john 20.28 nom for nom.

[Der Alte]

uh oh, looks like this isthe final nail in the nom. for voc. jesus is god case.

Nominative for Vocative (Nominative for Address)

* A substantive in the nominative is used in the place of the vocative case to designate the addressee.
John 17:25 Righteous Father, even the world has not known you.
Mark 9:19 O unfaithful generation! How long will I be with you?

Nominative of Exclamation

* The nominative substantive is used in an exclamation without any grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence.
Rom 7:24 [O] wretched man [that] I am!

Greek Caseshttp://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...inative+for+vocative&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttp://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...inative+for+vocative&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

There are only 2 cases when the nom. is used for the vocative,a substantive in the nominative to designate the addressee, and a nominate substative in an exclamation with NO CONNECTION TO THE REST OF THE SENTENCE.

If John 20.28 is either one of these it would be the later, in which case it should be translated (since the means oh in an exclamation) "oh my Lord, and Oh my god"

The second example you quoted is NOT a "Nominative for Vocative!" It is a "Nominative of Exclamation." How can "My Lord and My God" not have anything to do with the rest of the sentence? It is a direct reply to a command from Jesus and directed to Jesus!

"My Lord and My God" is a nominative for vocative. A substantive in the nominative is used in the place of the vocative case to designate the addressee. Thomas was looking at Jesus, seeing the nail prints and spear wound and answered him, Jesus, "My Lord and My God," definitely designating him as the subject!

the death nail has been delievered, read it and weap.

How can this be the death knell for anything when you have not even understood what the source you quoted said?

 

[2ducklow]

(a) THE NOMINATIVE AS VOCATIVE. There is an increasing use of nominative forms as vocatives. This usage had long existed for nouns that were oxytone or had labial or guttural stems. Elsewhere in general the stem had served as vocative. No notice is here taken of the common use of the article with the nominative form as vocative, like η παις (Lu. 8:54), a construction coming under syntactical treatment. According to Winer-Schmieder(2 ) the use of the singular without the article belongs also to syntax and the solution of W. H. is called "certainly false." Hort(3) had suggested that in the case of θυγατηρ as vocative (Mk. 5:34; Lu. 8:48; Jo. 12:15) and πατηρ (Jo. 17:21, 24, 25) the long vowel (η ) was pronounced short. Why not the rather suppose that the vocative is like the nominative as in the case of labial and guttural stems? The usage is thus extended sometimes to these liquids. Indeed, in Jo. 17:25 we have πατηρ αγαθη the adjective having the vocative form. In Mk. 9:19 (Lu. 9:41) we have ω γενεα απιστος and αφρων in Lu. 12:20; 1 Cor. 15:36). See also ω πληρης (Ac. 13:10) for — ες, which might be an indeclinable form like the accusative (II, 2 (f)). But these adjectives show that the usage is possible with substantives. There are indeed variant readings in the MSS. above, which have θυγατερ and πατερ, but in Mt. 9:22 DGL have θυγατηρ. Note also ανερ (1 Cor. 7:16) and γυναι (Lu. 13:12). For peculiarities in nom. see (d). p. 264

(g) IN EXCLAMATIONS. The nominative is natural in exclamations, a sort of interjectional nominative.1 So Paul in Ro. 7:24, ταλαιπωρος εγω ανθρωπος, and 11:33, ω βαθος (a possible vocative) πλουτου. So. Ro. 7:24; 1 Cor. 15:57. Cf. χαρις τω θεω (Ro. 6 : 17). For parallel in papyri see Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436. Cf. χαρις τοις θεοις, B.U. 843 (i/A.D.).

(h) USED AS VOCATIVE. It only remains to consider the nominative form which is used as a vocative. Cf. chapter VII, 7, (a), for details as to form. 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. Thus συ πατηρ (Jo. 17:21) is just as truly vocative as συ πατερ (17:5). Indeed in Jo. 17:25 we have πατηρ δικαιε, showing that πατηρ is here regarded as vocative. The article with the vocative in address was the usual Hebrew and Aramaic idiom, as indeed in Aristophanes2 we have ο παις ακολουθει. It is good Greek and good Aramaic too when we have αββα ο πατηρ (Mk. 14:36) whether Jesus said one or both. In Mt. 11:26 (ναι ο πατηρ 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, ουρανε και οι αγιοι. Indeed the second member of the address is always in the nominative form.(3) Thus κυριε ο θεος ο παντοκρατωρ (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. P.461

Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research, A.T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., Ll.D., Litt.D., 1919, George H. Doran Company.

