User Tag List

Page 65 of 65 FirstFirst ... 155562636465
Results 961 to 966 of 966

Thread: John 20:28 and the Trinity

  1. #961
    Over 500 post club NWL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    515
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 60 Times in 50 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Apple7 View Post
    Answering a question with a follow-up question was standard discourse in Jesus' time.

    But...you would not know anything about that...
    You are not Jesus, not even close and your reasoning abilities are far from his, one must learn to crawl before he can walk. Jesus responses actually dealt with the questions he was asked, your ones do not, if you think they do then explain how they do, If you don't then I can only assume they do not and you cannot explain how they apparently do.

    Your example of Rom 6.10, actually completely answers ALL your questions.

    But, you are not smart enough to comprehend it.

    Rom 6.10 declares that Jesus' death was dedicated to arthrous 'The Sin', which is an epithet for Satan.
    Oh of course, that the reason you've been unable to properly prove the things you claim, it's me that the issue. #sarcasm

    So Jesus death in Romans 6:10 was not in relation to the ransom by your answer, but to Satan?
    If you cant beat them join them

  2. #962
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    926
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 126 Times in 116 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    4802
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    The Bible is full of verses.
    Yes, it is.
    Quote Originally Posted by G
    Psalm 98:1 O sing unto the Lord a new song; for he hath done marvellous things: his right hand, and his holy arm, hath gotten him the victory.

    John 12:38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?

    The Father is the source, the Son is the expression, and the Spirit is the application. You simply cannot separate the Father from the Son or from the Spirit...try as you might.
    Of course you cannot separate the son from his God, or God's mind from God! I heartily agree the Father IS the source, and the spirit is HIS power. Jesus is Jehovah's chosen servant, Jehovah's "son in whom I am well pleased". Jesus is NOT Jehovah.

  3. #963
    Over 3000 post club Apple7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,490
    Thanks
    430
    Thanked 1,260 Times in 855 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    158698
    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post

    Oh of course, that the reason you've been unable to properly prove the things you claim, it's me that the issue. #sarcasm


    You suffer from 2 Cor 4

  4. #964
    Over 3000 post club Apple7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,490
    Thanks
    430
    Thanked 1,260 Times in 855 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    158698
    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post

    So Jesus death in Romans 6:10 was not in relation to the ransom by your answer, but to Satan?
    Jesus purchased us, by His physical death upon The Cross.

    Scripture uses many terms to describe what occurred at The Cross.

    The transaction occurred between God and Satan.

    We were held prisoner, and were the property of Satan, until Jesus purchased us back from Satan, at The Cross.

    This is what scripture tells us...

  5. #965
    Over 3000 post club Apple7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,490
    Thanks
    430
    Thanked 1,260 Times in 855 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    158698

    You suffer from 2 Cor 4...

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    I know you find this difficult but actually read my question and try answer it specifically. Again, according to the verse why can man not pay the ransom to God?

    Here is the verse again, answer according to the verse, we can speak about any other scriptural context later but at the moment we're focusing on this verses context:

    (Psalm 49:7, 8) "..None of them can ever yip̄-deh a brother Or give to God a ransom for him, 8 (The ransom price for their life is so precious That it is always beyond their reach.."

    You define the word 'lazy'....

    Now....define the Hebrew word for 'precious'...

    Simple.

  6. #966
    Over 500 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    710
    Thanks
    584
    Thanked 609 Times in 378 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    38590
    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    He kinda does, thats liteally what he says 7djengo7:
    False. Again, what Jesus LITERALLY says is "Thee, the only true God". What Jesus does NOT say, either literally, or otherwise, is "Thee ONLY ARE the only true God". YOU don't take what Jesus says LITERALLY; you impose your unitarianism onto Jesus' words, which is eisegesis.

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    What you are attempting to demand as evidence is a double confirmation.
    That's gobbledygook.

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    For example if I said "Queen Elizabeth is the only true Queen of Great Britain" would this leave anyone with any confusion as to what I've stated, would you djengo expect me to have to double up my statement by saying "ONLY Queen Elizabeth is the only true queen", what added meaning does this give? None!
    False.

    These are two different statements:

    1. "Elizabeth II is the only true Queen of England"
    2. "ONLY Elizabeth II is the only true Queen of England"
    In statement #1, the single proposition, 'Elizabeth II is the only true Queen of England', alone, is stated.
    In statement #2, two, distinct propositions--'Elizabeth II is the only true Queen of England' AND 'No one who is not Elizabeth II is the only true Queen of England'--are stated, and no less.

    The proposition, 'No one who is not Elizabeth II is the only true Queen of England', is what is ADDED when you insert that extra word, 'only'. THAT is NOT the same proposition as 'Elizabeth II is the only true Queen of England'. And, there is no doubling up, here, in the sense of saying the same thing twice; not at all. In stating that "ONLY Elizabeth II is the only true Queen of England", you are stating two, distinct propositions, once apiece. You are NOT stating one, single proposition, twice. This is BASIC, TEXTBOOK LOGIC. Your programmers/handlers at the Watchtower Society have done a masterful job at directing your attention away from it.

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    you said Jesus "does NOT state, in John 17:3, that ONLY God the Father is the only true God"
    Yes. I said that. Because it's TRUE.

