john 20.28 nom for nom.

[he-man]

No, the Bible states the Trinity all over the place. I'm saying you arent accepting it because the Holy Ghost hasnt revealed you the truth yet.

deleted

 

[Der Alte]

2 all, GINOLJC,
I would like to ask a question. according to the flesh, was it the one whom the Trinitarian call father, conceive the child in Mary' womb, or the one the Trinitarian call the third person of their trinity, "the Holy Spirit". which one?.

"where there is knowledge stay not ignorant"​

ask, and it shall be given unto you, for Ignorance cannot defeat you
​

What does scripture say?

Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, [1] The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and [2] the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called [3] the Son of God.​

 

[he-man]

No, the Bible states the Trinity all over the place. I'm saying you arent accepting it because the Holy Ghost hasnt revealed you the truth yet.

:o The word Trinity is not found in the Bible. . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary

At first the Christian Faith was not Trinitarian. . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the New Testament and other early Christian writings. The Encyclopedia of Religion And Ethics

There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a Trinity within the Godhead. . . Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers. Jesuit Edmund Fortman The "Triune God"

Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament. The Encyclopedia of Religion The New Encyclopedia Britannica

The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology

To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it. Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins "Origin and Evolution of Religion"

Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity. The Encyclopedia of Religion

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament. . . "is not. . . directly and immediately the word of God." The New Catholic Encyclopedia

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia page 3012, article: "Trinity":
The term 'trinity' is not a Biblical term, and we are not using biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God,..

Page 3014: From this point of view it is inconceivable that the Old Testament revelation should know nothing of the trinity certainly we cannot speak broadly of the revelation of the doctrine of the trinity in the Old Testament.

Page 3015: It is with a view to this superficial performance of the allusions to it in the New Testament...
It would be more exact to say that it is not so much inculcated, as presupposed. The doctrine of the trinity does not appear in the New Testament in the making, but it is already made.
But they already said it was not in the O.T. so how was it already made?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912 Edition, page 47, article: "Trinity":
It is manifest that a doctrine so mysterious presupposes a divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence.

 

[yogosans14]

:o The word Trinity is not found in the Bible. . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary

At first the Christian Faith was not Trinitarian. . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the New Testament and other early Christian writings. The Encyclopedia of Religion And Ethics

There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a Trinity within the Godhead. . . Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers. Jesuit Edmund Fortman The "Triune God"

Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament. The Encyclopedia of Religion The New Encyclopedia Britannica

The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology

To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it. Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins "Origin and Evolution of Religion"

Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity. The Encyclopedia of Religion

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament. . . "is not. . . directly and immediately the word of God." The New Catholic Encyclopedia

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia page 3012, article: "Trinity":
The term 'trinity' is not a Biblical term, and we are not using biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God,..

Page 3014: From this point of view it is inconceivable that the Old Testament revelation should know nothing of the trinity certainly we cannot speak broadly of the revelation of the doctrine of the trinity in the Old Testament.

Page 3015: It is with a view to this superficial performance of the allusions to it in the New Testament...
It would be more exact to say that it is not so much inculcated, as presupposed. The doctrine of the trinity does not appear in the New Testament in the making, but it is already made.
But they already said it was not in the O.T. so how was it already made?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912 Edition, page 47, article: "Trinity":
It is manifest that a doctrine so mysterious presupposes a divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence.

The word "Bible" isnt in the Bible either mr I read the Watchtower and Awake magazines. Tell me, do you believe Jesus is an angel?Who died on the cross for us?

 

[Der Alte]

. . . Page 3014: From this point of view it is inconceivable that the Old Testament revelation should know nothing of the trinity certainly we cannot speak broadly of the revelation of the doctrine of the trinity in the Old Testament.

Page 3015: It is with a view to this superficial performance of the allusions to it in the New Testament...
It would be more exact to say that it is not so much inculcated, as presupposed. The doctrine of the trinity does not appear in the New Testament in the making, but it is already made.
But they already said it was not in the O.T. so how was it already made?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912 Edition, page 47, article: "Trinity":
It is manifest that a doctrine so mysterious presupposes a divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence.

Now your true colors are finally showing. I know that you have not researched this yourself. All this can be found almost verbatim in the JW publication “Should You Believe the Trinity.” Every quote above is quoted out-of-context, selectively quoted or in other ways manipulated by the WTBS to make them appear to be saying something they are not saying.

For example here is the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, in-context. Selective quoting above highlighted in red.

It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation . When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies.​

This is not the view of the Catholic Church but what some liberal protestants say, according to the encyclopedia.

Here is one section from the ISBE selectively quoted out-of-context above. Selective misquoting highlighted in red.

