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?