Scripture without claiming they were God. Context determines meaning, not the word alone. Hebrews 1:6 says angels worship him—but that's *their* acknowledgment of his exalted status, not proof of divinity. Isaiah 45:23 is about submission to God's authority, which Jesus mediates as God's appointed agent. Jesus accepting honor isn't idolatry if God *authorized* it. Your argument assumes worship language automatically means deity. It doesn't. Why can't a supremely exalted agent receive delegated honor without being God?

The Trinitarian (My) Final Rebuttal: "But in 1 John 5:20, the same author says of Jesus: 'He is the true God and eternal life.' If they are both called the 'true God,' they must be the same 'One God' mentioned in the Shema."

You're smuggling in your conclusion. "True God" (alethinos theos) distinguishes Jesus from *false* gods, not equates him with the Father. John elsewhere calls the Father "the only true God" (17:3)—using identical language for both figures. That's incoherent if they're numerically one. Your Shema argument assumes monotheism *requires* numerical oneness. Judaism allowed for divine agents and hypostases without abandoning monotheism. Philo, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Merkabah mysticism all had tiered heavenly figures within strict monotheism. One God doesn't mean one person. Why does your theology demand it?