Trinity Vs Oneness

I was not thinking of Thomas using God's name in vain, which as you rightly say is considered blasphemy and perhaps only a more recent turn of phrase. Instead I read it as amazement and praise to God. If we imagine a loved one being brutally murdered and then finding them alive with holes in their feet and hands then it is not that difficult to see that whilst examining their wounds in amazement we could speak to them directly whilst giving thanks to God for their survival/resurrection simultaneously. To find Biblical support for this view Matthew 16:23 describes Jesus talking directly to Peter whilst actually addressing Satan. ' But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.' Peter had temporarily and understandably been against what Jesus was saying. In that instance he was not representing God and God's will but mans selfish will and therefore Satan. This should give the reader no reason to now believe that Jesus is literally calling Peter Satan or that Peter is one part of a Satanic trinity. If it is the case that Thomas was speaking to Jesus solely then is it conclusive that what he said can only possibly be translated as Thomas clearly identifying Jesus as God? The Greek word used in this verse is 'theos'. Is theos only ever used in reference to God? If it was then it would certainly limit the possible interpretations of what Thomas meant by what he said but according to Johns documentation of what Jesus said in an earlier chapter in his Gospel this is not the case. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? (John 10:34-36) Here Jesus himself shows us that theos ( used in its plural form, theoi/gods) can and is justifiably given to not only the one true God but also Gods representatives. With this in mind it is completely plausible that Thomas used this term to address the resurrected Jesus as his master and one that truly represents God. The fact that it is prefixed with 'ho' (the) rendering it a definite article does in now way conclusively prove that it could have only been in reference to the one and only true God because 1 Samuel 2:30 demonstrates that a man (King David) can be referred to as 'the God' and not literally mean that the man is literally God. As you can see both of my explanations (although you may not agree with them) are perfectly plausible. If we boil this situation down to the fundamentals then we have just two simple possibilities; A) Thomas did not believe that Jesus had been resurrected and upon encountering him he then believed that he was resurrected. B) Thomas did not believe that Jesus had been resurrected and upon encountering him he then believed that he was God. Situation B is an illogical interpretation for many reasons; There is no evidence from the gospel accounts that Jesus" disciples believed that he was God. Jesus did not preach that he was God. From beginning to end the Bible is explicit that man cannot be God and that no one has ever seen God. I am sure that you will dissagree with at least two of my above points and it is a shame that I you will not challenge me on all of the points that I have made above. Therefore it would be a pleasure to continue the debate of the divinity of Christ with you further. Many thanks for your time and all of your responses have been greatly appreciated.