John 20:28 - "my lord and my god"

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

See here: http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gcase.html

Scroll down to "nominative for vocative".

[darinhouston]

Re: John 5:18, again, we stray from the John 20:28 episode. If you want to continue this, please consider adding a new topic.

[Paidion]

Hi Paidion,
See here: http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gcase.html
Scroll down to "nominative for vocative"

.

I did that very thing. And he presents the two verses that you offered: John 17:25 and Mark 9:19.

I have a book called "Analytical Greek New Testament". It contains the complete text of the United Bible Society's
Greek New Testament with an interlinear grammatical analysis of each word.

This indicates what I has stated in an earlier post—that the vocative case is used in both verses and NOT the nominative.
John 17:25 πατερ (father vocative) δικαε (righteous vocative)
Mark 9:19 γενεα (generation vocative) απιστος (unfaithful vocative)

[dwight92070]

I have no objection with you starting a new topic.

[moderator: starting new topic on John 5:18 -- https://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=6243]

[Homer]

Paidion,

Here is the problem: The text specifically says, “And he [Thomas] said to him [Jesus].” Thomas is directly addressing Jesus. I don't think he was using a profanity.

Check the spelling, it is Kurios for Lord and Theos for God, both nominative. Vocative would be Kurie (Lord) Thee (God). How do you account for the spelling?

We have a nominative functioning as a vocative. This is the position of Bill Mounce, D. A. Carson, A.T. Robertson, R. C. H. Linski, and Henry Alford. I stopped looking after seeing their comments.

[Paidion]

We have a nominative functioning as a vocative. This is the position of Bill Mounce, D. A. Carson, A.T. Robertson, R. C. H. Linski, and Henry Alford. I stopped looking after seeing their comments.

Again, there is no evidence so far of any other instance of a nominative functioning as a vocative.
I think the people you have listed make this claim because they, like some on this forum, want to believe that Thomas addressed Jesus as "God".

[dwight92070]

We have a nominative functioning as a vocative. This is the position of Bill Mounce, D. A. Carson, A.T. Robertson, R. C. H. Linski, and Henry Alford. I stopped looking after seeing their comments.

Again, there is no evidence so far of any other instance of a nominative functioning as a vocative.
I think the people you have listed make this claim because they, like some on this forum, want to believe that Thomas addressed Jesus as "God".

Dwight - Paidon and Darin will given you and I names of "scholars" all day long, and expect us to believe them, but when you present scholars, they are prejudiced and therefore not worth even listening too. I think the best scholars are the authors of scripture, themselves.

[Homer]

Paidion, you wrote:

Again, there is no evidence so far of any other instance of a nominative functioning as a vocative.

I also have the book you cited, the "Analytic Greek New Testament." Check out what they say of John 20:28, then Mark 15:34, "ho Theos mou, ho Theos mou ". They say it is nominative yet it is directly addressed to the Father.

Also how are "Lord and "God" spelled, in Koine Greek, in nominative and vocative?

[darinhouston]

We have a nominative functioning as a vocative. This is the position of Bill Mounce, D. A. Carson, A.T. Robertson, R. C. H. Linski, and Henry Alford. I stopped looking after seeing their comments.

Again, there is no evidence so far of any other instance of a nominative functioning as a vocative.
I think the people you have listed make this claim because they, like some on this forum, want to believe that Thomas addressed Jesus as "God".

Dwight - Paidon and Darin will given you and I names of "scholars" all day long, and expect us to believe them, but when you present scholars, they are prejudiced and therefore not worth even listening too. I think the best scholars are the authors of scripture, themselves.

I can't speak for Paidion, but I almost never quote scholars with an expectation that you believe them. For the most part, I only cite them when they are traditional Trinitarians who disagree with your position and even then pretty much only in response to you being dogmatic about a position and suggesting anything other than your own is just a creative innovation that no one would believe - this is done not to convince you, but to defend against the charge of innovation. I do sometimes also cite an "ARGUMENT" from a scholar when I find it convincing and well presented it instead of making the point myself in a less artful way. Once I recall citing one without reading it as thoroughly as I might and it was roundly (and fairly) criticized, and I acknowledged same.

[backwoodsman]

Dwight - Paidon and Darin will given you and I names of "scholars" all day long, and expect us to believe them, but when you present scholars, they are prejudiced and therefore not worth even listening too. I think the best scholars are the authors of scripture, themselves.

Would that include the scholars who translated the English Bible you read? Or are you fluent in Biblical Greek, Hebrew & Aramaic so you can read the Bible as the authors wrote it without the aid of scholars?

It seems you haven't thought through your prejudice against scholars nearly as well as you think you have.