The linguistic subject of John 20:28

[John Milton]

I remember years ago my cousin making fun of his younger brother's driving ... but he never got a driver's license...

Just sayin

Look, a teachable moment! What is the the referent of "he?"

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Look, a teachable moment! What is the the referent of "he?

lol! whatever I want after I fill in the elipsis.

You do get it! Now find an example in the gospel of John.

 

[John Milton]

lol! whatever I want after I fill in the elipsis.

You do get it! Now find an example in the gospel of John.

I've understood the entire time that your method for interpretation is nothing more that you choosing the meaning you want and manufacturing "evidence" that supports your claim. It's good that you've finally owned up to it.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I've understood the entire time that your method for interpretation is nothing more that you choosing the meaning you want and manufacturing "evidence" that supports your claim. It's good that you've finally owned up to it.

I am not the one trying to hyjack an ambiguous verse to turn it into a novel doctrinal statement.

Before Thomas said what he did, the resurrected Jesus had already identified his Father as his God, and had been identified as the Lord.

Afterwards John explains that the reason for his writing was to cause belief that Jesus was the Son of God.

I know you could doctrinally agree Jesus is the Lord and his Father is God. That is explicit in the immediate context.

But you advocate an abnormality based upon an ambiguity.

Have we not had enough of this sort of thing from both sides in the US presidential election?

 

[John Milton]

I am not the one trying to hyjack an ambiguous verse to turn it into a novel doctrinal statement.

This verse isn't ambiguous in the slightest. Thomas says "my Lord and my God" to Jesus.

Before Thomas said what he did, the resurrected Jesus had already identified his Father as his God, and had been identified as the Lord.

Afterwards John explains that the reason for his writing was to cause belief that Jesus was the Son of God.

And yet your proposed interpretation of Thomas's statement is about his belief in God, rather than Jesus.

I know you could doctrinally agree Jesus is the Lord and his Father is God. That is explicit in the immediate context.

There is nothing in the context of this passage that suggests God the Father is in view.

But you advocate an abnormality based upon an ambiguity.

Have we not had enough of this sort of thing from both sides in the US presidential election?

My understanding of this passage agrees with scholarly consensus. That fact doesn't mean my interpretation must be correct, but it is misleading to call it an "abnormality."

The sheer number of "ambiguous" passages like these that Unitarians have to address for their position to even be possible is enough to prevent widespread acceptance of their views. The contrived "solutions" that they offer for these types of passages provide reassurance to the majority that they are wise to disregard them.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

This verse isn't ambiguous in the slightest. Thomas says "my Lord and my God" to Jesus.

And yet your proposed interpretation of Thomas's statement is about his belief in God, rather than Jesus.

There is nothing in the context of this passage that suggests God the Father is in view.

My understanding of this passage agrees with scholarly consensus. That fact doesn't mean my interpretation must be correct, but it is misleading to call it an "abnormality."

The sheer number of "ambiguous" passages like these that Unitarians have to address for their position to even be possible is enough to prevent widespread acceptance of their views. The contrived "solutions" that they offer for these types of passages provide reassurance to the majority that they are wise to disregard them.

No, not rather than Jesus. My contextual objective view is that Thomas exclaims belief in his Lord and also his God. That is what Jesus commanded him just a few days earlier at John 14:1 and when he commanded Thomas to believe again at 20:27, Thomas expressed what he had been commanded in 20:28.

As for ambiguities, it's a bad hermeneutic to appeal to ambiguous texts based upon syntax or punctuation, textual critical problems, the need to change cases, etc to special plead that a mere handful of questionable verses should inform ones view of clear verses like John 20:31, John 17:3 and many others that identify the Father as God in convertible propositions in contexts where Jesus is contrasted with him.

 

[John Milton]

No, not rather than Jesus. My contextual objective view is that Thomas exclaims belief in his Lord and also his God. That is what Jesus commanded him just a few days earlier at John 14:1 and when he commanded Thomas to believe again at 20:27, Thomas expressed what he had been commanded in 20:28.

Ok. Sorry for misunderstanding you. You position, then, appears to be that God the Father, who is not explicitly mentioned in the passage before, is introduced here. This absurdity is in addition to your imagined verb.

As for ambiguities, it's a bad hermeneutic to appeal to ambiguous texts based upon syntax or punctuation, textual critical problems, the need to change cases, etc to special plead that a mere handful of questionable verses should inform ones view of clear verses like John 20:31, John 17:3 and many others that identify the Father as God in convertible propositions in contexts where Jesus is contrasted with him.

Oh, you must mean passages like John 1:1 where Jesus is likewise called God but distinguished from God the Father. Gotcha.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Ok. Sorry for misunderstanding you. You position, then, appears to be that God the Father, who is not explicitly mentioned in the passage before, is introduced here. This absurdity is in addition to your imagined verb.

Oh, you must mean passages like John 1:1 where Jesus is likewise called God but distinguished from God the Father. Gotcha.

The Father is explicitly mentioned at John 14:1, 20:17 and 31.

Not sure what your point is though, because Levinsohn's rules govern the grammatical subject not other participants.

As for John 1:1, the fact that @Gryllus Maior proposes an interpretation significantly different than you, Wallace and Harris speaks to it's ambiguity.

The same is true for John 20:28 where Walace and Harris disagree and you disagree with at least one and perhaps both of them.

Remember, I don't claim my view is the only possible view at John 20:28, but it is grammatically and linguisticly possible and in my view probable because of the immediate context of John 20:31, 17 and 18.