So strongly is it felt in wide circles that a Trinitarian conception is essential to a worthy idea of God, that there is abroad a deep-seated unwillingness to allow that God could ever have made Himself known otherwise than as a Trinity. From this point of view it is inconceivable that the Old Testament revelation should know nothing of the Trinity. Accordingly, I. A. Dorner, for example, reasons thus: “If, however - and this is the faith of universal Christendom - a living idea of God must be thought in some way after a Trinitarian fashion, it must be antecedently probable that traces of the Trinity cannot be lacking in the Old Testament, since its idea of God is a living or historical one.” Whether there really exist traces of the idea of the Trinity in the Old Testament, however, is a nice question. Certainly we cannot speak broadly of the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament. It is a plain matter of fact that none who have depended on the revelation embodied in the Old Testament alone have ever attained to the doctrine of the Trinity. It is another question, however, whether there may not exist in the pages of the Old Testament turns of expression or records of occurrences in which one already acquainted with the doctrine of the Trinity may fairly see indications of an underlying implication of it. The older writers discovered intimations of the Trinity in such phenomena as the plural form of the divine name Ělōhīm, the occasional employment with reference to God of plural pronouns (“Let us make man in our image,” Gen_1:26; Gen_3:22; Gen_11:7; Isa_6:8), or of plural verbs (Gen_20:13; Gen_35:7), certain repetitions of the name of God which seem to distinguish between God and God (Gen_19:27; Psa_45:6, Psa_45:7; Psa_110:1; Hos_1:7), threefold liturgical formulas (Deu_16:4; Num_6:24, Num_6:26; Isa_6:3), a certain tendency to hypostatize the conception of Wisdom (Prov 8), and especially the remarkable phenomena connected with the appearances of the Angel of Yahweh (Gen_16:2-13; Gen_22:11, Gen_22:16; Gen_31:11, Gen_31:13; Gen_48:15, Gen_48:16; Exo_3:2, Exo_3:4, Exo_3:5; Jdg_13:20-22).​

The rest of the misrepresented, out-of-context, selective quoting, etc. above is exposed at this link.

Master Index of Quotes of Quotes used to trash the Trinity in the Watchtower's, "Should you believe the Trinity?"

 

[2ducklow]

I just woke up after having had a relelatory dream from my main angel friend Sonja. But this isn’t about the dream it’s about something Sonja revealed to me about the topic of this thread. Which is this.

In the course of my lengthy investigation of the topic of this thread, which any reader can look back and see the abundance of information on this topic, I ran across the origin of the false nominative for vocative grammar rule. Greeks would sometimes use the nominative INSTEAD OF the vocative in certain common expressions. Now in order to change the meaning of john 20.28 christian scholars changed that to the nominative is used FOR the vocative. Now here is the revelation Sonja gave me. Say there was a common expression in Greek such as “Lord have mercy on me”, Now along comes some fella and he uses the nominative INSTEAD OF the vocative {in this case Lord} and says “O Lord have mercy on me”.(O Lord being a nominative of exclamation). That changes the meaning of the saying. It changes it from addressing Lord to exclaiming “o Lord”. It changes the meaning of the expression. If the nominative is used INSTEAD OF the vocative, it changes the meaning of the expression. Christian scholars jumped on it and changed it to mean that the nominative means the same thing as the vocative when they say ‘nominative for vocative.

"Lord have mercy on me" means something different than saying "O Lord have mercy on me".
"the Lord of me and the God of me" (which is what john 20.28 literally says) means something different than saying "my Lord and my God (vocative of address)

To put it more succinctly, john 20.28 is a nominative of exclamation (all christian bible translators absolutely refuse to put translate the definite article the) and john 20.28 really says "O my Lord and O my God" bible translators change it to a vocative translation by leaving out the definite article the.

Instead of does not mean the same thing as for. big difference

 

[Der Alte]

I just woke up after having had a relelatory dream from my main angel friend Sonja. But this isn’t about the dream it’s about something Sonja revealed to me about the topic of this thread. Which is this.

We don't need Greek lexicons and grammars all we need is for someone to have a dream to explain all the Greek scriptures. How many charlatans have misled how many thousands of unsuspecting believers with this same kind of nonsense?

In the course of my lengthy investigation of the topic of this thread, which any reader can look back and see the abundance of information on this topic, I ran across the origin of the false nominative for vocative grammar rule. Greeks would sometimes use the nominative INSTEAD OF the vocative in certain common expressions.

When you were having this revelatory dream did the angel happen to give you any examples from secular texts? Or do we just have to take your word for this?

Now in order to change the meaning of john 20.28 christian scholars changed that to the nominative is used FOR the vocative.

Explain the difference! Do you even know how a nominative functions in a sentence?

Now here is the revelation Sonja gave me. Say there was a common expression in Greek such as “Lord have mercy on me”, Now along comes some fella and he uses the nominative INSTEAD OF the vocative {in this case Lord} and says “O Lord have mercy on me”.(O Lord being a nominative of exclamation). That changes the meaning of the saying. It changes it from addressing Lord to exclaiming “o Lord”. It changes the meaning of the expression. If the nominative is used INSTEAD OF the vocative, it changes the meaning of the expression. Christian scholars jumped on it and changed it to mean that the nominative means the same thing as the vocative when they say ‘nominative for vocative.

Do you mean like some guy jumped on this and made up a nonexistent example "O lord have mercy on me?" What is the difference between used "for" and used "instead of?" All you have done is say there is a difference. If any of this is valid there should be several examples in the NT.

Nominative for Vocative means the Nominative case is used where grammar requires the Vocative. Nominative instead of Vocative means the Nominative case is used where grammar requires the Vocative.

"Christian scholars jumped on it and changed it to mean that the nominative means the same thing as the vocative when they say ‘nominative for vocative." Might make sense if the same phenomenon was not prevalent in classical Greek. As I have pointed out to you there are many examples of Nominative for Vocative in the Greek LXX, translated 250 BC, 280 years + before there were any Christian scholars.

"Lord have mercy on me" means something different than saying "O Lord have mercy on me".
"the Lord of me and the God of me" (which is what john 20.28 literally says) means something different than saying "my Lord and my God (vocative of address)

Wrong! They mean exactly the same thing. Someone is asking the Lord to have mercy on them.

