User Tag List

Page 58 of 65 FirstFirst ... 84855565758596061 ... LastLast
Results 856 to 870 of 966

Thread: John 20:28 and the Trinity

  1. #856
    Over 3000 post club Apple7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,490
    Thanks
    430
    Thanked 1,257 Times in 855 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    158697

    Why reply when you have NO rebuttal?

    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Greetings again Apple7, This proves that you are the one with a vivid imagination.

    Kind regards
    Trevor
    Said no one, ever.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Apple7 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 13th, 2019)

  3. #857
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    909
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 161 Times in 126 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11750
    Greetings again Apple7,
    Quote Originally Posted by Apple7 View Post
    Why reply when you have NO rebuttal?
    Why repeat the obvious? I was also disengaging due to the desire to spend more time on our Bible Class on Isaiah, rather than spend so much time on repeating the same matter on this forum. During our holidays I spent an interesting time on the class a fortnight ago, and benefited when one of our senior presenters spoke on Isaiah 44. Tomorrow will be Isaiah 45 and I have not done any preparation or revision. On Sunday afternoon I had 8 forum replies to respond to, and I chose to reply to only 2. I do not think that all of us make much progress in understanding in these forums, but I really appreciate the benefit of our Bible Classes. I do not know how you make notes, but I make notes on the Logos 7 program. I thoroughly revised my notes for Isaiah 44 before the class, but have not looked at Isaiah 45 notes as yet. One thing is that I update the notes to the new format that highlights the actual Bible words that are being commented upon. Have you done much study and exposition on Isaiah apart from you specialisation on the Trinity?

    Kind regards
    Trevor

  4. #858
    Over 3000 post club Apple7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,490
    Thanks
    430
    Thanked 1,257 Times in 855 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    158697
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Greetings again Apple7, Why repeat the obvious? I was also disengaging due to the desire to spend more time on our Bible Class on Isaiah, rather than spend so much time on repeating the same matter on this forum. During our holidays I spent an interesting time on the class a fortnight ago, and benefited when one of our senior presenters spoke on Isaiah 44. Tomorrow will be Isaiah 45 and I have not done any preparation or revision. On Sunday afternoon I had 8 forum replies to respond to, and I chose to reply to only 2. I do not think that all of us make much progress in understanding in these forums, but I really appreciate the benefit of our Bible Classes. I do not know how you make notes, but I make notes on the Logos 7 program. I thoroughly revised my notes for Isaiah 44 before the class, but have not looked at Isaiah 45 notes as yet. One thing is that I update the notes to the new format that highlights the actual Bible words that are being commented upon. Have you done much study and exposition on Isaiah apart from you specialisation on the Trinity?

    Kind regards
    Trevor
    Isaiah is all about The Son and The Trinity.

    For your upcoming classes, have your instructors explain why Phil 2.5 - 11 quotes from Isa 45, as thus...


    Isa 45.21 - 24

    Declare and bring near; yea, let them consult together. Who has revealed this of old; who has told it from then? Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no God other than Me; a just God and a Savior; there is none except Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself, The Word has gone out of My mouth (Son) in Righteousness (Holy Spirit), and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. He shall say, Only in Yahweh (Father) do I have Righteousness(Holy Spirit) and Strength(Son); to Him he comes; and they are ashamed, all who are angry with Him.



    Implications:

    • Phil 2 quotes Isa 45 – which declares that The Word has proceeded from The Mouth of Yahweh – a clear epithet for the Second Person of The Trinity.
    • Isa 45 quotes Yahweh, in the first-person singular, as He declares that every knee will bow to Him, and every tongue confess to Him, and Him alone, as He is the only God, there is no other.
    • Compare to Phil 2, which openly describes The Second Person of The Trinity, The Word of God, same as called in Isa 45, as being equal to God, and is worshiped.
    • Further, Isa 45 is in the context of The Trinity, as declared by the epithets for Father, Son and Holy Spirit.



    Please have them provide their exegesis on the matter...thanks...

