john 20.28 nom for nom.

[2ducklow]

ok let's continue exposing the deceptive assertion that john 20,28 is nominative for vocative.
read on.

Page 462: "When Thomas said HO KYRIOS MOU KAI HO QEOS MOU (John 20:28), he gave Christ full acceptance of his deity and of the fact of his resurrection." Page 466: "In John 20:28 Thomas addresses Jesus as HO KYRIOS MOU KAI HO QEOS, the vocative like those above.

John 20:
ho kurios mou kai ho qeos mou is vocative like ourane kai hoi hagioi. Give me a break. yet everyone gulps it down. hoi hagioi (rev. 20.18 {holy apostles}) is like ho kyrios kai ho qeos (John 20.28 the god of me and the Lord of me}) in alice in wonderland maybe. holy apostles is the same as 'the god of me and the lord of me." and everyone buys it cept me and that fella in my previous post. This is absolutely unreal how such an obvious, extremely lame deception is gobbled up by everyone. unreal.

.Thus in Rev. 18:20 we have both together, OURANE KAI HOI HAGIOI. Indeed the second member of the address is always in the nominative form. Thus KYRIE, HO QEOS, HO PANTOKRATOR (Rev. 15:3). Compare John 20:28." "

next deception, ' kyrie, ho qeo9s, ho pantokrator is nom. for voc.. WRONG> And it's not anything like john 20.28. Kyrie,ho qeos isn't "ho kyrie mou KAI ho qeos mou.' Different ball game.
(Rotherham) Revelation 15:3 and they sing the song of Moses the servant of God and the song of the Lamb, saying--Great and marvelous, are thy works, Lord, God, the Almighty! Righteous and true, are thy ways, O King of the ages!


Lord, God almighty isn't a nominative for a vocative. Lord is vocative, god and almighty are nominative because they describe the vocative lord. JOhn 20.28 is nothing like that they falsly claim that lord in the nominative and god in the nominative are used for the vocative in john 20.28, then deceive you by saying rev. 15.3 is another example of it. It isn't they are flat out in deceptive mode. and everyone buys it whole hog. thank God my eyes are open. rev. 15.3 is not an example of a nominative being used for a vocative, it is an example of 2 nominatives being used to describe (nominative of opposistion) the vocative lord. It's really funny how such a silly easily exposed deception is bought up by everyone.
John 20:

why do they resort to this deception? because they have zero examples of a nominative for a vocative in the bible so they resort to this and many other similar deceptions to prove it. apparently only me and the person in my previoous post can see this blatant and obvious, utterly obvious deception. thank you Jesus for opening my eyes Lord.

 

[Der Alte]

ok let's continue exposing the deceptive assertion that john 20,28 is nominative for vocative.
read on.

* Irrelevant diatribe with NO,NONE, ZERO evidence omitted *

 

[2ducklow]

let us continue exposing this horrendous deception.

Dr. E. A. Abbott follows suit also in an extended argument to show that KYRIE HO QEOS LXX way of addressing God, not HO KYRIOS KAI HO QEOS. But after he had written he appends a note to p. 95 to the effect that 'this is not quite satisfactory. For [John] 13:13 PHONEITE ME HO DIDASKALOS KAI HO KYRIOS, and Rev. 4:11 AXIOS EI, HO KYRIOS KAI HO QEOS HEMON, ought to have been mentioned above.'

John 20:

He says the septuagint way of addressing God is kyrie ho qeos, then he says that John 13.13 should have been mentioned cause it says teacher and lord in the nominative case.
Get real guys. no one is addressing anyone as teacher or lord in that verse. what a giant fib.

(Rotherham) John 13:13 Ye, call me, The Teacher, and, The Lord,--and, well, say, for I am.

Jesus is addressing some people as ye or you, no one is being addressed as teacher and lord. This is absolutely abominable what they are doing.

rev. 4.11 an exclamation that they call nominative for vocative.