To put it more succinctly, john 20.28 is a nominative of exclamation (all christian bible translators absolutely refuse to put translate the definite article the) and john 20.28 really says "O my Lord and O my God" bible translators change it to a vocative translation by leaving out the definite article the.

Instead of does not mean the same thing as for. big difference

No John 20:28 does not say "O my Lord and O my God." If there was such an expression as "O my God" in Greek, how would it be written? Further, no devout Jew would use Theos as an exclamation. If Thomas had misused Theos as an exclamation Jesus would have corrected him instead of praising him.

Do you even know the difference between Nominative of Exclamation and Nominative for Vocative? The difference is not arbitrary there are rules. I posted them before from Wallace.

You make a big deal that translators do not translate the definite articles in John 20;28. Most proper nouns in the NT have the definite article but none of them are translated, so what is your point?

 

[he-man]

For example here is the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, in-context. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies.

Newton gradually moved away from the more overt implications of Arianism in coming to reject any sort of substance talk (at one place in one of his manuscripts he chastises both Athanasian Trinitarianism and Arianism for introducing metaphysics into Christianity) to focus exclusively on a unity of will between God and Christ.
He implies that Christians who believe in Christ’s pre-existence should find fellowship with those who don’t.
It was Newton’s firm belief that Christians should avoid speculative extrapolations from biblical doctrine and the introduction of foreign ideas to it, both of which can lead to error, and stick with the descriptive accounts of God and Christ found in the Bible.

Elsewhere in the General Scholium, Newton deftly suggests that God is unipersonal (in the Trinity God is tripersonal). He also boldly states that we don’t have any idea of the substance of God. Not only does this resonate with Locke’s phenomenalism, but it is a swipe against Trinitarians, who claim they know enough about the substance of God to conclude that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are consubstantial beings. In rejecting substance talk when applied to God, we see a biblical phenomenalism that parallels his phenomenalism in physics.
Newton wanted to lend his support to other antitrinitarians, who had published much more explicit arguments against the Trinity. Chief among these was Samuel Clarke, who published his antitrinitarian Scripture-doctrine of the Trinity only a year before the General Scholium was released.
It also seems likely that Newton equated the feigning of hypotheses in natural philosophy (such as Descartes’ fluid vortices, attacked in the very first line of the General Scholium) and hypotheses in theology (such as the doctrine of three consubstantial persons).

In fact, it appears that Newton saw himself as working to effect two reformations: one in natural philosophy and one in theology. The two reformations come together in the General Scholium.
Newton also rejected the immortality of the soul — another litmus test of orthodoxy — which he similarly found to be unbiblical. Instead of natural immortality, eternal life for Newton was obtained through bodily resurrection.

On this point we see another example of Newton rejecting a Hellenised Christian doctrine in favour of a thoroughly Hebraic idea (for the doctrine of natural immortality owes much to the post-biblical superaddition of the conception of the Platonic soul to biblical language).

Similarly, denial of the immortality of the soul and a personal devil were viewed as extremely radical doctrinal moves in Newton’s day. For many, denial of the Trinity, the immortality of the soul and evil spirits was, ironically, tantamount to atheism — even though these denials are also associated with positive teachings (the Oneness of God, the resurrection and strict monotheism).

To support his “mortalist” conceptions of the human, Newton turned to passages such as Psalm 6:5, Psalm 115:17 and Ecclesiastes 9:5,10, all of which speak about death as unconscious oblivion.
Newton is often considered one of the instigators of the Age of Reason.
In his religion and in his natural philosophy, Newton saw himself as a member of a small remnant class who possessed the truth. Newton Project Canada

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the triune name… The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the triune name (Justin)…"

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: "The evidence… suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: "The trinitarian baptismal formula,,, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus… which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The trinitarian formula and triune immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning… Baptism into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."

 

[2ducklow]

First, proper names in the vocative never use the article,14 as the vocative generally never has the article.15 In Matthew through Acts there are 453 occurrences of vocative nouns in 358 verses. All but seven of the occurrences are anarthrous (Matt 11:26; Luke 8:54; 18:11, 13; John 19:3; 20:28; Acts 13:41). These seven are nominative by form. Anarthrous vocatives are simply an idiom of the language that will override any author’s use of the article in discourse.
​

http://bible.org/article/greek-artic...e-perspectives
It took me a while to wade through this guys convoluted double talk to see what he was really saying but I finally did. first he states that vocative nouns gnerally have the article (articular) then he says all but 7 vocative nouns in the NT are anarthous (using a double negative to confuse people). so really he is saying that 7 vocative nouns in the bible are articular. then he says oh but these 7 vocative nouns are nominative in form.
so in essence he is affirming that never in the nt is anyone addressed with the def. article the. Thus john 20.28 "the Lord of me and the God of me" cannot be a form of address because both nouns are articular. ONe doesn't address anyone in the NT or in English as "the lord." it's preposterous to even say they do.


at the end it's impossible to know what he meant because when he says vocative he means vocative and nominative for vocative other times he means purely vocative.
Im thinking probably he misstated himself and really meant that articular vocatives (that is to say articular nominatives for vocatives) are an idiom of the language. Either that or he meant that all vocatives (which are all anarthous) are idioms of speech, except the 7 articular nom. for vocatives. either way it's nonsense.