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Apple7 For Your Post:

    glorydaz (February 11th, 2019),JudgeRightly (February 13th, 2019)

  6. #859
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    909
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 161 Times in 126 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11750
    Greetings again Apple7,
    Quote Originally Posted by Apple7 View Post
    Isaiah is all about The Son and The Trinity.
    For your upcoming classes, have your instructors explain why Phil 2.5 - 11 quotes from Isa 45, as thus...
    Implications:
    • Phil 2 quotes Isa 45 – which declares that The Word has proceeded from The Mouth of Yahweh – a clear epithet for the Second Person of The Trinity.
    • Isa 45 quotes Yahweh, in the first-person singular, as He declares that every knee will bow to Him, and every tongue confess to Him, and Him alone, as He is the only God, there is no other.
    • Compare to Phil 2, which openly describes The Second Person of The Trinity, The Word of God, same as called in Isa 45, as being equal to God, and is worshiped.
    • Further, Isa 45 is in the context of The Trinity, as declared by the epithets for Father, Son and Holy Spirit.[/B]
    Please have them provide their exegesis on the matter...thanks...
    I appreciate your input. I am very conscious of the fact that Philippians 2 quotes from Isaiah 45, but I was convinced that you would see this chapter from a Trinitarian perspective. I do not think our expositor would agree with you or even mention this in any way. It is certainly not all about the Trinity, but about the One God the Father and His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ Philippians 2:10-11.

    I asked whether you have done much study and exposition on Isaiah apart from a Trinitarian perspective. There was an amusing advertisement on TV some years ago in Australia, possibly adapted from a UK or USA ad. There was a funeral director or member who used to be very quiet but attended many social events in his familiar funeral clothes. He used to talk about funerals, and he was equipped with his tape measure to check the size of the coffin needed of the various people that were in the social event. Then one day he discovered the major city newspaper, with a different segment each day, on travel, on business, on the arts, movies and other sections. After reading he could mix freely in company and he became the centre of the social scene.

    I have had some time to revise some of my notes on Isaiah 45, but only on the first few verses and the chapter breakup. So far I have been interested in Cyrus, not the “Trinitarian” problem that you present. My notes were made in 2011 when I was given access and listened to a series of 100 Bible Classes given in another State over 10 years. The major speaker gave 90 of these talks, and one feature of his discourse was the emphasis on NT quotations of Isaiah, as well as links to some of Moses’ writings. I also started with a home study class on Isaiah when I was young, and really enjoyed an early series of talks on Isaiah 1-12, originally on tapes but I converted these to mp3 before I wore out the tapes, and these talks were by a very well respected speaker in the 1950s. I enjoy Isaiah as a whole, and like to discuss aspects with other members of our meeting.

    Kind regards
    Trevor

  7. #860
    Over 3000 post club Apple7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,490
    Thanks
    430
    Thanked 1,257 Times in 855 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    158697
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Greetings again Apple7, I appreciate your input. I am very conscious of the fact that Philippians 2 quotes from Isaiah 45, but I was convinced that you would see this chapter from a Trinitarian perspective. I do not think our expositor would agree with you or even mention this in any way. It is certainly not all about the Trinity, but about the One God the Father and His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ Philippians 2:10-11.

    I asked whether you have done much study and exposition on Isaiah apart from a Trinitarian perspective. There was an amusing advertisement on TV some years ago in Australia, possibly adapted from a UK or USA ad. There was a funeral director or member who used to be very quiet but attended many social events in his familiar funeral clothes. He used to talk about funerals, and he was equipped with his tape measure to check the size of the coffin needed of the various people that were in the social event. Then one day he discovered the major city newspaper, with a different segment each day, on travel, on business, on the arts, movies and other sections. After reading he could mix freely in company and he became the centre of the social scene.