(Rotherham) Revelation 4:11 Worthy, art thou, O Lord, and our God, to receive the glory, and the honour, and the power: because thou didst create all things, and, by reason of thy will, they were, and were created.


hello, O Lord is an exclamation not a nom . for voc. address.


does every one but me and the fella in two previous posts have their blinders on? apparently.

 

[truncated]

does every one but me and the fella in two previous posts have their blinders on? apparently.

Its not that they are blind:

Making the word of God of none effect through tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

it cant be helped, as an example, a calvinist will always see calvinist doctrine. and so on.

until we can admit we are guilty of reading our traditions into scripture, we cant and wont be overcommers.

peace

 

[Hiroyuki]

John 20.28 is no proof that Jesus is god because god and lord are in the nominative case and not the vocative case.

The unbaptized as yet by Spirit Apostles and their statements are not authoritative.

The Bible is full of promises that people will know Jesus is Lord. Such statements are as, "On that Day, then they will know I am the Lord".

Anyone who has proof Jesus is God knows, anyone who does not does not know because they do not - yet - have that proof. Of course, everyone challenges naturally that Jesus is God until they have that proof. For some they are willing to believe and try to understand. Others are against Jesus being King and will resist all evidence that they can because they do not want a world of the meek and a righteous world. They want evil and tyrants for they are of tyranny.

 

[2ducklow]

Its not that they are blind:

Making the word of God of none effect through tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

it cant be helped, as an example, a calvinist will always see calvinist doctrine. and so on.

until we can admit we are guilty of reading our traditions into scripture, we cant and wont be overcommers.

peace

I guess.

 

[2ducklow]

First, one must admit that, judged by the usage of Classical Greek, the LXX, the NT, or the papyri, the use of “Lord” as a vocative is uncommon. But that “Lord” may be a nominative of address in Johannine usage is evident from John 13:13 and Revelation 4.11;

Neither of these 2 examples are vocative nominatives. john 13.13 has no one being addressed as teacher or Lord. what a giant fib.

[SIZE=+0](NKJV) John 13:13 "You call me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for [so] I am. [/SIZE]

You is the vocative not teacher or Lord, it's a big fib he tells saying teacher and lord are voacative nominatives.

Rev. 4.11 is kurie, or vocative in the TR, and kurios in wh. so the verse is an interpolation. Even if kurios is the correct reading, it is an exclamation not nominative for vocative.

(Rotherham) Revelation 4:11 Worthy, art thou, O Lord, and our God, to receive the glory, and the honour, and the power: because thou didst create all things, and, by reason of thy will, they were, and were created.

O Lord is an exclamation

that it may be applied to Jesus is clear from the former verse. Second, it is extraordinary to treat not as adjective when (a) it stands between two articular nouns in the same case, each modified by ‘of me’, and (b) esti is lacking. Third, there are at least two reasons why the evangelist may have written ‘the Lord’ rather than "lord". (a) In comparison with "lord", which is not infrequently used in the Gospels in the sense “sir!”,[4] the vocatival ‘the Lord’ is more formal and respectful, more sonorous and emphatic in tone (cf. John 13:13),

John 17:25: Jesus as God by Murray Harris


More fibs. john 13.13 is not a vocatival lord , Jesus is not being addressed as Teacher and Lord.

and therefore would be appropriate when a disciple was addressing his Lord.[5] For John "lord" perhaps represented too mundane a usage, being often followed by a request for help[6] or a question.[7](b) Although the nominative used in a vocatival sense was established Greek idiom,[8] John's two uses of "the Lord" in this sense (viz., John 13:13; 20:28) may owe something to the Semitic vocative,[9] expressed by the articular nominative in Hebrew (GKC §126e) and the emphatic state in Aramaic (Rosenthal §43). Fourth, it has not always been observed that Abbott later reversed his preference and took kai. to mean "and" (not "also"): "Thomas said to him [the words], ‘My lord-and my God’,” the vocatival "the Lord" being "exceptional Johannine usage

John 17:25: Jesus as God by Murray Harris

more fibs. Jesus is always without exception addressed as Lord in the vocative (kurie) and never addressed in the nominative (kurios).
And John uses the vocative lord (kurie) .