 

[Der Alte]

[size=+1]First, proper names in the vocative never use the article,14 as the vocative generally never has the article.15 In Matthew through Acts there are 453 occurrences of vocative nouns in 358 verses. All but seven of the occurrences are anarthrous (Matt 11:26; Luke 8:54; 18:11, 13; John 19:3; 20:28; Acts 13:41). These seven are nominative by form. Anarthrous vocatives are simply an idiom of the language that will override any author’s use of the article in discourse[/size]

http://bible.org/article/greek-artic...e-perspectives
This guy got confused as to what anarthrous and articular mean. first he states that vocative nouns gnerally have the article (articular) then he says all but 7 vocative nouns in the NT are anarthous (using a double negative to confuse people).

First your link leads to a blank page. Next, you might need to clean your monitor screen. The author states, ”as the vocative generally never has the article." You claim "he said that vocative nouns gnerally [sic] have the article (articular)" He said never twice. I highlighted it for you.

so really he is saying that 7 vocative nouns in the bible are articular. then he says oh but these 7 vocative nouns are nominative in form.

Do you know the difference? Here is what he specifically says. “These seven are nominative by form.” That means Nominative for Vocative.

Just for your information.

“The nominative is the case of specific designation. The Greeks referred to it as the "naming case," for it often names the main topic of the sentence. The main topic in a sentence semantically is, of course, similar to the syntactical subject, but the two are not always identical. Hence, the most common use of the nominative case is as subject.

The vocative is the case used for addressing someone or, on occasion, for uttering exclamations. A substantive in the vocative is used in direct address to designate the addressee. It technically has no syntactical relation to the main clause.”

Greek Cases​

You can also look up Nominative for Vocative at this working link.

so in essence he is affirming that never in the nt is anyone addressed with the def. article the. Thus john 20.28 "the Lord of me and the God of me" cannot be a form of address because both nouns are articular. ONe doesn't address anyone in the NT or in English as "the lord." it's preposterous to even say they do.

Wrong! The author stated and you repeated “All but seven of the occurrences are anarthrous (Matt 11:26; Luke 8:54; 18:11, 13; John 19:3; 20:28; Acts 13:41).” Arthrous means they have the definite article. In those seven verses the substantive is in the Nominative form.

at the end it's impossible to know what he meant because when he says vocative he means vocative and nominative for vocative other times he means purely vocaztive. so probably he was so confused with the convoluted deceptive way he worded it that even he didn't know what he meant in the end.

Still wrong! I understood him perfectly. “These seven substantives, in Matt 11:26; Luke 8:54; 18:11, 13; John 19:3; 20:28; Acts 13:41, have the article and are nominative by form. They are all used where Greek grammar requires a Vocative. Anarthrous vocatives, substantives without the article, are simply an idiom of the language that will override any author’s use of the article in discourse.

 

[he-man]

First your link leads to a blank page. Next, you might need to clean your monitor screen. The author states, ”as the vocative generally never has the article." You claim "he said that vocative nouns gnerally [sic] have the article (articular)" He said never twice. I highlighted it for you.

NOMINATIVE WITH THE ARTICLE =VOCATIVE.
It is, of course, nothing strange to see the nominative form in apposition with a vocative, as (Rev.19:5), (Mt. 6:9). This is only natural as the article and participles have no vocative form. Cf. ω ανθρωπε ο κρινων (Ro. 2:3). Cf. even ουαιυμιν οι εμπεπλησμενοι (Lu. 6:25), where we have really the vocative, not apposition.

The nominative is natural in exclamations, a sort of interjectional nominative. So Paul in Ro. 7:24, and 11:33, (a possible vocative). So. Ro. 7:24; 1 Cor. 15:57. (Ro. 6:17). For parallel in papyri see Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436., B.U. 843 (i/A.D.).

It only remains to consider the nominative form which is used as a vocative. It all depends on what one means by the term "case" when he says that the nominative is used as a vocative.
The form is undoubtedly the same as that of the vocative in
a multitude of instances (all neuter nouns, for instance, singular and plural, plural of all nouns in truth). It is only in the singular that any distinction was made between the nominative and vocative. in form, and by no means always here, as in the case of feminine nouns of the first declension, θεος (usually) in the second, liquid oxytones like ποιμην in the third, etc. But if by the vocative one means the case of address, then the nominative form in
address is really vocative, not nominative.The article with the vocative in address was the usual Hebrew and Aramaic idiom, as indeed in Aristophanes.

In Mt. 11:26 we have the vocative. When the article is used, of course the nominative form must occur.
Thus in Rev. 18:20 we have both together. Indeed the second member of the address is always in the nominative
form. Thus (Rev. 15:3). Cf. Jo. 20:28. I shall treat therefore this as really the vocative, not the nominative, whatever the form may be, and now pass on to
the consideration of the Vocative Case.

Dionysius Thrax called it also but in reality it is not a case at all. Practically it has to be treated as a case, though technically it is not (Farrar, Greek Syntax, p. 69). It is wholly outside of syntax in that the word is isolated and has no word-relations.[Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 376; Giles, Man., p. 302.]

The isolation of the vocative may be compared to the absolute use of the nominative, genitive and accusative. The native Sanskrit grammarians do not name it in their list of cases, and Whitney merely treats it in the singular after the other cases. Indeed the vocative is sometimes as much a sentence as a case, since the word stands to itself and forms a complete idea.