    I have had some time to revise some of my notes on Isaiah 45, but only on the first few verses and the chapter breakup. So far I have been interested in Cyrus, not the “Trinitarian” problem that you present. My notes were made in 2011 when I was given access and listened to a series of 100 Bible Classes given in another State over 10 years. The major speaker gave 90 of these talks, and one feature of his discourse was the emphasis on NT quotations of Isaiah, as well as links to some of Moses’ writings. I also started with a home study class on Isaiah when I was young, and really enjoyed an early series of talks on Isaiah 1-12, originally on tapes but I converted these to mp3 before I wore out the tapes, and these talks were by a very well respected speaker in the 1950s. I enjoy Isaiah as a whole, and like to discuss aspects with other members of our meeting.

    Kind regards
    Trevor

    Locating The Trinity in Isaiah is never an issue....once you know what to look for.

    The key is in knowing the Names, Titles and epithets Yahweh uses throughout the entire book.

    Once you familiarize yourself with the terms that God uses to describe Himself, it really becomes a very straight forward endeavor to locate His Triune nature.

    Most people miss it entirely, modern day Jews most certainly did....and other cults, such as yours, likewise are blinded.


    My best advice to you is to study the 1,000+ names, titles and epithets used of God in scripture and then you will view scripture in an entirely new light...

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Apple7 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 13th, 2019)

  9. #861
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    909
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 161 Times in 126 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11750
    Greetings again Apple7,
    Quote Originally Posted by Apple7 View Post
    Locating The Trinity in Isaiah is never an issue....once you know what to look for.
    The key is in knowing the Names, Titles and epithets Yahweh uses throughout the entire book.
    Once you familiarize yourself with the terms that God uses to describe Himself, it really becomes a very straight forward endeavor to locate His Triune nature.
    Most people miss it entirely, modern day Jews most certainly did....and other cults, such as yours, likewise are blinded.
    My best advice to you is to study the 1,000+ names, titles and epithets used of God in scripture and then you will view scripture in an entirely new light...
    One of the early studies that we were given as Young People was the Name Yahweh and Titles of God. We were encouraged to mark our Bibles to distinguish between Elohim and El by marking the occurrences of El with a colour. We were also taught that Yahweh is “I will be ” and this is contrary to your post in the other thread that it is “I Am” and the popular view that you present that Jesus is quoting or alluding to the LXX of Exodus 3:14 in John 8:58 is incorrect. Also it is important to recognise that Elohim is also used for the Angels and Judges, often misunderstood and bypassed by Trinitarians Psalm 8:5, Exodus 21:6. So, yes, the examination of the Yahweh Name and these titles is important, but it seems that you use these to support your Trinitarian bias.

    Kind regards
    Trevor

  10. #862
    Over 3000 post club Apple7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,490
    Thanks
    430
    Thanked 1,257 Times in 855 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    158697
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    We were also taught that Yahweh is “I will be ” and this is contrary to your post in the other thread that it is “I Am”
    Go back and read it again, for the first time, Trevor.

    You are attempting to blend different posts into one idea...





    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    and the popular view that you present that Jesus is quoting or alluding to the LXX of Exodus 3:14 in John 8:58 is incorrect.
    Don't just say it; defend it.



    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Also it is important to recognise that Elohim is also used for the Angels and Judges, often misunderstood and bypassed by Trinitarians Psalm 8:5, Exodus 21:6. So, yes, the examination of the Yahweh Name and these titles is important, but it seems that you use these to support your Trinitarian bias.

    Kind regards
    Trevor
    Still hung-up on this entry-level polemic of yours, Trev?

    Any serious student of scripture is already cognizant that the meaning of elohim depends upon context.

    What does elohim mean when juxtaposed to Yahweh?

    That's right....case closed.....again....and again...and again...

