Why are most of you here...

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I meant exactly what I said: no verb, implied or otherwise, is required for Thomas's statement in John 20:28 to be a grammatically complete and understandable utterance.

If Murray is talking about a predicate, then Murray isn't talking about my view. A predicate isn't required for this construction. It doesn't matter what Murray says.

I know what assimilation is, and I am 100% confident that BDF doesn't support your view here. And there is at least one really good explanation for why you are so stingy with this citation when you are so free with others...

Besides, you said earlier that you had an example of this usage. You shouldn't even need it.
Nonsense.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I meant exactly what I said: no verb, implied or otherwise, is required for Thomas's statement in John 20:28 to be a grammatically complete and understandable utterance.

If Murray is talking about a predicate, then Murray isn't talking about my view. A predicate isn't required for this construction. It doesn't matter what Murray says.

I know what assimilation is, and I am 100% confident that BDF doesn't support your view here. And there is at least one really good explanation for why you are so stingy with this citation when you are so free with others...

Besides, you said earlier that you had an example of this usage. You shouldn't even need it.

It's always better to have two consilient lines of evidence. The BDF entry is more encompassing while at the same time specific to nominative singulars.

Until you express your view I cannot consider it. I will say that it needs grammatical references to back it up, not merely exegetical comments from a fellow Trinitarian.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
It's always better to have two consilient lines of evidence.
You haven't provided any evidence. Why are you implying that you have? If you have it, let's see it.
The BDF entry is more encompassing while at the same time specific to nominative singulars.
More likely, it isn't relevant and that is why you refuse to post it.
Until you express your view I cannot consider it.
I have given you two, valid options for understanding what Thomas said. You are, once again, confused.
I will say that it needs grammatical references to back it up,
Then consult a grammar. Unlike you, I don't need to consult a secondary source for the things that I have said here. I know that what I am saying is correct.
not merely exegetical comments from a fellow Trinitarian.
Every thought I have expressed has been my own. If you devote yourself to learning the language, one day you may be able to do the same yourself.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
You haven't provided any evidence. Why are you implying that you have? If you have it, let's see it.

More likely, it isn't relevant and that is why you refuse to post it.

I have given you two, valid options for understanding what Thomas said. You are, once again, confused.

Then consult a grammar. Unlike you, I don't need to consult a secondary source for the things that I have said here. I know that what I am saying is correct.

Every thought I have expressed has been my own. If you devote yourself to learning the language, one day you may be able to do the same yourself.

You have not concretely described your view. And which one is it? The one before you said the objective view required something other than nominative or after that? ;)

Here is some advice: Nobody reads convoluted interlaced replies. I know I don't.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
You haven't provided any evidence. Why are you implying that you have? If you have it, let's see it.

More likely, it isn't relevant and that is why you refuse to post it.

I have given you two, valid options for understanding what Thomas said. You are, once again, confused.

There is only one obvious option. The context of John 20:28 is about seeing and believing. Jesus had taught Thomas, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." Thomas was confessing exactly what Jesus had taught him.

So according to the teaching of Jesus Christ at John 14:9, who did Thomas see at John 20:28?

Then consult a grammar. Unlike you, I don't need to consult a secondary source for the things that I have said here. I know that what I am saying is correct.

Every thought I have expressed has been my own. If you devote yourself to learning the language, one day you may be able to do the same yourself.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
You have not concretely described your view. And which one is it?
We are discussing your view, not mine. When you successfully defend your view or concede that you are wrong, we can discuss my view if you wish. What I have said for now will suffice. Either of the options that does not require an implied verb is a more likely possibility than anything else.
The one before you said the objective view required something other than nominative or after that? ;)
We have been over this before. If you need a refresher, you will need to go back and read earlier comments.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
We are discussing your view, not mine. When you successfully defend your view or concede that you are wrong, we can discuss my view if you wish. What I have said for now will suffice. Either of the options that does not require an implied verb is a more likely possibility than anything else.

We have been over this before. If you need a refresher, you will need to go back and read earlier comments.