John 6:34 .........kurie <2962> {N-VSM}

John 6:68 kurie <2962> {N-VSM}

John 8:11 h <3588> {T-NSF} de <1161> {CONJ} eipen <2036> (5627) {V-2AAI-3S} oudeiV <3762> {A-NSF} kurie <2962> {N-VSM}

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

Murray Harris has no right to call himself a scholar telling such bold face fibs. John always records Jesus being addressed as kurie and never as kurios, just the opposite of what murray harris says. It seems these guys can say anything and no one ever checks um out. wonder why?
Since Murray Harris tells such giant fibs that are easily exposed about the Greek NT, I stongly doubt anything he says about classical greek. I have no way of checking his classical greek claims, but if it's the same as his Greek NT claims, it too is a giant fib.

 

[2ducklow]

Oh, I just had to post this. This is undeniable simple proof that Jesus is not being called God in john 20.28

&#8220;My God and Your God&#8221;
What the risen Jesus&#8217; said to Mary Magdalene in Jn 20.17 strongly suggests that
the Fourth Evangelist did not mean that Thomas called Jesus &#8220;God.&#8221; John records only a
few verses before the Thomas incident that the resurrected Jesus told Mary Magdalene to
tell His disciples, &#8220;Go to My brethren, and say to them, &#8216;I ascend to My Father and your
Father, and My God and your God&#8217;&#8221; (Jn 20.17). For obvious literary reasons, John would
not present Jesus as calling the Father &#8220;My God&#8221; and soon follow it with Thomas calling
Jesus &#8220;my God.&#8221; That would be utter confusion, besides a denial of Jewish monotheism.
If the Father is the God of Jesus, and there is only one God, then Jesus can&#8217;t also be God.

http://servetustheevangelical.com/doc/Restitution_book.pdf

So according to trinitarians, John has Jesus saying to Mary Magdelene that He, Jesus has a god, God the Father, which is also their god in verse 17, then in verse 28 John has Thomas calling Jesus god.

(NKJV) John 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and [to] My God and your God.' "

(NKJV) John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

Jesus ascends to his god, and Thomas calls Jesus his god and of course there is only one god, is the trinitarian interpretation of what John wrote here in verse 17, and 28. Illogico supremo per usualo.

 

[Superfast]

Oh, I just had to post this. This is undeniable simple proof that Jesus is not being called God ................
,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,

So according to trinitarians, John has Jesus saying to Mary Magdelene that He, Jesus has a god, God the Father, which is also their god in verse 17, then in verse 28 John has Thomas calling Jesus god.

(NKJV) John 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and [to] My God and your God.' "

(NKJV) John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

Jesus ascends to his god, and Thomas calls Jesus his god and of course there is only one god, is the trinitarian interpretation of what John wrote here in verse 17, and 28. Illogico supremo.

Hey Duck, that's probably less complicated to defend. excellent point.

 

[Superfast]

Hummmm, I found something very interesting about John 20.28. What got me started is the bit about Thomas answered. Well if you look in strongs #611, you'll find that the word translated answered means literally to conclude within oneself, but by implication strong's says it means to respond. What got my curiosity up was that Thomas answered no question posed by Jesus, so why do they translate it answered instead of what it means which is respond? I looked at all the usages of the word translated answered, and all of them, or most of them say "he answered and said". Answered and said, why that? Because it is another bad translation, it makes sense if translated literaly, Thomas concluded within himself and said "O my Lord and O my god". It doesn't make sense for it to say that Thomas answered, when no question was posed, and to say answered and said makes no sense either. Answered and said would mean Thomas answered some question and also (and means also) said "O my Lord and O my god." Why do bible translators do that funny stuff? why don't they just translate it like it is? thomas concluded within himself and said (2 events. event one Thomas concluded, event two thomas said).
the more one digs into this verse the more fowl play one runs into.