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Apple7 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 13th, 2019)

  12. #863
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    909
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 161 Times in 126 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11750
    Greetings again Apple7,
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    We were also taught that Yahweh is “I will be ” and this is contrary to your post in the other thread that it is “I Am”
    Quote Originally Posted by Apple7 View Post
    Go back and read it again, for the first time, Trevor.
    You are attempting to blend different posts into one idea...
    Quote Originally Posted by Apple7 View Post
    The Hebrew of Exo 3.14 has Yahweh saying ‘I AM’ (ehyeh) three separate times.
    Don't just say it; defend it.
    If Exodus 3:14 is “I will be” as per Tyndale, RV and RSV margins, then there is no direct link with John 8:58, one a future tense, the other a present tense.
    Still hung-up on this entry-level polemic of yours, Trev? Any serious student of scripture is already cognizant that the meaning of elohim depends upon context. What does elohim mean when juxtaposed to Yahweh? That's right....case closed.....again....and again...and again...
    Yes, context is important. Yahweh Elohim may in some contexts have a wider meaning than you will admit. It could sometimes indicate that God the Father will be revealed through his Agents.

    Kind regards
    Trevor

  13. #864
    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 NWL
    How Titus 1:14, Psalms 49:7 or any other scripture express that Jesus needed to be "God" for the ransom to mean something?"
    Quote Originally Posted by Apple7 View Post
    let me repost the scripture that tells us plainly that ONLY God can pay the ransom...

    A man cannot at all ransom a brother, nor give to God a ransom for him, for the ransom of their soul is precious, and it ceases forever, (Psalm 49.7 – 8); but God will ransom my soul from the grave. (Psalm 49.15)

    Is Psalm 49 clear enough for you?

    If not, then this is what you need to do...

    Write three to four paragraphs declaring your disbelief, surprise and utter contempt for this passage, and then elaborate on your feelings for me, again, and then change the subject matter.

    Ball is now in your court...
    Where in the verses you provided does it express Jesus needed to be God for the ransom to mean anything or that God was the ransom as I asked, it doesn't. Please show me exactly where it states as such as I'm struggling to find where Psalm 49:7,8,15 states such a thing. I can see where is states "God will yip̄deh my soul from the power of Sheol" but nothing about God being a ransom. It should be obvious that picking the word "ransom" over "redeem", as you have done which is of no surprise, as the translation of yip̄deh is where your issue lies. Firstly, as I have stated the Psalms 49:15 does not say God is the ransom, but rather, God will "God will redeem my soul", God redeeming someone from a place is very different from God being a ransom.

    How do we know the word should be understood as "redeem" and not "ransom" as you conveniently choose, I'll explain why. We know according to scripture that the ransom was paid once for all time, "For the death that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time" (Romans 6:10), , yet we see that God has yip̄deh(or other derivative) people (redeemed/ransomed), many times according to scripture.

    (Deut 15:15) "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed/ransomed/wayyip̄dəḵā you."

    Jesus, who you say was God, had to come to earth as a man to ransom himself in the NT, yet we see in scripture that God ransomed before but for whatever reason didn't need to come to earth as a man (according to you), this is not consistent with the entire NT of Jesus death and ransom. There has only been one ransom, and that was at Jesus death. God has redeemed people before and will redeem people from the grave the same way he redeemed people from Egypt.

    Your translation of the verse does not make sense, God cannot ransom someone from something without implying the person was the thing being ransomed, take Psalms 45:15 and Deut 15:15 as examples.

    To say "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and YHWH your God ransomed you" would imply the nation Israel were the ransom (not in the sense of Jesus being the ransom), this makes no sense. But if we understand it as "YHWH your God redeemed you" it makes perfect sense, hence why translations render it this way. The same goes for Palms 49:15, "God will ransom me from the power of the Grave" implies that sinful man is the ransom, this again makes no sense, but "God will redeem me from the power of the Grave" does, since it implies a saving act by God. You have cherry picked ransom over redeem despite it making no sense when reading it.

    Your quotation of Psalms 49:7,8, what translations are you using? I've never seen scholarly work that translates it the way you have shown it. There was only three results on google matching the phrase "A man cannot at all ransom a brother" and it was you making it on this forum, a bit suspect. You abnormally change yip̄deh to mean ransom which causes a double statement which makes no sense, please share the translation you're using. Most translations render Psalms 49:7,8 this way:

    (Psalms 45:7,8) "..No one can redeem another or give to God a ransom for them, the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough.."

