John 20:28 response to Garyneal

by Blue Grass 41 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  jonathan dough

  Why should I take you word for that?

  BLUE GRASS: You wouldn't have to take my word for it if you had any knowledge of the Greek language.

  To assert that Thomas wasn't talking to anyone, when it is obvious in any translation, in any language, including the 1st century Greek

  BLUE GRASS: How can you say that when you can't even read the first century Greek? I do find it silly that people with no knowledge of the Greek are telling me I'm wrong. If you're going to tell me I'm wrong at least post a link or give a source of a person with knowledge of Greek who disagrees with what I say.

  ME: We don't need to have knowledge of the Greek language to prove you're wrong because there is a long history of Bible scholars with expertise in Greek far better than yours who have paved the way ahead of us. Whatever translation of whatever Bible, you are making a dangerous assumption that THOSE people don't know their Greek. You might have left the Society but you are still thinking like them, shifting the burden and making it personal, making US learn Greek. That's pretty far-fetched. Whether the Catholic Church, or one of the Reformed Churches, or Vine's dictionary of Greek, THEY prove you wrong. That's established. You are the one who needs to prove them wrong, and you can't. You really need to apply some common sense on this. Thomas was speaking to Jesus. Can you name any credible scholar who disagrees with this?

  What is your point? I'm not trying to be mean, but I get the feeling you are denying Christ's true nature. That he was, and is, God. And if that is your goal you need to look at all of the information in that regard and draw your conclusions in that light. Start here if you want to know the truth on this: http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html

  BLUE GRASS: P.S. I have no idea why you guys keep bringing up JWs and the Watchtower, especially since I haven't step foot inside a Kingdom Hall in nearly 3 years.

  You are defending them. What's your angle?
• 

  possible-san

  If you're going to tell me I'm wrong at least post a link or give a source of a person with knowledge of Greek who disagrees with what I say.

  This is a comment from "Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament."

  John 20:28
  Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
  
  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 Koine.
  Thomas was wholly convinced and did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God.
  And Jesus accepts the wordsand praises Thomas for so doing.
  
  (from Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament. Copyright (c) 1985 by Broadman Press.)

  I am a Japanese and do not speak English at all.
  But I can find easily the material in which it is shown that your explanation is incorrect.
  Probably, people who speak English will find it more.

  possible
• 

  possible-san

  jonathan dough.

  You are defending them.

  No!
  
  He cannot be defending them.
  That is, the "Watchtower" and the "KIT."
  I showed their materials.

  He does not do investigating those materials, either.
  And he criticizes other people.

  possibe
• 

  Black Sheep

  I have no idea why you guys keep bringing up JWs and the Watchtower, especially since I haven't step foot inside a Kingdom Hall in nearly 3 years.

  I read your first post. You appeared to be looking for an excuse to go back.

  Cheers

  Chris
• 

  Leolaia

  I do find it silly that people with no knowledge of the Greek are telling me I'm wrong

  Huh? I told you your OP was nonsense and I explained why, and your response is that I "have no knowledge of the Greek"?? My Greek isn't the best by a long shot (I have, as Yoda would say, "much to learn"), but I took two years of it at university level and have studied it off and on since then. Why do you presume to think that I don't know what I'm talking about?

  If you're going to tell me I'm wrong at least post a link or give a source of a person with knowledge of Greek who disagrees with what I say.

  Just google "nominative of address", it's very basic knowledge....and I'm sure it's covered in any "Introduction to New Testament Greek" textbook.
• 

  Blue Grass

  Not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the Koine.

  If you believe it wasn't an exclamation, why do you think virtually ever English Bible translates it that way.

  Also Leolaia you can't ignore the fact that nowhere else in the entire NT is a nominative for vocative used when Jesus is addressed as Lord.
• 

  Leolaia

  I already gave you several examples of the nominative of address; why you don't see the nominative of address in those verses is something you only know. There are plenty of examples, e.g. Matthew 11:26, Luke 10:21, 18:11, Galatians 1:11, 3:15, etc.

  except for Matthew 27:46 which is a quotation of Psalms.

  What difference does it make? The vocative occurs there, so clearly the author is construing it as a term of address (which compares with the nominative of address in the Markan parallel).

  Also Leolaia you can't ignore the fact that nowhere else in the entire NT is a nominative for vocative used when Jesus is addressed as Lord.

  What is that claim based on? John 13:13 uses the nominative ho kurios where grammatically the accusative would be expected (as an object of phóneite) if it were not used as a term of address; the use of the nominative thus shows that this is an articular nominative of address. Revelation 4:11 also uses ho kurios as a nominative of address, tho there the reference is to God. In any case, the phrasing in John 20:28 is not that of a simple address of "Lord" (as is the case with all the instances of kurie in the NT), but a possessed and conjoined form. As I pointed out above, the verse in question has its model in Psalm 35:23 LXX where ho theos mou and ho kurios mou are conjoined as a nominative of address.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Blue Grass, Leloaia's Greek-Fu is famous on this board. I recommend you check her past threads. She is an actual school-trained scholar. Not an amateur like the rest of us. I recommend you do not grapple with her until sunrise. I won't, and the Force is stronger in me than in you, young padawan. Unlike the angel of the Lord, she may do more than cripple you. She may change your mind.

  BTS
• 

  garyneal

  Well, I think I've about had it with this subject but to be fair I did as much as I could researching what I can for hours. Now I am going to stop and call it quits. In my research, the only supporting documents that support your position in every sense came from Jehovah's Witnesses but I will admit that I may have missed something. Islamics also support the position of Thomas being astonished but I did not see where they went as far as you did concerning the proper Greek grammar, at least not in any of the web pages that I've read.

  Now these may be helpful for those interested in pursuing this further:

  http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn20_28.htm
  http://www.forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/MS.2.Index.htm

  The second link mentions John 13:13 where Jesus is being called 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' the nominative being used in both cases as confirmed here when compared to John 20:28 in here. Now I know practically nothing about Greek but I did at least check here and saw that this verse was considered to be Nominative of Appelation.

  Of course the problem with researching anything on the web is ensuring that the sources are at least reputible but I think I did enough on this (and then some). Here is the bottom line:

  • I believe truth is simple.
    • Therefore, if I have to jump through a bunch of loops or perform a bunch of mental gymnastics to prove something true, it is doubtful that it is true.
    • This is similar to how Scholar and other WT apologist attempt to prove 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem true in spite of the amount of evidence supporting 586/7 BCE.

  I appreciate your pointing out these things concerning this verse out to me as this is something I have never considered. This thread, I am sure, will certainly be useful for anyone who is interested (or cares) about this stuff but I am afraid that there is still reasonable doubt on my part. Especially considering what others have said in response to you. Still though, I will keep your assertions in mind and if I should ever acquire new understanding (to use a JW phrase) on the Greek that makes your assertions true then I will accept them.

  On a side note: I suppose Terry would find this thread very amusing as he points out in this thread that "There are no original copies of THE BIBLE anywhere in existence." Yet, here we are going back and forth concerning what was being said in Bible when we don't know for certain if this verse was written this way in the original manuscript.

  Thanks to everyone who posted. I especially want to thank Leolaia for her input as it appears that she is the only one who studied Greek.
• 

  Black Sheep

  How about this for a suggestion, Blue Grass?

  Grab a friend, or neighbour/whatever and produce a Youtube demonstration of how it went down.

  You could play the part of Thomas and your co-actor, Jesus.

  Do the whole scene, starting when Jesus enters the room.

  Cheers

  Chris