The holman bible is a little more honest than most on this verse.

(Holman NT) John 20:28 Thomas responded to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

or the god'sword bible


(GodsWord) John 20:28 "Thomas responded to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!"

the deception surrounding this verse of the word of god is all pervasive. omnipervasive? is that a word? it should be. sure fits here.

 

[2ducklow]

here ya go, a detailed discussion of john 20.28.

 

[Der Alte]

Hummmm, I found something very interesting about John 20.28. What got me started is the bit about Thomas answered. Well if you look in strongs #611, you'll find that the word translated answered means literally to conclude within oneself, but by implication strong's says it means to respond. What got my curiosity up was that Thomas answered no question posed by Jesus, so why do they translate it answered instead of what it means which is respond? I looked at all the usages of the word translated answered, and all of them, or most of them say "he answered and said". Answered and said, why that? Because it is another bad translation, it makes sense if translated literaly, Thomas concluded within himself and said "O my Lord and O my god". It doesn't make sense for it to say that Thomas answered, when no question was posed, and to say answered and said makes no sense either. Answered and said would mean Thomas answered some question and also (and means also) said "O my Lord and O my god." Why do bible translators do that funny stuff? why don't they just translate it like it is? thomas concluded within himself and said (2 events. event one Thomas concluded, event two thomas said).
the more one digs into this verse the more fowl play one runs into.

The holman bible is a little more honest than most on this verse.

(Holman NT) John 20:28 Thomas responded to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

or the god'sword bible

(GodsWord) John 20:28 "Thomas responded to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!"

the deception surrounding this verse of the word of god is all pervasive. omnipervasive? is that a word? it should be. sure fits here.

Virtually everybody with a Strong's concordance thinks they are a Greek expert. Here is the definition of the word translated "answered" in John 20:28 from Thayer's lexicon. OBTW Thayer was a Unitarian NOT a Trinitarian.

G611 &#945;&#787;&#960;&#959;&#954;&#961;&#953;&#769;&#957;&#959;&#956;&#945;&#953; apokrinomai
Thayer Definition:
1) to give an answer to a question proposed, to answer
2) to begin to speak, but always where something has preceded
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer&#8217;s/Strong&#8217;s Number: from G575 and krino
Citing in TDNT: 3:944,*​

And let us remember whether we translate the word "answered,""replied,""responded,' etc. what Thomas said was directed to Jesus.

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, [Jesus]My Lord and my God.​

 

[nChrist]

Put this verse in context and it's incredibly simply - regardless of whether you use an English translation or the original language. JESUS CHRIST IS GOD!

John 20:28 KJV And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Clarke Commentary
By Adam Clarke, 1715 - 1832

PUBLIC DOMAIN - Permission is not required to reproduce this material.

John 20:28

Thomas answered, etc. - Those who deny the Godhead of Christ would have us to believe that these words are an exclamation of Thomas, made through surprise, and that they were addressed to the Father and not to Christ. Theodore of Mopsuestia was the first, I believe, who gave the words this turn; and the fifth Ecumenic council, held at Constantinople, anathematized him for it. This was not according to the spirit of the Gospel of God. However, a man must do violence to every rule of construction who can apply the address here to any but Christ. The text is plain: Jesus comes in - sees Thomas, and addresses him; desiring him to come to him, and put his finger into the print of the nails, etc. Thomas, perfectly satisfied of the reality of our Lord's resurrection, says unto him, - My Lord! and My God! i.e. Thou art indeed the very same person, - my Lord whose disciple I have so long been; and thou art my God, henceforth the object of my religious adoration. Thomas was the first who gave the title of God to Jesus; and, by this glorious confession, made some amends for his former obstinate incredulity. It is worthy of remark, that from this time forward the whole of the disciples treated our Lord with the most supreme respect, never using that familiarity towards him which they had often used before. The resurrection from the dead gave them the fullest proof of the divinity of Christ. And this, indeed, is the use which St. John makes of this manifestation of Christ. See John 20:30, John 20:31. Bishop Pearce says here: "Observe that Thomas calls Jesus his God, and that Jesus does not reprove him for it, though probably it was the first time he was called so." And, I would ask, could Jesus be jealous of the honor of the true God - could he be a prophet - could he be even an honest man, to permit his disciple to indulge in a mistake so monstrous and destructive, if it had been one?