 

[John Milton]

The Father is explicitly mentioned at John 14:1, 20:17 and 31.

There is a difference between being mentioned and being in view. You are grasping at straws.

Not sure what your point is though, because Levinsohn's rules govern the grammatical subject not other participants.

You profoundly misunderstand him on this matter.

As for John 1:1, the fact that @Gryllus Maior proposes an interpretation significantly different than you, Wallace and Harris speaks to it's ambiguity.

As far as I know, none of these people dispute that the word is Jesus and the word is called God. Do you know something that I don't?

The same is true for John 20:28 where Walace and Harris disagree and you disagree with at least one and perhaps both of them.

Remember, I don't claim my view is the only possible view at John 20:28, but it is grammatically and linguisticly possible and in my view probable because of the immediate context of John 20:31, 17 and 18.

Your view is not "grammatically or linguistically possible." You haven't been able to defend it and you cannot produce a single, peer-reviewed source that agrees with it. (And if you claim that an article by "Gregory Blunt" fits the bill, you will have to provide the publication information for it.)

 

[Roger Thornhill]

There is a difference between being mentioned and being in view. You are grasping at straws.

You profoundly misunderstand him on this matter.

As far as I know, none of these people dispute that the word is Jesus and the word is called God. Do you know something that I don't?

Your view is not "grammatically or linguistically possible." You haven't been able to defend it and you cannot produce a single, peer-reviewed source that agrees with it. (And if you claim that an article by "Gregory Blunt" fits the bill, you will have to provide the publication information for it.)

Your comments are equally applicable to the @Gryllus Maior view that θεος at 1:1c is definite and has the same referent as 1:1b.

As for peer reviewed, it must be reviewed in a journal that requires adhering to a statement of faith in order to be published for review? Cute.

If not, to what journal do you refer that publishes grammatical papers with doctrinal significance?

At least Gregory publishes thorough analyses on academia.edu. That's not true for you, in fact you won't defend any view. You merely attempt to (unsuccessfully) punch holes in the views of others.

 

[John Milton]

Your comments are equally applicable to the @Gryllus Maior view that θεος at 1:1c is definite and has the same referent as 1:1b.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Which comments do you have in mind?

As for peer reviewed, it must be reviewed in a journal that requires adhering to a statement of faith in order to be published for review? Cute.

If not, to what journal do you refer that publishes grammatical papers with doctrinal significance?

It just has to have passed peer-review. I would be fine with dissertations, etc.

At least Gregory publishes thorough analyses on academia.edu. That's not true for you, in fact you won't defend any view. You merely attempt to (unsuccessfully) punch holes in the views of others.

I debunked your argument. That is more than enough.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Which comments do you have in mind?

It just has to have passed peer-review. I would be fine with dissertations, etc.

I debunked your argument. That is more than enough.

Lol! After you were 0/3 as to the need for a particular case/preposition for an implied predicate nominative at J 20:28b you stopped being specific.

That is the only thing that kept your losses from climbing higher.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Which comments do you have in mind?

It just has to have passed peer-review. I would be fine with dissertations, etc.

I debunked your argument. That is more than enough.

Where are dissertations peer reviewed for grammatical analyses of a theological nature for those who are not getting an advanced degree? Give me a specific example.

 

[The Real John Milton]

You seem to have missed this part: "The use of the nominative is actually a sub category of the nominative for vocative."

Makes no difference at all to the grammar at hand whether it is classified as a sub category or separate category. Wallace:

However, we will treat it separately and make this (somewhat) arbitrary distinction.

You are not punching back.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

At least Gregory publishes thorough analyses on academia.edu. That's not true for you, in fact you won't defend any view. You merely attempt to (unsuccessfully) punch holes in the views of others.

Academia.edu is not an academic site, but a site where any member can post papers written in any context to share with the known universe. Some of the papers have appeared in academic journals and been properly peer reviewed, others not so much.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Academia.edu is not an academic site, but a site where any member can post papers written in any context to share with the known universe. Some of the papers have appeared in academic journals and been properly peer reviewed, others not so much.

Yes, and since you have yet to publish your first paper on John 1:1, that might be a good place for you to start.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Academia.edu is not an academic site, but a site where any member can post papers written in any context to share with the known universe. Some of the papers have appeared in academic journals and been properly peer reviewed, others not so much.

Is it just me or does anyone else see the irony of two anonymous people who have not had their own non standard theological claims published criticizing another anonymous person for not having their work peer reviewed?

 

[The Real John Milton]

Your argument needs a shave. Might I suggest a razor?

That reminds me, I really need a shave.

 

[The Real John Milton]

When Wallace makes stuff up, Trinitarians listen.

Just like when Trump does the same, Bible Belt Evangelicals listen.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I am not the one trying to hyjack an ambiguous verse to turn it into a novel doctrinal statement.

Before Thomas said what he did, the resurrected Jesus had already identified his Father as his God, and had been identified as the Lord.

Afterwards John explains that the reason for his writing was to cause belief that Jesus was the Son of God.

I know you could doctrinally agree Jesus is the Lord and his Father is God. That is explicit in the immediate context.

But you advocate an abnormality based upon an ambiguity.

Have we not had enough of this sort of thing from both sides in the US presidential election?

The way I see it, if Jesus was really God , John 20:28 would hardly have been the premier proof text for his so-called Deity. The NT would have been littered with clear affirmations irrefutably stated, multiple times, that he was "God the Son."