I don't plan to respond to this foolishness. I have already addressed everything here, including Margaret Davies uninspired remarks.I think I did understand Moulton. I agree I extrapolated his principle of assimilation of the nominative case to the point that it has no apologetics value.
I also don't think Trinitarian apologists like Harris have presented all the possibilities.
Is this exclamation spoken to Jesus? Yes. Does this mean he was certainly addressed as having those titles? No. To get there requires a presupposition that Jesus is the subject of a verb supplied from the context. In other words, "You are my Lord and my God."
If we don't assume this, the subject would still be Thomas. He is the subject of the introductory narrative, "Thomas said to him,"
So let's keep the same subject as what the verse starts with: Thomas.
Let's supply ειμι for the verb, with the same object from the previous verse, "be believing."
So now we have Thomas saying/thinking, "I am believing!" To which he adds, "My Lord and also my God!"
This is consistent with what Jesus said to him a few days earlier at John 14:1. But evidently he did not until he saw Jesus resurrected.
J 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: believe in God, believe also in me.
Jesus said at J 20:27
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
"[I am believing! ] My Lord and also my God!"
Although it's not obvious, what I have been doing is attempting to grammaticalize the following commentary. You said you did not think anyone read it this way, but see:
Naturally, the interpretation of Thomas's words was hotly debated by early church theologians who wanted to use it in support of their own christological definitions. Those who understood 'My Lord' to refer to Jesus, and 'my God' to refer to God [the Father] were suspected of christological heresy in the fifth century CE. Many modern commentators have also rejected that interpretation and instead they understood the confession as an assertion that Jesus is both Lord and God. In doing so they are forced to interpret 'God' as a reference to logos [logos]. But it is perfectly appropriate for Thomas to respond to Jesus' resurrection with a confession of faith both in Jesus and his Lord and in God who sent and raised Jesus. Interpreting the confession in this way actually makes much better sense in the context of the Fourth Gospel. In 14.1 belief both in God and in Jesus is encouraged, in a context in which Thomas is particularly singled out ... If we understand Thomas's confession as an assertion that Jesus is God, this confession in 20.31 becomes an anti-climax. (Margaret Davies, Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel (JSNTSup69; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 125-126)