    Your translation "..A man cannot at all ransom a brother, nor give to God a ransom for him, for the ransom of their soul is precious, and it ceases forever..".

    This verse shows that the ransom is owed to God, why else would the bible writer refer to the ransom being given to God. Thus God is not the ransom since it is to him the ransom is owed.
    Last edited by NWL; February 13th, 2019 at 12:53 PM.
    If you cant beat them join them

  14. #865
    Over 3000 post club Apple7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,490
    Thanks
    430
    Thanked 1,257 Times in 855 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    158697
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Greetings again Apple7,
    If Exodus 3:14 is “I will be” as per Tyndale, RV and RSV margins, then there is no direct link with John 8:58, one a future tense, the other a present tense.
    Show us the Hebrew term in question...



    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Yes, context is important. Yahweh Elohim may in some contexts have a wider meaning than you will admit. It could sometimes indicate that God the Father will be revealed through his Agents.

    Kind regards
    Trevor

    Show us some examples of these 'wider' meanings...

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Apple7 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 13th, 2019)

  16. #866
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    909
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 161 Times in 126 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11750
    Greetings again Apple7,
    Quote Originally Posted by Apple7 View Post
    Show us the Hebrew term in question...
    I am not proficient in writing and discussing in Hebrew, but I will give my understanding using the word “Ehyeh” as the word translated in Exodus 3:14 as “I AM” in the KJV and also in many other translations. The following is my explanation of “Ehyeh” and “Yahweh”:

    The Yahweh Name – Initial Declaration and Fulfilment
    The following is a consideration of the Yahweh Name that was revealed in Exodus 3:14. It is hoped that the following comments will help to explain some of the language of both the OT and NT and the true role of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

    The Name of God was revealed to Moses in the following terms:
    Exodus 3:14-15 (KJV): 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

    Most translations and commentators accept the present tense “I am that I am”, but notice in the margin of the RV (or ASV) and RSV, an alternative is given “I will be that I will be” or “I will be what I will be”, showing that some modern scholars suggest this alternative reading. Although not popular it appears that this future tense is the correct translation. Not only modern scholars, Tyndale also translated this in the future tense.
    Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.

    The word “ehyeh” in Exodus 3:14 is the same in the earlier statement in v12, and here the translators give the future tense:
    Exodus 3:12 (KJV): And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.
    Not only does this fix the tense, it also introduces the concept that the Name of God is also associated with some future activity.

    This future tense and future activity was to be God acting to deliver Israel out of Egypt, so that Israel would become a people for His Name. They would be a living witness to the purpose of God, and a witness to the existence of God. The following passage emphasises this future work in delivering Israel with the future aspect of the Name:
    Exodus 6:1-8 (KJV): 1 Then the LORD said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land. 2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH (or Yahweh) was I not known to them. 4 And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. 5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. 6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: 7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. 8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the LORD.

    When Israel was delivered out of Egypt the Name of God remains the same, but the particular activity has been accomplished:
    Exodus 15:1-3 (KJV): 1 Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. 2 The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father’s God, and I will exalt him. 3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
    The future tense of God’s Name “He will be or become” has been accomplished, and Yahweh had become Israel’s salvation. The Yahweh Name is incorporated in the Name Jesus, speaking of God's Salvation in and through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

    We had our Bible Class on Isaiah 45, and there are a number of layers. The prophecy concerning Cyrus was significant as it was given 150 years before his appearance on the scene, and it also speaks of how he would conquer Babylon by opening the gates of the city, and he would “loose the loins” of Belshazzar. Cyrus would be raised up to release Israel from captivity, and this would be evidence that the God of Israel is the Creator, and Cyrus was only a small portion of God’s overall plan and purpose in freeing Israel. Many modern theologians reject this significant prophecy and claim that this must have been the product of a Second Isaiah, as if God could not know the future. Also, the Yahweh Name occurs frequently throughout this chapter, and it is not there to teach the Trinity as you claim, but it is again in the future tense “He who will be”, speaking of God’s future activity and purpose, not only concerning Israel, but also the whole earth. Cyrus as the anointed and shepherd of God is only a type of the Greater Shepherd and Anointed of Yahweh God the Father, our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, through whom God’s purpose will be fulfilled to bring the whole earth to bow before His Throne, to the glory of God the Father, Isaiah 45:23, Philippians 2:10-11.