When Thomas said (Jo. 20:28), he gave Christ full acceptance of his deity and of the fact [after] his resurrection.
The vocative has no case-ending, but has to resort to various expedients. In general it is just like the nominative in form. This is true in all pronouns, participles and various special words like θεος, besides the plurals, neuters and feminines mentioned under v, (h). Cf. the same practical situation in the Sanskrit. Farrar indeed conjectures that originally there was no difference in form at all between the nominative and vocative and that the variation which did come was due to rapid pronunciation in address.

Thus πατηρ, but πετερ. Cf. ανερ (1 Cor. 7:16). In most languages there is no distinction in form at all between nominative and vocative, and in Latin the distinction is rare.

Thus Blass observes: "From the earliest times (the practice is as old as Homer) the nominative has a tendency to usurp the place of the vocative," This nominative form
in the singular is just as really vocative as in the plural when used in address. The N. T. therefore is merely in line with the oldest Greek idiom in such examples. So θυγατηρ (Mk. 5:34; Lu. 8:48; Jo. 12:15, LXX), but see θυγατερ in Mt. 9:22. In Jo. 17:21, 24, 25, W. H. read πατηρ, but πατερ in Jo. 12:28; 17: 1, 5, 11, etc.

When the vocative has a separate form in the singular it is usually merely the stem of the word, πολιτα. etc. Moulton likewise notes the absence of ω in prayer in the N. T. (though sometimes in the LXX) and considers "the progressive omission of ω" in Greek not easy to explain. It came up from the vernacular and then gradually vanished from the vernacular much as our 0 has done.
There is a distinct tendency among the less educated writers in the papyri to use the nominative as a convenient indeclinable (Moulton, Cl. Rev., April, 1904).

Moulton considers that βασιλευ in Ac. 26:7 admits the royal prerogative in a way that would be inappropriate in the mockery of Jesus in Jo. 19:3. But Mk. 15:18 does have βασιλευ των αιωνων, due, according to Moulton, to "the writer's imperfect sensibility to the more delicate shades of Greek idiom."
GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH BY A. T. ROBERTSON

 

[Der Alte]

NOMINATIVE WITH THE ARTICLE =VOCATIVE.

This is nonsense. Robertson does not say this!

It is, of course, nothing strange to see the nominative form in apposition with a vocative, as (Rev.19:5), (Mt. 6:9). This is only natural as the article and participles have no vocative form. Cf. ω ανθρωπε ο κρινων (Ro. 2:3). Cf. even ουαιυμιν οι εμπεπλησμενοι (Lu. 6:25), where we have really the vocative, not apposition.

This is found on page 264 Then you add material from page 461 as if it it one continuous narrative. Very deceptive.

The nominative is natural in exclamations, a sort of interjectional nominative. So Paul in Ro. 7:24, and 11:33, (a possible vocative). So. Ro. 7:24; 1 Cor. 15:57. (Ro. 6:17). For parallel in papyri see Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436., B.U. 843 (i/A.D.).

It only remains to consider the nominative form which is used as a vocative. It all depends on what one means by the term "case" when he says that the nominative is used as a vocative.

The form is undoubtedly the same as that of the vocative in a multitude of instances (all neuter nouns, for instance, singular and plural, plural of all nouns in truth). It is only in the singular that any distinction was made between the nominative and vocative. in form, and by no means always here, as in the case of feminine nouns of the first declension, θεος (usually) in the second, liquid oxytones like ποιμην in the third, etc. But if by the vocative one means the case of address, then the nominative form in address is really vocative, not nominative.The article with the vocative in address was the usual Hebrew and Aramaic idiom, as indeed in Aristophanes.

In Mt. 11:26 we have the vocative. When the article is used, of course the nominative form must occur.
Thus in Rev. 18:20 we have both together. Indeed the second member of the address is always in the nominative form. Thus (Rev. 15:3). Cf. Jo. 20:28. I shall treat therefore this as really the vocative, not the nominative, whatever the form may be, and now pass on to the consideration of the Vocative Case.

Dionysius Thrax called it also but in reality it is not a case at all. Practically it has to be treated as a case, though technically it is not (Farrar, Greek Syntax, p. 69). It is wholly outside of syntax in that the word is isolated and has no word-relations.[Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 376; Giles, Man., p. 302.]

The isolation of the vocative may be compared to the absolute use of the nominative, genitive and accusative. The native Sanskrit grammarians do not name it in their list of cases, and Whitney merely treats it in the singular after the other cases. Indeed the vocative is sometimes as much a sentence as a case, since the word stands to itself and forms a complete idea.

When Thomas said o kurios mou kai o Theos mou (Jo. 20:28), he gave Christ full acceptance of his deity and of the fact [after] his resurrection.

The vocative has no case-ending, but has to resort to various expedients. In general it is just like the nominative in form. This is true in all pronouns, participles and various special words like θεος, besides the plurals, neuters and feminines mentioned under v, (h). Cf. the same practical situation in the Sanskrit. Farrar indeed conjectures that originally there was no difference in form at all between the nominative and vocative and that the variation which did come was due to rapid pronunciation in address.

Thus πατηρ, but πετερ. Cf. ανερ (1 Cor. 7:16). In most languages there is no distinction in form at all between nominative and vocative, and in Latin the distinction is rare.

Thus Blass observes: "From the earliest times (the practice is as old as Homer) the nominative has a tendency to usurp the place of the vocative," This nominative form in the singular is just as really vocative as in the plural when used in address. The N. T. therefore is merely in line with the oldest Greek idiom in such examples. So θυγατηρ (Mk. 5:34; Lu. 8:48; Jo. 12:15, LXX), but see θυγατερ in Mt. 9:22. In Jo. 17:21, 24, 25, W. H. read πατηρ, but πατερ in Jo. 12:28; 17: 1, 5, 11, etc.