A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Prolegomena
By James Hope Moulton, Wilbert Francis Howard

Vocative Note that Lk, and perhaps Mt (אAL), correct Mk here. The anarthrous nom. should probably be regarded as a mere substitute for the vocative, which begins from the earliest times to be supplanted by the nominative. In MGr the forms in -e are practically the only separate vocatives surviving. Hellenistic has little more, retaining some in -a and -eu, with the isolated yunai, pater,and thugater; but the nom. is beginning to assert itself even here, for pathr(1) and thugathr are well attested (see the evidence in Blass 86 n.). The vocative itself need not detain us, the presence or absence of w being the only feature calling for comment. In the Lucan writings only is the interjection used in the classical manner without emphasis. Elsewhere it is mostly used as we use 0, except that this is with us appropriate in prayer, from which it is markedly absent in the NT, though not entirely in the translation Greek of the ОТ. The progressive omission of w is not wholly easy to explain, for the classical examples (see Gerth's Kühner3 § 357. 4) show that the simple voc. has normally a touch of dignity or reserve. A specially good ex. occurs in Plato Grito 52A., tautas dh famen kai se swkrates tais aitiais enexesthai, where " the effect of omitting w is to increase the impressiveness, since w swkrates is the regular mode of address : in English we obtain the same effect by exactly the opposite means" (Adam). NT use has thus approximated to our own, and may well have travelled upon the same path without any outside interference, such as A. Buttmann would find in Latinism.2 P 271

A Grammar of New Testament Greek ... - Google Books

A Greek grammar of the New Testament, By Georg Benedikt Winer, Moses Stuart, Edward Robinson

§ 22. Nouns ; use of the nominative.

1. The nominative absolute is sometimes found, i. e. a nominative with which no verb is connected.
E. g. John 17: 2 ina pan o dedwkas autw dosh autois zohn aiwnion Luke 21:6 tauta a thewreite eleusontai hmerai x.t. l. Acts 7: 40 o mwushs outos – ouk oidamen ti gegonen autw. Comp.Rom. 8: 3. Gal. 1: 20. Rev. 1: 20. 3 : 12, 21. Luke 12: 10. 13 : 4. etc. Here belongs Acts 24: 25 to nun exon poreuon i.e. as matters now stand, etc. See Georgi p. 40. Matthiae § 310.

2. Very frequently among the Greeks and Hebrews, the nominative with the article is used instead of the vocative. Of this usage there are many examples in the New Testament. .'
E. g. Mark 9 : 25 To pneuma to alalon – egw soi eptassw. Matt. 27: 29 xaire o basileus. Luke 8: 54 efwnhse legwn h pais eyeirou. Luke 18:11, 13. John 12 : 13. Rom. 8 : 15. Heb. 1: 8. al. This often happens in words which stand in apposition, so that sometimes a nominative appears to be connected with a vocative. E. g. Mark 14: 36 kai elegen Abba o pathr. Matt. 1: 20 Iwshf uios Dabid etc. Here may be referred places like John 15:13 umeis fwneite me o didaskalos. Some make the nominative to stand here for the accusative.

A Greek grammar of the New Testament - Google Books

Wallace GGBB pp. 56-59, In his three page discussion of “nominative for vocative” lists twelve examples of “Nominative for Vocative,” John 17:25, Matt 16:17, Rom 1:13, Mark 9:19, Mark 5:8, Luke 8:54, John 19:3, Gal 3:1, Eph 5:22, John 20:28, Rev 15:3, Heb 1:18

All these guys are saying is that in koine Greek , certain words that use to have a vocative ending, no longer had any different ending for the nominative and vocative,... They are not saying that sometimes a word , like kurios, which is nominative, was sometimes used in the vocative case and sometimes in the nominative case. So that when they say john 20.28 is an example of nominative being used for the vocative, they are fibbing. You will notice that they give not one example of a word that has a nom. ending different than the vocative ending being used in the vocative case. And t he reason they don't is cause it doesn't exist. These quotes all prove that john 20.28 does not have Thomas addressing Jesus, but rather it can only be an exclamation such as "oh my god, and oh my Lord."

that these guys get away with this is really bad.

 

[Macrina]

Hi 2ducklow --

I'm not quite following here. Your claim is that the vocative usage of the nominative form is a made-up rule, developed to uphold Trinitarian doctrine? That seems like a pretty big conspiracy not to have left some sort of trail behind.

As for John 20:28, the words Thomas speaks are specifically in answer to Jesus, so I have a hard time thinking that Thomas answered with an expletive.

I find it more likely that spoken Koine Greek would follow the pattern of using the articular nominative in a situation of exclamation or address.

 

[2ducklow]

Hi 2ducklow --

I'm not quite following here. Your claim is that the vocative usage of the nominative form is a made-up rule, developed to uphold Trinitarian doctrine? That seems like a pretty big conspiracy not to have left some sort of trail behind.

Just to show you how they outright fib on this subject A.T. Roberstons explanation contains a fib.

Thus συ πατηρ (Jo. 17:21) is just as truly vocative as συ πατερ (17:5). Indeed in Jo. 17:25 we have πατηρ δικαιε, showing that πατηρ is here regarded as vocative

John 17.21 does not say πατηρ (nominative) as Robertson falsely claims, it says πατερ (vocative). And John 17.25 is also πατερ and not πατηρ as Robertson falsely claims again.
see for yourself how Robertson fibed about john 17.21. I could show you the same with john 17.25, but you can look it up if you doubt me.

