Narkissos,
If it is true that John originally concluded his Gospel with Thomas' statement at 20:28 and the subsequent conclusions were written by later redactors, this is an interesting reflection on the many discussions as to whether the NT originally contained God's name. Why is that? Because there is no manuscript evidence of these early changes to the Gospel of John just as there is no manuscript evidence that God's name was used in the NT. Of course there must be good reason for both conclusions and that is an altogether different subject, but I am simply highlighting the idea that simply because it is not found in extant mss does not mean it wasn't there.
It is, perhaps, a bit unfair to raise this on this thread as it is clearly off-topic and is not written with the intention to hijack the thread. Perhaps you could reply by pm or leave it till a later time on a different thread which is more relevant to that topic. I just mentioned it here as your thought regarding the ending of John's Gospel seems to corroborate my impression that there was quite a bit of redaction to the NT text before the end of the first century.
solafide,
Earnest : I don't understand how you can take verse 17 and say Jesus is the God but not the Father.
solafide : No, I said that cults who like to act as clever counterfiets could attempt to say that. My position is the Trinitarian one, where both Jesus and the Father are God.
You totally miss my point above. I was not suggesting that you understand verse 17 as saying Jesus is God but the Father is not God. How can I put this more simply. Verse 17 records Jesus saying (to Mary Magdalene):
I am ascending to [the] my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.
He is inextricably tying the God he is ascending to with the Father he is ascending to. So as you are suggesting that this verse teaches that Jesus is the God to whom he is ascending then he must also be the Father to whom he is ascending. It is either both or neither. Why is this? Because the definite article encapsulates the entire phrase (my Father and your Father and my God and your God).
solafide : The definite article before the first mention of "Father" may or may not apply to the mention of God.
You may as well say that the definite article before the first mention of "Father" may or may not apply to the second mention of Father. Or would you question that too.
solafide : In 20:28 there is a definite article before each noun (Lord and God), but not in 20:17 (only before the first mention of Father, and none after).
I wonder if you realise the significance of this observation. If 20:28 had the same construction as 20:17, namely "[the] my Lord and my God", then it would be clear that both "Lord" and "God" apply to the same person. Just as both "Father" and "God" apply to the same person in v 17. In fact you would rather expect that, wouldn't you? That he would use the same construction in both cases, governing the whole clause with the one definite article to show that it refers to the same person. But, as you observe, in verse 28 there is a definite article before each noun (Lord and God) which means that "the Lord" is not necessarily the same as "the God". Normally, I would just read the English and assume there is no distinction between "Lord" and "God" (in 20:28) but as you point out he deliberately uses a different construction in these two passages it does suggest he is making a conscious distinction between who is Lord and who is God.
solafide : I should study Greek more, however.
Yes.