When the vocative has a separate form in the singular it is usually merely the stem of the word, πολιτα. etc. Moulton likewise notes the absence of ω in prayer in the N. T. (though sometimes in the LXX) and considers "the progressive omission of ω" in Greek not easy to explain. It came up from the vernacular and then gradually vanished from the vernacular much as our 0 has done.
There is a distinct tendency among the less educated writers in the papyri to use the nominative as a convenient indeclinable (Moulton, Cl. Rev., April, 1904).

Moulton considers that βασιλευ in Ac. 26:7 admits the royal prerogative in a way that would be inappropriate in the mockery of Jesus in Jo. 19:3. But Mk. 15:18 does have βασιλευ των αιωνων, due, according to Moulton, to "the writer's imperfect sensibility to the more delicate shades of Greek idiom."

GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH BY A. T. ROBERTSON

And you think this proves what? Do you think you writing "NOMINATIVE WITH THE ARTICLE =VOCATIVE." makes it true? Because you are wrong! Is the definite article+Nominative in all those instances where the Nominative indicates the subject of a sentence, Vocatives? For example “the Lord” occurs 429 times in the NT. All of them are not vocatives.

“The nominative is the case of specific designation. The Greeks referred to it as the "naming case," for it often names the main topic of the sentence. The main topic in a sentence semantically is, of course, similar to the syntactical subject, but the two are not always identical. Hence, the most common use of the nominative case is as subject.​

I got tired of trying to figure out what you were quoting from which pages. Some from p. 364, and some from 461, 462, and 465. You have ran quotes from several pages together as if they were one continuous narrative. By so doing you have made you entire quote totally false. It is so mixed together it is meaningless.

I don’t know what you are trying to prove with all this misrepresentation, but the only important thing from this entire mish-mash is this from pg. 462

"When Thomas said [size=+1]ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου[/size] (Jo. 20:28), he gave Christ full acceptance of his deity and of the fact of his resurrection."​

You even attempted to change the word "of" to "after" in this sentence.

 

[nChrist]

This is such a silly argument. Look at the context. Doubting Thomas wanted proof - he got that proof - and he then believed that Jesus Christ was indeed God.

John 20:24-31 KJV But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. 26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John 20:24-31 AMP But Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples kept telling him, We have seen the Lord! But he said to them, Unless I see in His hands the marks made by the nails and put my finger into the nail prints, and put my hand into His side, I will never believe [it]. 26 Eight days later His disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, though they were behind closed doors, and stood among them and said, Peace to you! 27 Then He said to Thomas, Reach out your finger here, and see My hands; and put out your hand and place [it] in My side. Do not be faithless and incredulous, but [stop your unbelief and] believe! 28 Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 29 Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, Thomas, do you now believe (trust, have faith)? Blessed and happy and to be envied are those who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to and trusted and relied on Me. 30 There are also many other signs and miracles which Jesus performed in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book. 31 But these are written (recorded) in order that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ (the Anointed One), the Son of God, and that through believing and cleaving to and trusting and relying upon Him you may have life through (in) His name [through Who He is]. [Ps. 2:7, 12.]

What is this portion of Scripture about? Can't you even guess after reading it? It is so plain and simple that it defies any argument - Jesus Christ is God, One with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. The Greek argument that John 20:28 is simply an exclamation is utter nonsense. Repeat of a basic Bible Fact: Almighty God is a Holy Trinity - God The Father, God The Son (Jesus Christ - The Word), and God The Holy Spirit.

John 1:1-3 KJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:1-3 AMP IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. [Isa. 9:6.] 2 He was present originally with God. 3 All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.

You need a book OTHER than the Holy Bible to argue that Jesus Christ is not God. The current argument has fallen apart and didn't work. The evidence against this argument is overwhelming.

 

[he-man]

This is nonsense. Robertson does not say this!

you just like to argue and are not interested in semantics!
THE ARTICLE ([FONT=Greekth,Bold][FONT=Greekth,Bold]TO @ARQRON[/FONT][/FONT]) 769
NOMINATIVE WITH THE ARTICLE =VOCATIVE.
GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH BY A. T. ROBERTSON

When Thomas said [SIZE=+1]ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου[/SIZE] (Jo. 20:28), he gave Christ full acceptance of his deity and of the fact of his resurrection." You even attempted to change the word "of" to "after" in this sentence.

So you do not believe it was AFTER Christ was resurrected? My Lord and my God (Ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou). Not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the Koiné. Thomas was wholly convinced and did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God. [RWP]

 

[Der Alte]

you just like to argue and are not interested in semantics!
THE ARTICLE (TO @ARQRON) 769
NOMINATIVE WITH THE ARTICLE =VOCATIVE.
GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH BY A. T. ROBERTSON So you do not believe it was AFTER Christ was resurrected? My Lord and my God (Ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou). Not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the Koiné. Thomas was wholly convinced and did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God. [RWP]

"My Lord and my God (Ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou). Not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the Koiné. Thomas was wholly convinced and did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God. [RWP]"​

What I have been saying all along and all these weeks you have been wasting your time pressing an argument when you never had any hope of prevailing.

When you quote a source quote it exactly don't change it to suit your assumptions/presuppositions. If you don't like the way Robertson's grammar reads, contact a publisher and publish your own.