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) John 17:21 ina <2443> {THAT} panteV <3956> {ALL} en <1520> {ONE} wsin <5600> (5753) {MAY BE,} kaqwV <2531> {AS} su <4771> {THOU,} pater <3962> {FATHER, [ART]} en <1722> {IN} emoi <1698> {ME,} kagw <2504> {AND I} en <1722> {IN} soi <4671> {THEE,} ina <2443> {THAT} kai <2532> {ALSO} autoi <846> {THEY} en <1722> {IN} hmin <2254> {US} en <1520> {ONE} wsin <5600> (5753) {MAY BE,} ina <2443> {THAT} o <3588> {THE} kosmoV <2889> {WORLD} pisteush <4100> (5661) {MAY BELIEVE} oti <3754> {THAT} su <4771> {THOU} me <3165> {ME} apesteilaV <649> (5656) {DIDST SEND.}

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

As for John 20:28, the words Thomas speaks are specifically in answer to Jesus, so I have a hard time thinking that Thomas answered with an expletive.

an exclamation isn't an expletive.

I find it more likely that spoken Koine Greek would follow the pattern of using the articular nominative in a situation of exclamation or address.

well that's half of what I'm saying about john 20.28, thomas uses the articular nominative as an exclamation. Now you are agreeing with me.

Jesus is never addressd as kurios (nominative) he is always addressed as kurie (vocative). If Jesus is addressed as kurios in john 20.28, it is the only example in the entire NT.

The more i delve into this topic the more convinced I become of a massive deception to turn john 20.28 into something it isn't. john 20.28 is clearly an exclamation and in no way is Thomas addressing Jesus as Lord or god for if he had he would have said kurie not kurios.

 

[Macrina]

...The more i delve into this topic the more convinced I become of a massive deception to turn john 20.28 into something it isn't....

Firstly: Even if you have discovered a grammatical/translation error, I would hesitate to ascribe particular motives to it. I don't think the entire academic community in this field could or would agree to do such a thing. Disparate ideologies and professional integrity would both get in the way of coordination a deception on this scale. If there were something in what you're saying, I would think it would just be something that was not yet learned, not the product of a worldwide, millennia-old conspiracy.

Additionally: Even if one grants that every single Trinitarian scholar is willing to throw out academic integrity to engage in this lie, what of the non-Trinitarian scholars? Surely they wouldn't have anything to gain from perpetuating this alleged deception. Is there any discussion of this in the literature? Are there any professionals in the field who have raised questions about this?

 

[2ducklow]

Firstly: Even if you have discovered a grammatical/translation error, I would hesitate to ascribe particular motives to it. I don't think the entire academic community in this field could or would agree to do such a thing. Disparate ideologies and professional integrity would both get in the way of coordination a deception on this scale. If there were something in what you're saying, I would think it would just be something that was not yet learned, not the product of a worldwide, millennia-old conspiracy.

I showed clearly how Robertsons allegation doesn't line up with the 3 interlinears i checked his comments against. Either the 3 interlinears are wrong or Robertson is wrong, take your pick it's one or the other 3. , and your response was to call it an alleged error. That says to me you aren't interested in what the truth on this matter is but more interested in defending the doctrine of Jesus is God. The same could be said of all scholars who bleive Jesus is God.

Here's another one, and there are many such deceptions put forth by scholars on this subject. in this one, alalon is said to be an example of a nominative with the article being used as the vocative. FALSE, alalon is neuter, and all neuter nouns have the same ending for vocative and nominative.
I can show you lots more like this.

2. Very frequently among the Greeks and Hebrews, the nominative with the article is used instead of the vocative. Of this usage there are many examples in the New Testament. .'
E. g. Mark 9 : 25 To pneuma to alalon &#8211; egw soi eptassw. Matt. 27: 29 xaire o basileus. Luke 8: 54 efwnhse legwn h pais eyeirou. Luke 18:11, 13. John 12 : 13. Rom. 8 : 15. Heb. 1: 8. al. This often happens in words which stand in apposition, so that sometimes a nominative appears to be connected with a vocative. E. g. Mark 14: 36 kai elegen Abba o pathr. Matt. 1: 20 Iwshf uios Dabid etc. Here may be referred places like John 15:13 umeis fwneite me o didaskalos. Some make the nominative to stand here for the accusative.

A Greek grammar of the New Testament - Google Books



IT does boggle the mind that such a prolonged concpiricy to hide the true meaning of john 20.28 has gone on for so long, My guess would be that most are not conscious of their deception. I think it's such a complicated issue , but not extremely complicated, that it is easy for people including scholars to dupe themselves into believeing that the nominative is used for the vocative in john 20.28. I can't believe all though are unconsciously duping themselves, some have to know what's going on, I'm not that smart.

Additionally: Even if one grants that every single Trinitarian scholar is willing to throw out academic integrity to engage in this lie, what of the non-Trinitarian scholars? Surely they wouldn't have anything to gain from perpetuating this alleged deception. Is there any discussion of this in the literature? Are there any professionals in the field who have raised questions about this?

I know what the facts point to, I know no one has rasied this issue as far as I know, draw your own conclusion, mine is that it's a concpiricy perpetutated by scholars,. and blindly followed by the masses. I cannot believe that all scholars who know greek well can be oblivious to this deception, but I would say that some probably bend their thinking so much to force a meaining of Jesus is god out of JOhn 20.28 that they are doing it with a quiltless conscience.


Look at it like this, all they would have to do to prove that the nominative is sometimes used as the vocative is to find some word that has a different ending for the vocative than that of the nominative, and show how sometimes the nominative of that word is used as the vocative, and sometimes not. They never do that , and t hey never do that because it d oesn't exist in the NT.

