ECT Our triune God
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Ps. 35:23 'Contend for me, my God and Lord' LXX This is the same structure. I don't see you arguing that this is YHWH and the Messiah or David or something....the God of me, the Lord of me or the Lord of me, the God of me....same thing...The LXX is the Greek translation of the Hebrew. Grammatically, the same structure is used in Jn. 20:28 and Ps. 35:23 (and probably many other places).
If I am talking to my boss, I can say to him, 'my boss and my friend'. Why you think this is two people is beyond me.
We can say to them, Bob and Sue, my brother and my sister, etc.....this shows two people, not Jn. 20. Even if theoretically possible, the only reason you take the strained view is to retain your false view of Christ.
Regardless, the Deity of Christ does not rise or fall on one verse. This is the climax of cumulative evidence in Jn. that included other Deity statements you must also rationalize away: JOHN 1:1 (very clear), Jn. 5:18; Jn. 8:58; Jn. 10:30-33; Jn. 20:28, etc.
There are 40 verses about the Deity of Christ, but only 6 that are commonly used to reduce Christ to creature (and these can be understood in relation to His humanity, incarnation, positional subordination vs essential equality).
It isn't the LXX made in Egypt. It was made by Origen and isn't necessarily proof of anything. And since it has the same structure, that is two objects.
Fail! Greek is not english, and so it wouldn't work that way. You would have to start with a second person pronoun or an accusative construction which probably would be rather odd to you.
No strains. It works.
No, the dative is clearly Jesus; there is no vocative later, but rather an incomplete sentence doubling as an interjection, since it wasn't a complete sentence.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
Try A.T. Robertson, William Mounce, B.F. Westcott, etc. They are masters and you are not.
What group do you identify with? Unitarians? JWs? Christadelphians?
So far I have only seen you apply English grammar rules only to the Greek grammar of John 20:28: something which shouldn't be done. It is obviously you who doesn't know what they are talking about, because you see something which isn't there.
Lon
Well-known member
No, you've had this explained to you enough times that to feign ignorance and/or use this particular tact is no longer honest or acceptable debate prowess.
Lon
Well-known member
The day you use it with me, I'll have better response. There is no way, no way, you can read Thomas said to Him, "My Lord and My God" the way you do. That's not omniskepticism, that's anti-trinitarian (and in my opinion anti-God) agendizing. I boggles my mind just how far an arian will go to purposefully confuse himself (and as I said, even against God, regardless if you think it merely anti-trinitarian, it is a denial of scripture from Him). There is no way to read John 1:1 and be confused unless you are a very purposeful unit-arian. No way at all. All the rest of Christendom gets it. There aren't many unit-arians on the planet for a reason. You guys are 1) self-willed. 2) horrible with language 3) contentious (this is my 'non'contentious thread, remember?) 4) not really listened to so there is no for the glory of God agenda. If there were you'd just pray for us supposedly wayward triune believers. So no, I'm not buying a lick of it. There is no enticement whatsoever. That's why I've put together two threads , this one and the one which asks unit-arians about their fruit and whether it marks the Spirit or not. Everything you claim to believe (whether you really do or not) is suspect to the rest of us.
After starting with a Nominative what action does the subject do or receive. You have a choice between active verbs and passive verbs. Passive verbs are when the subject or rather nominative recieves the action. Since Thomas was a doubter, he might have known to put the two objects in separate case.
And since you don't know Greek, you apply english rules to it not knowing how incorrect you are. Since I believe most people enter the kingdom of God not as slaves, but partakers; I am not really concerned about what you think about God too much, because I know it is merely self-inflicted.
The afterlife does not happen because someone falsely experiences a belief in the trinity. It happens because most need to be rewarded and others need to be punished.
Are you Unitarian or what? Quit playing games.:hammer:
Lon
Well-known member
Er, no. An exclamation needs no verb :doh:
You certainly disdain other's Greek prowess enough for that big head of your's but no, you've never shown yourself to be anything I would worry myself over. Am I an expert at it? Nope, but I've sat under experts enough to know if you've learned a lick of Greek, your prof himself, didn't agree with you here. There is no possible way.
And this goes with this part of the discussion because...?
We were talking about 4 problem points of every unit-arian. We can add lack of Greek prowess to it but that's not where I was headed, that's where you headed.
Lon
Well-known member
:doh: not about what their own language said!
Um, no. However every language has common parts of speech. Anybody 'not' knowing that is certainly suspect.
I sat under Ed Goodrick. Look him up. There is no possible way you sat under anybody with that same prowess and think yourself above them. No possible way but you certainly are self-important with your hot-air sandwich. That's all your huffing and puffery is to me. I spent my actual $ on Goodrick and like, I'd never have dreamed of spending a dime for your tutelage (#1 self-willed #2 worse at language than #3contentious....er, literally confirming every point! Wow! .... #4 not really listened to/no credible viability...).
Which they rarely say anything, but since one has to know the language first instead of using a bad translation, it amounts to as a disingenuous argument. :hammer:
I know them; you don't.
It is also usually slanderous and dishonest to say someone is feigning ignorance, especially on the internet.
Perhaps, I haven't said it enough. Yes.
Lon
Well-known member
LOL, non-rebuttal dialogue. I'm happy to let it sit for the world to see.
You need to know English before you attempt Greek unless you are ESL and I missed it... No wait, the first thing I said....
In other words, lie and feign ignorance. And even if is a nominative of address, there are still two objects being addressed. Do you really think he said it quickly? Neither Greek, nor Hebrew would have anything other than ability to do both singular and plural addresses; this is not english were you can assume singular; you need a verb to link the two and you don't have it.
Either kai needs to be deleted or another notion is needed. Something like o θεος ο κυρις μου would have said it alot better, but he didn't say in that order or in that way.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Yup I did. You'll note that you've been given 3 separate quotes from 3 different men of Greek to date. Don't 'feign' ignorance again. You personally would have to scramble to catch up with them. Ed Goodrick literally read from his Greek bible alone, translating for us in English as he went from his own ability and mind.
It is a given in the text: "Thomas said to Him..."
The verse above and below takes away any vagueness, there is only Thomas and Jesus in this interaction.
"him" "Lord" and "God" are all singular.
No, despite what you think, it is equivalent in English: "My Lord and my God" vs your "My Lord and God." One less mou does nothing for you. You are making it up as you are going along and going against not just me, but men who really know this stuff better.
See here for an address of this passage as well as others.
You can't dismiss this work. There is a tremendous weight that is only varified and confirmed by those of us coming behind them who can attest. English works rather well for word for word translation from Greek.