 

[he-man]

"My Lord and my God (Ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou). Not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the Koiné. Thomas was wholly convinced and did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God. [RWP]"

After His resurrection, NOT before. semantics my dear man, semantics!

 

[2ducklow]

(Greek NT - (tr) w/ Grammar tags) Matthew 27:46 peri <4012> {PREP} de <1161> {CONJ} thn <3588> {T-ASF} ennathn <1766> {A-ASF} wran <5610> {N-ASF} anebohsen <310> (5656) {V-AAI-3S} o <3588> {T-NSM} ihsouV <2424> {N-NSM} fwnh <5456> {N-DSF} megalh <3173> {A-DSF} legwn <3004> (5723) {V-PAP-NSM} hli <2241> {HEB} hli <2241> {HEB} lama <2982> {HEB} sabacqani <4518> {ARAM} tout <5124> {D-NSN} estin <2076> (5748) {V-PXI} qee <2316> {N-VSM} mou <3450> {P-1GS}qee <2316> {N-VSM} mou<3450> {P-1GS} inati <2444> {ADV -I} me <3165> {P-1AS} egkatelipeV <1459> (5627) {V-2AAI-2S}

Online Bible Search for Bible Study - ESV, NKJV, NASB and KJV

thee mou is a vocative thee (God) with the personal pronoun my (mou).
(Darby) Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O our Lord and [our] God, to receive glory and honour and power; for *thou* hast created all things, and for thy will they were, and they have been created.

(Greek NT - (wh) w/ Grammar tags) Revelation 4:11 [g] axioj [e] <514> {A-NSM} [g] ei [e] <1488> (5748) {V-PXI-2S} [g] o [e] <3588> {T-NSM} [g] kurioj [e] <2962> {N-NSM} [g] kai [e] <2532> {CONJ} [g] o [e] <3588> {T-NSM} [g] qeoj [e] <2316> {N-NSM} [g] hmwn [e] <2257> {P-1GP} [g] labein [e] <2983> (5629) {V-2AAN} [g] thn [e] <3588> {T-ASF} [g] doxan [e] <1391> {N-ASF} [g] kai [e] <2532> {CONJ} [g] thn [e] <3588> {T-ASF} [g] timhn [e] <5092> {N-ASF} [g] kai [e] <2532> {CONJ} [g] thn [e] <3588> {T-ASF} [g] dunamin [e] <1411> {N-ASF} [g] oti [e] <3754> {CONJ} [g] su [e] <4771> {P-2NS} [g] ektisaj [e] <2936> (5656) {V-AAI-2S} [g] ta [e] <3588> {T-APN} [g] panta [e] <3956> {A-APN} [g] kai [e] <2532> {CONJ} [g] dia [e] <1223> {PREP} [g] to [e] <3588> {T-ASN} [g] qelhma [e] <2307> {N-ASN} [g] sou [e] <4675> {P-2GS} [g] hsan [e] <2258> (5713) {V-IXI-3P} [g] kai [e] <2532> {CONJ} [g] ektisqhsan [e] <2936> (5681) {V-API-3P}

Online Bible Search for Bible Study - ESV, NKJV, NASB and KJV


Rev. 4.11 is an example of kurie hmwm (our) thus putting another nail in the coffin of the arguemnt that kurie and thee never have a possesive adj. In the NT.

Point of logic. Since Jesus himself addressed God in the vocative "thee mou" in mathew 27.46. In trying to show us that Jesus is God,Why would God choose someone addrsssing Jesus as God in the articular nominative? Why didn't God choose someone addressing Jesus in the anarthrous vocative as Jesuss himself did in addressing God in matthew .27.46?Had Thomas addressed Jesus with the anarthous vocative "thee mou" as Jesus did in addressing God in matthew 27.46 there woudd then be no doubt that Thomas was addressing Jesus as god just as there is no doubt that Jesus was addressing God as God in matthew 27.46. It would suggest that God wants us to clearly know he is God but doesn't want us to clearly know that he is Jesus. sounds bipolar to me.

had thomas said "kuriee mou kai thee mou", this thread would never have gotten off the ground.

 

[2ducklow]

It is often argued that in classical Greek the nominative is sometimes used for the vocative, So Greek poets fudged with greek grammar to make it rhyme, English poets do the same thing, but that doesn't happen in the bible as far as I know and certainly it's not hte case in john 20.28. It has been argued that Thomas use the articular nominative in john 20.28 because he was being respectufl when addressing Jesus as God, but that argument falls apart when we consider matthew 27.46 wherein Jesus addressed God in the vocative. If the argument were true, it would mean that Jesus spoke to God without respect. Plus the only verse in the entire bible where it is argued that Jesus was addressed as God in the nominative out of a sense of respect is john 20.28. Image that.

On the other hand, since Gildersleeve was a top knotch NT Greek scholar, and since john 20.28 is of paramount importance to trinity/Jesus is God doctrines, and since I can't really verify what he is saying, at least not ve4ry well, I can a little,It is therefore highly likely that he too is negatively influenced by his doctrine to the point of falsefying Grammar. Allas there needs to be someone more qualified to take up this investigation, but there are none, most all christians want to prove Jesus is God through john 20.28 thus making them biased.

12.Nominative for the vocative.

In the absence of a vocative form, the nominative is used as a vocative. When the vocative exists, the use of the nominative as a vocative has often a perceptible difference of tone. It is graver and more respectful, because it appeals to character, though sometimes metrical considerations come into play. In Homer, the nominative of proper nouns is frequently substituted for the vocative because of certain irregularities of metre.