 

[Macrina]

2ducklow,

I'm trying to join in here rationally and politely, so I don't appreciate you saying that I'm "[not] interested in what the truth on this matter is." The "alleged error" to which I refer is the general one of linguists who subscribe to the grammatical rule you claim is false. Besides, my point wasn't to say whether or not the grammatical rule is correct; my point there was to say that even granted that it is wrong, it is quite an accusation to say that it was crafted and perpetuated deliberately.

Honestly, I'm not in this thread to defend Trinitarian doctrine (although I am a Trinitarian). I was drawn here because I've been reviewing my Greek lately (I studied it formally in school) and thought this looked interesting. Even if John 20:28 just disappeared from the Bible, I'd still believe in the Trinity, so analyzing the grammar is no threat to me.

I haven't yet had time to go through the vast number of examples posted by Der Alter, so I can't speak to whether or not they contradict your theory. What I do know, though, is that the number of Koine Greek nouns with a vocative form distinct from the nominative is very small indeed. My professor barely mentioned the vocative case until second year, when we started reading Classical. It isn't surprising to find few examples in the NT; for something like this, one would pretty much have to look at other texts to figure out the linguistic rules.

By the way, you've quoted me a couple times as "Marcion," which isn't the name of someone with whom I wish to be associated. You can call me "Macrina" or "Mac." Just FYI.

 

[2ducklow]

2ducklow,

I'm trying to join in here rationally and politely, so I don't appreciate you saying that I'm "[not] interested in what the truth on this matter is."

Well let me put it like this, someone of my persuasion would be more quick to jump on Robertson's inconsistancy with the facts than someone who beleives that Jesus is god. Fair enough?

The "alleged error" to which I refer is the general one of linguists who subscribe to the grammatical rule you claim is false. Besides, my point wasn't to say whether or not the grammatical rule is correct; my point there was to say that even granted that it is wrong, it is quite an accusation to say that it was crafted and perpetuated deliberately.

Yes I agree, and that fact has held me in check durring my investigation from outright claiming that they are big fat liars. Yet everything I've investigated on the matter was leading me to that conclusion. However, upon careful examination of Robertsons claims Just now, I found that he is basing his entire argument upon scripture that has spurious readings, as he admits though not in those words. Here is what I found and here is Robertsons quote again, note my red highlight below.

a) THE NOMINATIVE AS VOCATIVE. There is an increasing use of nominative forms as vocatives. This usage had long existed for nouns that were oxytone or had labial or guttural stems. Elsewhere in general the stem had served as vocative. No notice is here taken of the common use of the article with the nominative form as vocative, like &#951; &#960;&#945;&#953;&#962; (Lu. 8:54), a construction coming under syntactical treatment. According to Winer-Schmieder(2 ) the use of the singular without the article belongs also to syntax and the solution of W. H. is called "certainly false." Hort(3) had suggested that in the case of &#952;&#965;&#947;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#961; as vocative (Mk. 5:34; Lu. 8:48; Jo. 12:15) and &#960;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#961; (Jo. 17:21, 24, 25) the long vowel (&#951; ) was pronounced short. Why not the rather suppose that the vocative is like the nominative as in the case of labial and guttural stems? The usage is thus extended sometimes to these liquids. Indeed, in Jo. 17:25 we have &#960;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#961; &#945;&#947;&#945;&#952;&#951; the adjective having the vocative form. In Mk. 9:19 (Lu. 9:41) we have &#969; &#947;&#949;&#957;&#949;&#945; &#945;&#960;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#959;&#962; and &#945;&#966;&#961;&#969;&#957; in Lu. 12:20; 1 Cor. 15:36). See also &#969; &#960;&#955;&#951;&#961;&#951;&#962; (Ac. 13:10) for &#8212; &#949;&#962;, which might be an indeclinable form like the accusative (II, 2 (f)). But these adjectives show that the usage is possible with substantives. There are indeed variant readings in the MSS. above, which have &#952;&#965;&#947;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#961; and &#960;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#961;, but in Mt. 9:22 DGL have &#952;&#965;&#947;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#961;. Note also &#945;&#957;&#949;&#961; (1 Cor. 7:16) and &#947;&#965;&#957;&#945;&#953; (Lu. 13:12). For peculiarities in nom. see (d). p. 264

Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research, A.T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., Ll.D., Litt.D., 1919, George H. Doran Company.



and here is what I discovered investigating some of the scriptures Robertson uses

Nominative as vocative.

Luke 8.54 &#951; &#960;&#945;&#953;&#962; , &#960;&#945;&#953;&#962; is neuter for child and all neuter nouns have the same ending in nominative and vocative cases.
Mark 5.34 &#920;&#965;&#947;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#961; (daughter) is nominative in Westcott and Hort Text, but vocative (&#920;&#965;&#947;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#961 in the Textus Receptus.