_________________________
​

Barnes Commentary
By Albert Barnes, 1798 - 1870

PUBLIC DOMAIN - Permission is not required to reproduce this material.

John 20:28

My Lord and my God - In this passage the name God is expressly given to Christ, in his own presence and by one of his own apostles. This declaration has been considered as a clear proof of the divinity of Christ, for the following reasons:

1. There is no evidence that this was a mere expression, as some have supposed, of surprise or astonishment.

2. The language was addressed to Jesus himself - "Thomas ...said unto him."

3. The Saviour did not reprove him or check him as using any improper language. If he had not been divine, it is impossible to reconcile it with his honesty that he did not rebuke the disciple. No pious man would have allowed such language to be addressed to him. Compare Acts 14:13-15; Revelation 22:8-9.

4. The Saviour proceeds immediately to commend Thomas for believing; but what was the evidence of his believing? It was this declaration, and this only. If this was a mere exclamation of surprise, what proof was it that Thomas believed? Before this he doubted. Now he believed, and gave utterance to his belief, that Jesus was his Lord and his God.

5. If this was not the meaning of Thomas, then his exclamation was a mere act of profaneness, and the Saviour would not have commended him for taking the name of the Lord his God in vain. The passage proves, therefore, that it is proper to apply to Christ the name Lord and God, and thus accords with what John affirmed in John 1:1, and which is established throughout this gospel.

Good News! -- Are You Lost?
The Holy Bible Is The Word Of God! -- The Word Of God
God The Father, God The Son, God The Holy Spirit - The Creator Of All Things!
"God's Grace" And "Our Works"
American Thanksgiving Proclamations: 1623 to 1863 -- 1961 to 2001
Jesus Christ - Very God - Lord - Saviour - Messiah - King
Messianic Prophecy Fulfilled By Jesus Christ: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4​

 

[Superfast]

excellent reasons why john 20.28 is an exclamation and can only be an exclamation. everyone should study this thread. mucho importante

 

[Der Alte]

excellent reasons why john 20.28 is an exclamation and can only be an exclamation. everyone should study this thread. mucho importante

Yeah, right! If anyone believes that I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I will sell them real cheap.

NIV Pro 14:15 A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps​

.
You would have us believe that all the grammars, representing 100s of years of scholarship, are all wrong. That the entire early church was wrong. And that the church has been wrong for 2000 years +/- but some anonymous person on this forum with ZERO Greek credentials, who very likely could not parse a Greek verb if his life depended on it, somehow got it right.

No one has ever shown that "Oh my God." as an exclamation even existed in 1st century Israel. Just because every TV show around uses it regularly does not mean it existed 2000 years ago. Next, what Thomas said was in the wrong form for an exclamation. What Thomas said was, &#959; &#954;&#965;&#961;&#953;&#959;&#962; &#956;&#959;&#965; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; &#956;&#959;&#965;, "the lord of me AND the God of me." I have heard a lot of exclamations in my many years but I have never heard anyone pause in the middle of an excited "exclamation" to put in an "and!" Not too long ago I was watching a police reality show where a young man had been gunned down. When his mother ran up screaming, "Oh my God!' "Oh my baby!" she did not put in the word "and." If Thomas was making an excited exclamation he would have said &#969; &#954;&#965;&#961;&#953;&#959;&#962; (&#956;&#959;&#965 &#969; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; (&#956;&#959;&#965 without the copulative &#954;&#945;&#953;/"and," also John would not have said "And Thomas answered and said unto him" If it was an excited exclamation John very likely would have written, "And Thomas &#954;&#961;&#945;&#769;&#950;&#969; cried or exclaimed." John used the word &#954;&#961;&#945;&#769;&#950;&#969; 5 times in his gospel when he meant an exclamation.