You brought up you had a view. That being said, if you can't provide a better alternative than my objective contextual view, mine stands with no legitimate alternative. You said you rejected the Harris predicate view and that is the only alternative that is published.

Nothing you have said damages my view and have been rebutted with references.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Alright, chief.

I don't marvel at this. You have shown no desire to make accurate remarks about what I have written or about your own claims. It's no surprise to me that the practice is too highbrow for you.
Alright, chief.

I don't marvel at this. You have shown no desire to make accurate remarks about what I have written or about your own claims. It's no surprise to me that the practice is too highbrow for you.
Lol! It is highbrow to nitpick over choices of wording and lowbrow to quote BDAG and BDF?
 

John Milton

Well-known member
You brought up you had a view.
Where?
That being said, if you can't provide a better alternative than my objective contextual view, mine stands with no legitimate alternative.
In your own mind perhaps. You are like a child who imagines the whole world disappears because he closes his eyes. Grow up.
You said you rejected the Harris predicate view
That's not at all what I said. I said that Harris is wrong if he insisted that Thomas's statement needs a predicate.
and that is the only alternative that is published.
Lol
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Where?

In your own mind perhaps. You are like a child who imagines the whole world disappears because he closes his eyes. Grow up.

That's not at all what I said. I said that Harris is wrong if he insisted that Thomas's statement needs a predicate.

Lol

Fine, if you have no view and cannot decide between two published views, what's the point in discussing this with you?

You keep changing your objection.

Let me know when you have something concrete to discuss.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Fine, if you have no view and cannot decide between two published views, what's the point in discussing this with you?

You keep changing your objection.

Let me know when you have something concrete to discuss.
My objections have remained consistent. It's just like I told YeshuaFan it would be: you quote sources you don't understand and make excuses for why you can't defend your claims. I dub you, RJM Jr.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
No, but interesting how those who seem to not like the Trinity are jumping all olver me on it!
Don't worry about it. You'd have to strap a hundred dollar bill to any of their arguments for them to be worth anything. As you can see now for yourself, what I said about Roger was 100% true.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
There is only one obvious option. The context of John 20:28 is about seeing and believing. Jesus had taught Thomas, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." Thomas was confessing exactly what Jesus had taught him.

So according to the teaching of Jesus Christ at John 14:9, who did Thomas see at John 20:28?
I have already addressed this here:
Except that in John 14:1, 5 Thomas is not "singled out" by Jesus, and he doesn't express a lack of faith in God. He says they (the apostles) don't know where Jesus is going, and he questions how they will know where he went.

John 20 tells us what Thomas doesn't believe. ἔλεγον οὖν αὐτῷ οἱ ἄλλοι μαθηταί· ἑωράκαμεν τὸν κύριον. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· ἐὰν μὴ ἴδω ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ τὸν τύπον τῶν ἥλων καὶ βάλω τὸν δάκτυλόν μου εἰς τὸν τύπον τῶν ἥλων καὶ βάλω μου τὴν χεῖρα εἰς τὴν πλευρὰν αὐτοῦ, οὐ μὴ πιστεύσω. He didn't believe that the apostles had seen the Lord, as they kept telling him they had, and says he wouldn't believe it unless he had visual and tangible evidence. He seems to be indicating that he required more proof that Jesus had been raised than Jesus granted to the apostles earlier, where the text records only that they saw the Lord (καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἔδειξεν τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τὴν πλευρὰν αὐτοῖς. ἐχάρησαν οὖν οἱ μαθηταὶ ἰδόντες τὸν κύριον). When he saw Jesus on this occasion, he finally recognized that by seeing Jesus he had seen God (λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωκάς με, Φίλιππε; ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα).

It is likely to suppose that Thomas lost faith in Jesus as the Messiah (like those in Luke 24:41), but not likely that he stopped believing in God. The main point of John 14 is that access to God is impossible without belief in Jesus. This reinforced in John 21:31, "ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται ἵνα πιστεύ[σ]ητε ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ." It is this belief in Jesus that John builds his gospel around.

And since you seem so keen to talk about the Greek grammar I don't think you understand, I will also point out that πιστεύω would take datives...
 
Top