<FONT color=black>“<SPAN class=greek>&#7952;&#947;&#8060; . . .,

Basil L. Gildersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek, Syntax of the simple sentence, Nominative Case, chapter 12

NOTE; Gildersleeve is a well respected scholor from the 19th century who was a professor very knowledgeable about NT Greek and Classical Greek, he was a professor at some high class college like Yale or something, I forget exactly which one.

 

[yogosans14]

This is such a silly argument. Look at the context. Doubting Thomas wanted proof - he got that proof - and he then believed that Jesus Christ was indeed God.

John 20:24-31 KJV But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. 26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John 20:24-31 AMP But Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples kept telling him, We have seen the Lord! But he said to them, Unless I see in His hands the marks made by the nails and put my finger into the nail prints, and put my hand into His side, I will never believe [it]. 26 Eight days later His disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, though they were behind closed doors, and stood among them and said, Peace to you! 27 Then He said to Thomas, Reach out your finger here, and see My hands; and put out your hand and place [it] in My side. Do not be faithless and incredulous, but [stop your unbelief and] believe! 28 Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 29 Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, Thomas, do you now believe (trust, have faith)? Blessed and happy and to be envied are those who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to and trusted and relied on Me. 30 There are also many other signs and miracles which Jesus performed in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book. 31 But these are written (recorded) in order that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ (the Anointed One), the Son of God, and that through believing and cleaving to and trusting and relying upon Him you may have life through (in) His name [through Who He is]. [Ps. 2:7, 12.]

What is this portion of Scripture about? Can't you even guess after reading it? It is so plain and simple that it defies any argument - Jesus Christ is God, One with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. The Greek argument that John 20:28 is simply an exclamation is utter nonsense. Repeat of a basic Bible Fact: Almighty God is a Holy Trinity - God The Father, God The Son (Jesus Christ - The Word), and God The Holy Spirit.

John 1:1-3 KJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:1-3 AMP IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. [Isa. 9:6.] 2 He was present originally with God. 3 All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.

You need a book OTHER than the Holy Bible to argue that Jesus Christ is not God. The current argument has fallen apart and didn't work. The evidence against this argument is overwhelming.

Amen!Most people here probably use the corrupt NWT (jehovahs witnesses bible).

We should pray for the lost souls

 

[Der Alte]

. . .
Rev. 4.11 is an example of kurie hmwm (our) thus putting another nail in the coffin of the arguemnt that kurie and thee never have a possesive adj. In the NT.

2Duck concocts strawman. 2Duck dismantles straw man. 2Duck proclaims victory.

Point of logic. Since Jesus himself addressed God in the vocative "thee mou" in mathew 27.46. In trying to show us that Jesus is God,Why would God choose someone addrsssing Jesus as God in the articular nominative? Why didn't God choose someone addressing Jesus in the anarthrous vocative as Jesuss himself did in addressing God in matthew .27.46?Had Thomas addressed Jesus with the anarthous vocative "thee mou" as Jesus did in addressing God in matthew 27.46 there woudd then be no doubt that Thomas was addressing Jesus as god just as there is no doubt that Jesus was addressing God as God in matthew 27.46. It would suggest that God wants us to clearly know he is God but doesn't want us to clearly know that he is Jesus. sounds bipolar to me.

had thomas said "kuriee mou kai thee mou", this thread would never have gotten off the ground.

It never ceases to amaze me the hoops people will jump through, the grammatical acrobatics they perform, trying to prove something about the Bible. Most rational people would never dream of getting a law book, and practice law. Or get a medical book and practice medicine. Or get an accounting book try to be a public accountant. But a multitude of people think all they need is a Strong's concordance and that makes them a Bible and Greek scholar.

Wallace clearly explained how to recognize the Nominative for Vocative. It is not arbitrary, they don't just flip a coin there are rules.

V. Nominative for Vocative (Nominative of Address)
a. Definition
A substantive in the nominative is used in place of the vocative case.
It is used (as a voc.) in direct address to designate the addressee.

B. Amplification: A Legitimate Category?
The reason the nominative came to be used for the vocative was due to formal overlap. There is no distinction in form in the plural or neuter singular, as well as in some forms of the masculine and feminine singular. “Hence the tendency to eliminate tie distinction even where the vocative has a form of its own … (66)
Grammarians who hold to the eight-case system typically object to the category nominative for vocative, since their definition of case is functional, rather than morphological. Part of the reason for this objection, too, is that eight-case system proponents tend to view language more diachronically than synchronically and more in terms of etymology than usage. But the nominative of vocative is a natural development of the nominative as the naming case, especially among peoples whose native tongue did not include a distinct vocative form.
C. Structure and Semantics
The nominative for vocative can be broken down into two structural categories: anarthrous and articular. The anarthrous use has two further structures: with [size=+1]&#969;[/size] and without [size=+1]&#969;[/size]. Each anarthrous use parallels the similar vocative construction (viz. with the particle [size=+1]&#969;[/size], the address is much more emphatic or emotional; without it, less so.)

The articular use also involves two nuances: address to an inferior and simple substitute for a Semitic noun of address, regardless of whether the addressee is inferior or superior. The key for determining which use is being followed has to do with whether the text in question can be attributed to a Semitic source (such as quotation from the LXX).

66. Zerwick, 11(§33) Cf. also BDF, 81 (§147)

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel Wallace, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1996, pp

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament - Daniel B. Wallace - Google Books​