    Kind regards
    Trevor

  17. #867
    Over 3000 post club Apple7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,490
    Thanks
    430
    Thanked 1,257 Times in 855 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    158697
    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    Where in the verses you provided does it express Jesus needed to be God for the ransom to mean anything or that God was the ransom as I asked, it doesn't. Please show me exactly where it states as such as I'm struggling to find where Psalm 49:7,8,15 states such a thing. I can see where is states "God will yip̄deh my soul from the power of Sheol" but nothing about God being a ransom. It should be obvious that picking the word "ransom" over "redeem", as you have done which is of no surprise, as the translation of yip̄deh is where your issue lies. Firstly, as I have stated the Psalms 49:15 does not say God is the ransom, but rather, God will "God will redeem my soul", God redeeming someone from a place is very different from God being a ransom.
    Psalm 49 uses THREE separate Hebrew words for 'ransom', stating, very plainly, that man is unable to ransom another person, himself, nor is man able to provide a ransom to God for another man.

    Psalm 49 makes it clear that ONLY God is capable of providing the ransom required to rescue a person's soul.

    How is this escaping your intellect?

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Apple7 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 13th, 2019)

  19. #868
    Over 3000 post club Apple7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,490
    Thanks
    430
    Thanked 1,257 Times in 855 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    158697
    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    How do we know the word should be understood as "redeem" and not "ransom" as you conveniently choose, I'll explain why.
    First of all, there are THREE DIFFERENT Hebrew words rendered as 'ransom' in Psalm 49...NOT one, as you ignorantly claim.

    Secondly, ANY lexicon will provide the definition of 'ransom'...thus, effectively removing your jaded worldview from clouding the picture.

    Please pick up the pace, lazy JW...

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Apple7 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 13th, 2019)

  21. #869
    Over 3000 post club Apple7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,490
    Thanks
    430
    Thanked 1,257 Times in 855 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    158697
    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    We know according to scripture that the ransom was paid once for all time, "For the death that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time" (Romans 6:10), ,
    Where is the word 'ransom'...?



    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    yet we see that God has yip̄deh(or other derivative) people (redeemed/ransomed), many times according to scripture.

    (Deut 15:15) "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed/ransomed/wayyip̄dəḵā you."

    You just answered your very own question!

    Who provides the RANSOM for people?

    That's right, God.

    Now what excuse are you going to use, witness?

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Apple7 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 13th, 2019)

  23. #870
    Over 3000 post club Apple7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,490
    Thanks
    430
    Thanked 1,257 Times in 855 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    158697
    Quote Originally Posted by NWL View Post
    Jesus, who you say was God, had to come to earth as a man to ransom himself in the NT, yet we see in scripture that God ransomed before but for whatever reason didn't need to come to earth as a man (according to you), this is not consistent with the entire NT of Jesus death and ransom. There has only been one ransom, and that was at Jesus death. God has redeemed people before and will redeem people from the grave the same way he redeemed people from Egypt.
    Firstly, scripture mandates that Jesus is God.

    You already readily confirmed this as fact long ago, and you have no issue with it, so now is not the time to backpedal.

    Secondly, you already admitted, and proved with a scriptural example, that ONLY GOD can provide the RANSOM required for His people, in fact, you say that God repeatedly provides a RANSOM for His people....and yet, you still somehow have an issue with it?

    Come on...start using your head...

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Apple7 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 13th, 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