Luke 8.48 same as Mark 5.34 nominative in WH, Vocative in TR.
John 12.15 nominative in WH, vocative in TR.
John 17.21,24, 25Robertson says they are nominative for vocative, but I checked 3 interlinears and all of them were vocative. John 17.25 has &#960;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#961; &#960;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#961; (Father Father) in WH, but just the vocative &#960;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#961; in the TR.
Mark 9.19
Luke 9.41
Luke 12.20 &#945;&#966;&#961;&#969;&#957; (nom. In WH and TR ) but it is &#945;&#966;&#961;&#959;&#957; (vocative) in an online interlinear I use.
1 Cor. 15.36
Acts 13.10
Matthew 9.22 &#952;&#965;&#947;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#961; (vocative ending in both WH and TR.) Hummm, thugater or thug for short is Greek for woman, sounds funny in english. hey maybe Greek women were thugs back then

1 Cor. 7.16
Luke 13.12


So the undeniable facts are that there are scriptures that use the nominative for the vocative when a noun has different endings for the nominative and vocative cases, but all of them are spurious scirputres, all of them have readings where the vocative ending is used for the vocative and not the nominative. And of the ones I checked, all but one were decidedly in favor of vocative for vocative except one reading in luke 12.20.

In conclusion we can say that interpreting john 20.28 to mean that the nominative is used for the vocative, is based entirely upon spurious scripture. you asked me how reasonable would it be that a conspiracy could go on for 2000 years and no one comment on it, I ask you how reasonable is it to assumethat the grammar of nominative for vocative is true when it is based totally on spurious scirpture? I think the answer is the same for both. Don't you? I finally figured it out.

Honestly, I'm not in this thread to defend Trinitarian doctrine (although I am a Trinitarian). I was drawn here because I've been reviewing my Greek lately (I studied it formally in school) and thought this looked interesting. Even if John 20:28 just disappeared from the Bible, I'd still believe in the Trinity, so analyzing the grammar is no threat to me.

john 20.28 is like the major proof text for the Jesus is god doctrine, not for trinity.
It would be a subset of proof for that doctrine.

I haven't yet had time to go through the vast number of examples posted by Der Alter, so I can't speak to whether or not they contradict your theory.

I've gone through a number of them not all. I plan to examine each one. here's another one that they erroniously claim is an example of nominative for vocative,

(Young) Matthew 27:29 and having plaited him a crown out of thorns they put [it] on his head, and a reed in his right hand, and having kneeled before him, they were mocking him, saying, `Hail, the king of the Jews.


this is not a nom. king for vocative. it isn't vocative it is nominative.

What I do know, though, is that the number of Koine Greek nouns with a vocative form distinct from the nominative is very small indeed. My professor barely mentioned the vocative case until second year, when we started reading Classical. It isn't surprising to find few examples in the NT; for something like this, one would pretty much have to look at other texts to figure out the linguistic rules.

Ah that's what I suspected from my investigation, that there aren't a lot of nouns with a distinct vocative ending from the nominative ending.

By the way, you've quoted me a couple times as "Marcion," which isn't the name of someone with whom I wish to be associated. You can call me "Macrina" or "Mac." Just FYI.

Hey I'm 60, I forget my own name sometimes.
P>S> my church says women shouldn't be preachers.

 

[2ducklow]

More good stuff about John 20.28

IV Was God addressed in vocative by other writers?
There are 36 instances:
· God Matt 27.46
· Father Matt 6.9;11.25;26.39;26.42;Luke 10.21;11.2;15.12;15.18;15.21;16.24;16.27;16.30;22.42;23.34;23.46; John 11.41;21.27;12.28;17.1;17.5;17.11;17.21;17.24;17.25
· Lord Matt 11.25; Luke 10.21; Acts 1.24; 4.29; Rom 10.16; 11.3; 1.10; Rev 11.17; 15.3; 15.4; 16.7

The vocative is common whoever&#8217;s addressed.
The &#8220;articular nominative functioning as a vocative&#8221; is rare. Which is my point.
To conjure up this rare grammatical form to explain away John 20.28 is unfair to the writer John, to our Lord and to the millions duped.
There are in fact only four instances in the Bible where God is addressed &#8220;[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]&#8001;[/FONT] &#952;&#949;[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]&#8056;[/FONT]&#962;&#8221; as an articular nominative functioning as a vocative:

IV            Was God addressed in vocative by other writers

the four he lists are mark 15.34 (which prob. isn't an example because mark differs from luke in that theos in mark is a translation of Eloi, whereas Thee is a translation of Eli. so really it's only 3 examples.) luke 18.11,13, and Heb. 10.7.

But there are 240 occasions where &#8220;[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]&#8001;[/FONT] &#952;&#949;&#972;&#962;&#8221; is what it normally is, the nominative. Linguistically therefore, it is far more probable (98.3%) that &#8220;[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]&#8001;[/FONT] &#952;&#949;&#972;&#962;&#8221; means what it normally means: a nominative.

IV            Was God addressed in vocative by other writers

So we got 3 examples of an articular nominative theos being used as vocative, verses 241 examples of a nominative theos being used as nominative. Thus John 20.28 is less than weak as proof that Jesus is god.

 

[2ducklow]

So the question is is there a conspiracy. Certainly those in the know of the trinitarian persuasion omit certain facts that condemn their conclusion and overstate the facts. Ex. They often say there are numerous examples of the nominative being used for the vocative. But the facts are that only 3 examples exist of a nominative theos with the article being used as the vocative.. this fact isn't brought out. Another fact that is not brought out by the trijnitarian side is that all of the examples of a nominative without the article being used for the vocative are from disputed scriptures, and many if not most of those are not supported by the majority and best ancient Greek manuscripts.