 

[2ducklow]

Just thought I'd make it simple. This is a good starting point for anyone interested in investigating it.

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 Cases
  
  According to this grammar book, john 20.28 would be an excellent example of nominative of exclamation because what Thomas said "o kurios mou kai o theos mou" is an incomplete sentence and therefore is not a fictious nominative for vocative, but rather can be nothing else than a nominative of exclamation.

the only real way a nominative is used as a vocative is when it is used to designate the addressee, which is not the case in john 20.28.

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?

• 
  
  http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...my+god,+exclamation&cd=45&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
  
  do a little research and you will find that righteous is vocative and Father is nominative because Father desingates the addressee (in the vocative case) Righteous. Same with unfaithful genreration. unfaithful is vocative, generation is nominative because it designates the addressee unfaithful.

there's not a leg to stand on for the invented nominative for vocative rule as applied to john 20.28. Jesus is always addressed as kurie (vocative) and never, not one single time in the entire NT as Kurios (Nominative). John 20.28 doesnot use the voctiave kurie, but uses the nominative kurios therefore, john 20.28 is an exclamation and not an example of Jesus being addressed as lord or God.

Hope i made it simple enough. the subject can get somewhat complicated.

 

[Der Alte]

Just thought I'd make it simple. This is a good starting point for anyone interested in investigating it.
[ . . . ]

• 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?
  
  Greek Caseshttp://webcache.googleusercontent.c...my+god,+exclamation&cd=45&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttp://webcache.googleusercontent.c...my+god,+exclamation&cd=45&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

do a little research and you will find that righteous is vocative and Father is nominative because Father desingates the addressee (in the vocative case) Righteous. Same with unfaithful genreration. unfaithful is vocative, generation is nominative because it designates the addressee unfaithful.

there's not a leg to stand on for the invented nominative for vocative rule as applied to john 20.28. Jesus is always addressed as kurie (vocative) and never, not one single time in the entire NT as Kurios (Nominative). John 20.28 doesnot use the voctiave kurie, but uses the nominative kurios therefore, john 20.28 is an exclamation and not an example of Jesus being addressed as lord or God.

Hope i made it simple enough. the subject can get somewhat complicated.

Oh that is simple enough alright! Why are you misrepresenting the source you linked to? How does the source you linked to classify John 20:28? Answer:

Possessive Genitive [belonging to, possessed by]
The substantive in the genitive possesses the thing to which it stands related. That is, in some sense the head noun is owned by the genitive noun. Such ownership at times can be broadly defined and need not imply the literal (and sometimes harsh) idea of possession of physical property. Instead of the word of replace it with belonging to or possessed by.

Matt 26:51 the slave of the high priest

John 20:28 Thomas said to him, "My lord and my God."​

 

[Der Alte]

V. Nominative for Vocative (Nominative of Address)
A. Definition
A substantive in the nominative is used in the place of the vocative case.It is used (as is the 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 the 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 proponents tend to view language more diachronically than synchronically and more in terms of etymology than usage. But the nominative for 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 structural categories: anarthrous and articular. The anarthrous use has two further structures: with &#969; and without &#969;. Each anarthrous use parallels the similar vocative construction (viz. with the particle &#969;, 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 to determining which use is being followed has to do with whether the text in question can be attributed to a Semitic source (such as a quotation from the LXX).

There is further use that is technically not syntactical but merely functional: a nominative in apposition to a vocative.

