What precisely was it that Thomas " believed," according to John 20:29?

Question

Jews of the first century belived that any careless use of God's name amounted to blashphemy.

Answer 1

This is the very scripture that made me start questioning what the witnesses taught...Thomas Was Calling Jesus God, and Jesus was blessing him for doing so.

Answer 2

Thomas had earlier expressed his need for physical proof before he would believe that the resurrected Jesus had appeared to other disciples.

(John 20:24-25) Thomas, one of the twelve, who was called The Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. Consequently the other disciples would say to him: “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe.”


It is interesting to consider whether Thomas might have abandoned this demand if he had not been blessed with the experience related at John 20:26-29. As Peter noted, even in bible times most Christians never experienced the physical evidence of Jesus' resurrection.

(John 20:26-29) Well, eight days later his disciples were again indoors, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and he stood in their midst and said: “May you have peace.” Next he said to Thomas: “Put your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and stick it into my side, and stop being unbelieving but become believing.” In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him: “Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe.”

(1 Peter 1:8-9) Though you never saw him, you love him. Though you are not looking upon him at present, yet you exercise faith in him and are greatly rejoicing with an unspeakable and glorified joy, as you receive the end of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/20020401/article_01.htm



Of course, "god" is not a name. "YHWH" or "Jehovah" is a name. Incidentally, nearly every Christian then and now acknowledges Jesus' divinity and godship. Sadly, too few Christians understand that the bible teaches that Jesus is a distinct person from Jehovah.
http://watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm?article=article_06.htm

Answer 3

"But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name."

Obviously, when the apostle John wrote down the account years later, he was not confused. The apostles recognized Jesus as the Son of God. They were under no Trinitarian delusion back then.

However, many modern readers see the expression "Son of God," and their minds, after years of being conditioned by Trinitarian theology, reflexively transpose that expression into "God the Son."

It is interesting that Jesus used the same Greek expression as Thomas did when he said with his last dying breath: "The God of me, the God of me, with what left you down in me"? (Translated: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?)

The question is: If Thomas was referring to Jesus when he said "The God of me," who was Jesus referring to as his God? The Trinitarian will likely offer the nonsensical answer that the "God the Son" third of the triad was talking to the other two-thirds of the supposed Trinity Godhead.

The more reasonable explanation is that Thomas, overwhelmed by his astonishment at the reality of Christ's resurrection, which he had previously denied, was moved to make a declaration to reaffirm that he recognized Jesus as his Lord and representative of Jehovah God.

Answer 4

Well, he said that he would not believe that Jesus resurrected until he saw the nail marks in his hands and put his fingers where the nails were.
Then Jesus came to him and showed him his hands. So then he "believed" (that the other disciples saw Jesus). I guess the careless use of god's name didn't apply to Thomas. :-/

Answer 5

Thomas said to Jesus 'my Lord and my God', implying that he believed Jesus to be his Lord and God. As you imply, he was not 'taking the name of the Lord his God in vain', as the Jehovah's Witnesses say - such contravention of the commandment would certainly not have been recorded without condemnation.