On the other hand, those who say that no examples exist of Jesus being addressed as kurios exist, every time Jesus is addressed as Lord its in the vocative Kurie form. But they fail to point out that there is only one example of God in the entire NT being adressed in the vocative form Thee, the other 3 examples are all in the nominative form WITH the definite article.

So looking at just john 20.28, one could argue either way depending on which facts one emphasises and which facts one deemphasises. However, by far, the trinitarian side omits many facts and overstates many facts in their arguments. But is this a concpiracy? I would have to say not. I even found my self in analysising the facts deemphasising the fact that of the 4 times god is addressed only one time is he addressed in the vocative ,Thee. I would have to say there is a tendency in us all to focus on those facts that support our posistions and lessen those that don't.

I would have to say though, as objectively as I can, that the facts heavily lean towards Thomas making an exclamation. I cannot see how anyone can dismiss the fact that Jesus is never addressed as kurios but always as kurie some 107 times as insignificant. In fact I haven't seen a triniatiarn response to this fact. That is most weighty imo.

 

[Der Alte]

All these guys are saying is that in koine Greek , certain words that use to have a vocative ending, no longer had any different ending for the nominative and vocative,...

In addition to ignoring the 2 secular, NOT Christian, NOT Trinitarian grammars which also support this argument, and which I posted in this forum more than a month ago, note there is NOT one single bit of grammatical, lexical, or scholastic evidence in support of any counter argument here. An unknown person with no demonstrated knowledge or expertise in Greek merely saying, "I'm right and the scholars are wrong."

They are not saying that sometimes a word , like kurios, which is nominative, was sometimes used in the vocative case and sometimes in the nominative case. So that when they say john 20.28 is an example of nominative being used for the vocative, they are fibbing.You will notice that they give not one example of a word that has a nom. ending different than the vocative ending being used in the vocative case. And t he reason they don't is cause it doesn't exist.

More specious, unsupported arguments with NO, NONE, ZERO, evidence, which contradicts what the scholars did, in fact, say.

These quotes all prove that john 20.28 does not have Thomas addressing Jesus, but rather it can only be an exclamation such as "oh my god, and oh my Lord."

This interpretation would have Jesus standing idly by while one of his disciples blasphemed by taking the name of God in vain, without saying a word. It also would require that Thomas a devout Jew would blaspheme in such a way.

that these guys get away with this is really bad.

What is really bad is that the only place we see such frivolous and specious arguments are in the obscurity of forums like this, by people hiding behind pseudonyms, NOT in the real, life down and dirty arena of professional Christian scholarship, by real scholars who are not afraid to put their reputations, and expertise, on the line and publish real scholarship and sign their names to it.

 

[2ducklow]

i've done some rethinking here. there are only 3 instances of the nominative being used for the vocative, despite trinitarian claims that the bible is full of them. I know that the word of God is very precise and I know that god choses his words very carefully. True there are secular sources wherein the nominative was used for the vocative in the process of change. But it's sorta like our word gay. when I was a young lad gay was used all the time to mean happy, no one in my neighborhood used the word to mean what it means today, we all used the Q word, we didn't have another word for it. Today the oppoisite almost is the situation, gay means homosexual more than it does happy, homosexual is the primary meaning of the word today. the think is the word of God is very precise, God choses words very carefully and wouldn 't choose a word in the process of change, like theos and kurios, to make such a monumental point as Jesus being god.

and

True Thomas said "my Lord and My god" in the nominative case and God was quoting Thomas, but if Thomas had used imprecise speech, God would not have chosen his statement to put it in the bible. If god wanted to convince us that Jesus should be addressed as God or that he was God, he would have chosen someone saying "my Lord and My god" in the vocative so that there would be absolutely no doubt. He would not have chosen an imprecise statement of Thomas unsupported by any scripture anywhere where the nominative is uised for the vocative to teach us that. All the scriptures that trinitarians claim have the nominative for the vocative are spurious scriptures. one must remember that we have no manuscripts prior to the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Just bits and pieces here and there prior to that. So there is not even one scripture where the nominative is used for the vocative. lets look at the only undisputed possible exceptions of which there are three. the first two can easily be discounted as 3 examples of nominative used in an exclamation. that's how most bibles translate hebrews 10.7, and luke 18.11,13 are the same wording.

Rotherham) Hebrews 10:7 Then, said I--Lo! I am come,--in the heading of the scroll, it is written concerning me,--to do, O God, thy will.

(Rotherham) Luke 18:13 But, the tax-collector, afar off, standing,--would not so much as lift up, his eyes, unto heaven, but kept smiting his own breast saying--O God! be propitiated unto me, the sinner!

So zero, nada, none examples of the nominative being used for the vocative exist in God's precise word. God chose the nominative to mean the nominative and the vocative to mean the vocative.