D. Illustrations
[ . . . ]
2. Articular
Mark 5:8 (text omitted)
Luke 8:54 (text omitted)
John 19:3 (text omitted)
Eph 5:3 (text omitted)
John 20:28 &#954;&#945;&#953; &#945;&#960;&#949;&#954;&#961;&#953;&#952;&#951; &#959; &#952;&#969;&#956;&#945;&#962; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#949;&#953;&#960;&#949;&#957; &#945;&#965;&#964;&#969; &#959; &#954;&#965;&#961;&#953;&#959;&#962; &#956;&#959;&#965; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; &#956;&#959;&#965;
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

In all but two instances in the NT (both in the same verse Matt 27:46), God is addressed with the nominative, most likely due to Semitic influence.​

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel Wallace, Zondervan, 1996, ppg. 56-58

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An ... - Google Books​

In addition to Wallace I have cited six Greek grammars in this thread which document the grammatical point known as "Nominative for Vocative.", four, Biblical Koine Greek and two, classical Greek.

Here! and Here!

Number of Greek grammars which do not support the rule = 0

 

[nChrist]

John 20:27-29 KJV 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.
​

Confusion over this portion of Scripture is ridiculous. It doesn't get more simple than this. This is "Doubting Thomas" who inspects - then believes - and Jesus Christ even confirms Thomas believes. Jesus Christ is acknowledging the statement by Thomas as if to say "You finally figured it out".

It's far past time for you guys to figure this out.

 

[Superfast]

V. Nominative for Vocative (Nominative of Address)
​

A. Definition
A substantive in the nominative is used in the place of the vocative case.It is used (as is the 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. &#8220;Hence the tendency to eliminate the 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 proponents tend to view language more diachronically than synchronically and more in terms of etymology than usage. But the nominative for 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 structural categories: anarthrous and articular. The anarthrous use has two further structures: with &#969; and without &#969;. Each anarthrous use parallels the similar vocative construction (viz. with the particle &#969;, 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 to determining which use is being followed has to do with whether the text in question can be attributed to a Semitic source (such as a quotation from the LXX).

There is further use that is technically not syntactical but merely functional: a nominative in apposition to a vocative.

D. Illustrations
[ . . . ]
2. Articular
Mark 5:8 (text omitted)
Luke 8:54 (text omitted)
John 19:3 (text omitted)
Eph 5:3 (text omitted)
John 20:28 &#954;&#945;&#953; &#945;&#960;&#949;&#954;&#961;&#953;&#952;&#951; &#959; &#952;&#969;&#956;&#945;&#962; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#949;&#953;&#960;&#949;&#957; &#945;&#965;&#964;&#969; &#959; &#954;&#965;&#961;&#953;&#959;&#962; &#956;&#959;&#965; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; &#956;&#959;&#965;
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
​

here at the end above is a good example of how scholars are very deceptive about this topic. The author is giving 5 examples in D2 of an articular nominative that is supposedly used as a vocative. None of the examples fit. luke 8.54 is an example of an articular neuter noun (pais or child in English) and all neuter nouns in the vocative case have nominative endings. this is all deception. luke 19.3 is an exclamation, all exclamations are in the nominative case. eph 5.3 isn't an example of a nominative of exclamation or nominative as vocative. it has nothing to do with an articular nominative used as a vocative, which is a phoney rule.

In all but two instances in the NT (both in the same verse Matt 27:46), God is addressed with the nominative, most likely due to Semitic influence.
​

Everyone of those are exclamations, I know I checked them out. Exclamations are always in the nominative case.
​

​

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel Wallace, Zondervan, 1996, ppg. 56-58

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An ... - Google Books

In addition to Wallace I have cited six Greek grammars in this thread which document the grammatical point known as "Nominative for Vocative.", four, Biblical Koine Greek and two, classical Greek.

AS I pointed out, once one eliminates all the scholarly deception , there are only about 7 exmaples in the NT where the nominative is used as a vocative, and eveyone of those cases are interpolations of scripture. all of them have alternate readings where the vocative is used for the vocative. there are zero examples of a nominative being used as a vocative in the NT where the verse is not interpolated.

Here! and Here!

Number of Greek grammars which do not support the rule = 0

They all are very deceptive as 2ducklow has pointed out repeatedly in this thread. Kudos 2ducklow.