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    Only someone who believe that God is one third of the trinity would need Jesus to be so explicitly clear by stating "ONLY God the Father is the only true God" for it to mean that the Father is God alone.
    Here, you embarrass yourself, by denying, in agreement with me, that Jesus, in John 17:3, was stating "ONLY God the Father is the only true God".

    Your statement, "the Father is God alone", is a statement of TWO propositions, and not merely of ONE proposition:

    1. 'The Father is God'
    2. 'Whatever is not the Father is not God'

    These are two, distinct propositions. They do not mean the same thing.

    Over and over, you're just presupposing your cherished unitarianism, and imposing it upon the Scriptures.

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    This is what I mean when I say you've assumed the trinity when you read John 17:3, take the scripture for what it says, not what you want it to say.
    I do no assume Trinitarianism; it is the teaching of the Bible. You assume your unitarianism, and impose it upon John 17:3. Not only that, but then, when you are asked whence you get your unitarianism (since it is extra-Biblical), you claim John 17:3 as the place whence you get your unitarianism. The place you claim you derive your unitarianism from is the very place where you have already imposed your unitarianism, by eisegesis. You're going in a circle.

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    Get a dictionary and look up the meaning of "imply". If scripture states "Jesus saves those who obey him" we can deduce by the way of implication that Jesus does not save those who do not obey him
    False.

    From your statement, "Jesus saves those who obey him", we CANNOT deduce that Jesus does not save those who do not obey him. The proposition, 'Jesus saves those who obey him', in fact, DOES NOT IMPLY the proposition, 'Jesus does not save those who do not obey him'. This is an elementary fact of basic logic. Now, from the statement, "Jesus saves ONLY those who obey him", we can deduce that Jesus does not save those who do not obey him'.

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    if scripture says "Gods loves a happy giver" we can deduce by the way of implication that God does not like a giver who gives begrudgingly.
    Again, that is false. The proposition, 'God loves a happy giver', does NOT imply the proposition 'God does not love an unhappy giver'.

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    What you are doing is getting a statement, namely "Father.. the only true God" and claiming that what is implied by that statement is not true since scripture does not state the implication explicitly.
    The proposition, 'God the Father is the only true God', does NOT imply the proposition, 'Whatever is not God the Father is not the only true God'. As a unitarian, you PRESUPPOSE the latter proposition; you presuppose that whatever is not God the Father is not the only true God.

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    When it stated Abraham was Gods friend to you that might mean that Abraham could have been Gods enemy at the same time as being his friend, since the opposite of the friendship, namely an enemy cannot be assumed by the implication of the said friendship, right?
    If, by the term 'friend', God connotes 'person who is not God's enemy', then, indeed, when God states that Abraham is His friend, God is stating that Abraham is a person who is not God's enemy. If, by the term 'friend', God does not connote 'person who is not God's enemy', then, when God states that Abraham is His friend, God is not stating that Abraham is a person who is not God's enemy.

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    When Jesus said the word only in John 17:3 did he not mean "only" and that the HS and himself could be included?
    By the phrase, 'the only true God', Jesus was referring to the only true God. What's the problem?

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    Again this is bad reasoning
    My reasoning is reasoning. No reasoning is bad. What YOU are doing is not reasoning at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    and you've assumed trinitarism in your response
    False. But YOU assume your cherished unitarianism at every step, and that makes you a hypocrite.

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    no one writes or speaks in the way that you demand the scriptures to speak for my position to be correct.
    It is impossible for your "position to be correct", for it is in gross opposition to the Bible, and it is internally incoherent. Your ideology is an anti-Christ, anti-Bible heap of dung that you've happily received from the slimey hands of your programmers/handlers at the Watchtower Society.

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    Let's be real, if a fellow trinitarian came up to you and said "I've come to a realization, I now understand that the Father is the only true God" you wouldn't take that to mean he still believes in the trinity since he did't say "only" twice, but rather, that he simply understands the Father as being God alone.
    Let's be real: Anyone who comes up to me and claims that the Father, alone, is God, is not a fellow Trinitarian, for he is not a Trinitarian at all.

    Believe me, I understand why heretics such as yourself don't go around loudly reciting the phrase, "ONLY the Father is the only true God", and why you opt, instead, to recite the phrase, "The Father is the only true God". I get it, I really do. It is done out of calculation, on your part. You are trying to avoid the embarrassment of sounding as though you are imposing your unitarianism upon Scripture--that extra "ONLY". But, when you recite the phrase, "The Father is the only true God", you are reciting it in accordance with your false assumption that it means the same thing as the phrase "ONLY the Father is the only true God" means. But, again, for Jesus to say that the Father is the only true God is NOT for Jesus to say that ONLY the Father is the only true God.

    If Jesus wanted to say that ONLY the Father is the only true God, why did He NOT say that ONLY the Father is the only true God?

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    Anyone can try and make the scriptures seem to say wild and twisted things
    Anyone who hates truth and logic can, indeed, do just that; which is why YOU, indeed, do just that.

    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    what you should be aiming for is believability, your reasoning and demands are not realistic.
    What you should be aiming for is learning to respect the laws of logic, because, until you do so, you will continue to make a dismal clown of yourself in your war against God's Truth. Or, better, your programmers/handlers from the Watchtower Society will continue to coax you into making a dismal clown of yourself.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 26th, 2019)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us