Just as Paul said by way of exclamation in hebrews 10.7 "O God" Thomas too said in an exclamation "O God ". The fact that no one translates john 20.28 correctly as "O my Lord and O my God" points to a massive coverup. Just as the word taken as figuratively being Jesus doesn't even register on anyones radar screen (even though no one has any problem taking a door or a bread or a shepard, or a lamp as a figurative representation of Jesus., can't take the word though as fig. for Jesus cause well you just can't it destroys the Jesus is god doctrine if you do so don't even let it get on the radar screen keep everyone in the dark have um argue over whether god is definite, indefinite, qualitative, definite with qualitative nuance etc. ), too the fact that Thomas acutally said "oh my Lord and O my God" doesnt register on anyones radar screen. No problem with Hebrews 10.7 all translate it as an exclamation but Nooooooooooooo can't translate the same wording in john 20.28 that way. It's a massive coverup of unimaginable preportions. the argument that an exclamation is taking the Lord's name in vain is so ridiculous (as ridiculous as saying a verb doesn't have a subject, or is and become are action verbs not linking verbs, really I know an educated person who says these things to prove his doctrine, amazing) as to deserve no mention but since it is such a common trinitarian rebutal. let me point out that God's name is not God and it is not lord, and an exclamation isn't speaking vanities, just as 'for' does not mean 'instead of" . This idea that exclamations are bad stems greatly from the stoicism that has pervaded the church for centuries. this idea that showing emotion is evil is just not true. Stocisim is not something to be desired, but is something that has rubbed off on practically all christians to some extent and to a great extent with most so much so that they think exclaming over someting is evil, or dancing is evil, or hugging is evil, or kissing is evil, or being happy durring worship is evil, etc.


Secular scholars all agree that the nominative is used in phrases sometimes that noramally take the vocative, but that is a changed meaning not that the nominative means the vocative as saying noinative for vocative would mean. ex.

Instead of saying "My god you are beautiful."
one could and would change that by saying
"O my God, you are beautiful."

this is what secular scholars mean when they say the nominative is used instead of the vocative in certain expressions that normally take the vocative, not that the nominative has the meaning of the vocative and just replaces it.


So my initial suspicion that something was rotten in the state of Denmark has proven to be true. Wanna know what tipped me off? When I read from trinitarian scholars that there are lots of examples of nominative for vocative in the bible and they always gave the same 2 examples, john 20,28 and mark, 15 something. Proving that john 20.28 is an exmaple of nominative for vocative by giving john 20.28 as an exmaple is what's called circular reasoning. that tipped me off, and my suscpicions have proven to be true. Massive cover upl.

I had an occaison recently to witness in real life to a trinitarian seminary student about this very verse and this nominative for vocative subject, I was at the time still in the process of learning about the subject so wasn't as effective as I could have been.. But now, I feel I'm loaded for bear now on the false claim that the nominative is used for the vocative. Another one bites the dust. well I went on quite a bit here, got all wound up, I doubt if anyone will read all of this but I've sure cemented my understanding of nominative for nominative in john 20.28 with solid logic and facts in this thread.

 

[2ducklow]

I just figured out why a noun such as theos with the def article is an exclamation. It&#8217;s because you say o (omricon) for &#8216;the&#8217; in Greek. The Greeks also say &#969; (omega) for an interjection Oh or O. the two letters are quite similar in sound that&#8217;s why. prob. one is a short o (omricon) and the other is a long o (omega) so it's like they say "O God" sometimes, and at other times its "Oooooooo god". we do the same thing in english except our word for the isn't O.

Gee , why don&#8217;t these scholars say this, why do they leave it to us to decipher their theology based grammar? Because it&#8217;s a cover up, they don&#8217;t want you to know that john 20.28 is an exclamation not an address to Jesus. ONe needs a code book to decipher these so called biblical scholars Greek.


Mark 12.29 o <3588> {T-NSM} ihsouV <2424> {N-NSM}

Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

O Israel note Israel is nominative.

Rom 2.3 w <5599> {INJ} anqrwpe <444> {N-VSM}

Romans 2:3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?


Oo man, note, man is vocative.

Rom 9.20 w <5599> {INJ} anqrwpe <444> {N-VSM}

Oo man, note man is vocative

Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Rom 11.33 w <5599> {INJ} baqoV <899> {N-NSN}



Oo Depth, note Depth is nominative.

Romans 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

1 ti. 6.11 w <5599> {INJ} anqrwpe <444> {N-VSM}

oo man , note man is vocative.

1 Timothy 6:11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.

Heb. 1.8 o <3588> {T-NSM} qeoV <2316> {N-NSM}

O God, note God is nominative.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.


They have no trouble translating heb. 1.8 as &#8216;o god&#8221; but nooooooo way will they ever translate John 20.28, which says the exact same thing, as &#8220;o my god&#8221;. Nooooooooo, that would expose their deceptive theology based grammar.
He. 10.7 o <3588> {T-NSM} qeoV <2316> {N-NSM}

O god, note God is nominative.

John 20.28 o <3588> {T-NSM} kurioV <2962> {N-NSM} mou <3450> {P-1GS} kai <2532> {CONJ}o <3588> {T-NSM} qeoV <2316> {N-NSM}mou <3450> {P-1GS}


Well, gee, john 20.28 is just like all the other interjections/def. Article exclamations yet no one ever translates it the same way it is translated everywhere else, namely &#8220;O God&#8221;.
Gigantic coverup maximus.

 

[Der Alte]

All these guys are saying is that in koine Greek , certain words that use to have a vocative ending, no longer had any different ending for the nominative and vocative,... They are not saying that sometimes a word , like kurios, which is nominative, was sometimes used in the vocative case and sometimes in the nominative case. So that when they say john 20.28 is an example of nominative being used for the vocative, they are fibbing. You will notice that they give not one example of a word that has a nom. ending different than the vocative ending being used in the vocative case. And t he reason they don't is cause it doesn't exist. These quotes all prove that john 20.28 does not have Thomas addressing Jesus, but rather it can only be an exclamation such as "oh my god, and oh my Lord."

that these guys get away with this is really bad.

A misrepresentation of the sources, only one makes the statement "certain words that use to have a vocative ending, no longer had any different ending for the nominative and vocative,." and of course the classical grammars are ignored. If you truly thought any of your argument was worth anything you would be tearing down publisher's doors trying to get your pseudo-scholarship published. But after all this time all we see are are misrepresented, quoted out-of-context sources posed under a pseudonym.

 

[Brennin]

I like how you said: "He was uttering an exclamation, just as anyone would in that situation." So St. Thomas was taking the LORD's name in vain out of shock, right? But why did Jesus, a Rabbi, not only forget to chastise him, but praise him?

Thomas would not have been taking the Lord's name in vain. Moreover, angels (and men) are referred to as "God," so it does not help trinitarians in any event.

 

[Brennin]

This interpretation would have Jesus standing idly by while one of his disciples blasphemed by taking the name of God in vain, without saying a word. It also would require that Thomas a devout Jew would blaspheme in such a way.

Merely asserting that does not make it true, sorry. Where is your evidence that saying "My Lord and my God," under the interpretation in question, is necessarily blasphemy/taking God's name in vain, especially in the context of first century Judaism?

 

[Der Alte]

Merely asserting that does not make it true, sorry. Where is your evidence that saying "My Lord and my God," under the interpretation in question, is necessarily blasphemy/taking God's name in vain, especially in the context of first century Judaism?

Evidently you are unaware that 1st century Judaism went to great lengths to avoid saying "Theos" or even "Elohim," at all, using euphemisms to refer to God such as "The Most High", "The Power," etc. The choices for John 20:28 are Thomas was addressing Jesus as "The God of me" or he was making an exclamation similar to "Oh my God." Which to a 1st century Jew was blasphemy. Take your pick.

 

[Der Alte]

Thomas would not have been taking the Lord's name in vain. Moreover, angels (and men) are referred to as "God," so it does not help trinitarians in any event.

Merely asserting that does not make it true, sorry.

 

[2ducklow]

Thomas would not have been taking the Lord's name in vain. Moreover, angels (and men) are referred to as "God," so it does not help trinitarians in any event.

First of all, theos is not God's name it is yhwh. Secondly, people in the old testament exclaimed 'o YHWH." thridly, an exclamation isn't taking the Lord's name (YHWH) in vain.

Genesis 24:12 And he said, O LORD God of my master Abraham, I pray thee, send me good speed this day, and shew kindness unto my master Abraham.

(Rotherham) Genesis 24:12 Then he said, O Yahweh, God of my lord Abraham! I pray thee, cause it to fall out before me today,--that thou deal in lovingkindness, with my lord Abraham.

(Rotherham) Genesis 24:42 So I came in to-day, unto the fountain,--and I said, O Yahweh, God of my lord Abraham! if, I pray thee, thou art prospering my way whereon, I, am going,

(Rotherham) Numbers 12:13 Then Moses made outcry unto Yahweh, saying,--O GOD, I beseech thee grant healing. I beseech thee unto her.


hint, Moses was a devout Jew.

[SIZE=+0](Rotherham) Numbers 16:22 And they fell upon their faces and said, O GOD, the God of the spirits of all flesh,--shall, one man, sin, and against all the assembly, wilt thou he wroth. [/SIZE]

 

[2ducklow]

Evidently you are unaware that 1st century Judaism went to great lengths to avoid saying "Theos" or even "Elohim," at all, using euphemisms to refer to God such as "The Most High", "The Power," etc. The choices for John 20:28 are Thomas was addressing Jesus as "The God of me" or he was making an exclamation similar to "Oh my God." Which to a 1st century Jew was blasphemy. Take your pick.

Not according to the bible. Robertson maybe.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Hebrews 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Hebrews 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Revelation 11:17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.

Luke 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Hint, Jesus was a devout Jew.

but hey, even the pharasees said O god.

(Rotherham) Luke 18:11 The Pharisee, taking his stand, these things unto himself was praying: O God! I thank thee, that I am not like the rest of men,--extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or, even as this tax-collector;


And of course there is only one choice for john 20.28, oh my Lord and Oh my God". there is no such thing as nominative for vocative. It''s just one of many trinitarian made up false grammar rules invented to try and make the b ible say that Jesus is God. Such as Sharps rule, the one ab out titus 2.13, verbs have no subjects, is and become are action verrbs not linking verbs, et. al. IF you have any doubt just read Robertsons phoney explanation about nominative for vocative.