John 20:28 and the Trinity

[Apple7]

Where did I state in my response that Jesus paid to the ransom to Adam?

Scripture makes this claim, and you applied it to Adam.

Therefore, you must apply the consequences of your assertion to Adam.

Simple.

I'll tell you exactly what I believe on the matter. Adam was made and was without sin, Adam then sinned and thus would die, Adam bore children -by means of Eve- and thus we as his children inherited sin and death because of Adam.

As you said Jesus was a ransom, this is according to 1 Tim 2:6.

HELPS word studies: antílytron (from 473 /antí, "corresponding to, instead of/exchange" and 3083 /lýtron, "ransom-price") – properly, a full ransom, referring to Christ paying the complete purchase-price to secure our freedom (redemption)

Thayer's Greek Lexicon:ἀντίλυτρον, ἀντιλυτρου, τό, what is given in exchange for another as the price of his redemption, ransom: 1 Timothy 2:6. (An uncertain translator in Psalm 48:9 (); the Orphica lith. 587; (cf. Winer's Grammar, 25).)

1 Corinthians 15:21 states "For since death came through a man, resurrection of the dead also comes through a man". Death came through Adam, because we all sin we are deserving of death (Rom 6:23), instead of animal blood sacrifices of the mosaic Law we have Jesus, the sacrificial lamb (1 Peter 1:19). Jesus, who was a perfect and unblemished man acts as as a sin offering to God in exchange to the inherited sin we gained from Adam. This enables mankind to receive the gift of life by means of a resurrection as Jesus ransom blots out the sin and death Adam gave to us (Rom 6:23).

Again...

From whom, to whom, was the ransom paid?

 

[Apple7]

Nope, still no mention of who throws down Satan from heaven despite your claim that it was God who did it.

You were already shown that Christ has the authority in Rev 12 to cast down Satan.

There are numerous locations in scripture that declare that God cast-down Satan...but, you were fixated on Rev 12, up until now...

I have no issue who threw Satan down from heaven, but again, you inferring it was God does not magically change scripture to show it was God,

Actually, you have a HUGE issue on who cast-out Satan, as this shows that The Second Person of The Trinity to be divine...of which, your demon, abhors....

nor that Michael isn't Jesus.

And at that time, Michael shall stand up, the great ruler who stands for the sons of your people. And there shall be a time of distress, such as has not been from the being of a nation until that time. And at that time, your people shall be delivered, everyone that shall be found written in the Book. And many of those sleeping in the earth's dust shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and to everlasting abhorrence. And those who act wisely shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and those turning many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever. (Daniel 12.1 – 3)

Daniel 12 informs the reader that the Archangel Michael will be present at the First and Second Resurrections.

We know from scripture that the First Resurrection occurs for the Righteous ones following Jesus.

Observe that the First Resurrection is for ‘your’ people…NOT ‘his’ people…therefore, Michael cannot be Jesus.

Again, ‘your’ people is mentioned a second time, this time in relation to the ones written in The Book…of which, Revelation informs the reader is the Lamb’s Book of Life….NOT Michael’s Book of Life.

 

[Apple7]

So any reader can fully understand, apple7's(Bowman) initial claim here was that Satan was "the lawless" one and that Jesus was the "one restraining him". A simple read of (2 Thessalonians 2:1-17 and cross comparison of scripture points the apostles to be the ones restraining, not Satan, but the lawless human man(men) of that time period.

Where is your exegesis for your assertion?

Your responses are flagging to the max....put forth some effort....

 

[Apple7]

Inferring something does not make you correct and is not evidence, show it. Show me where in Rev 13 is expresses that Satan's "power" refers to his demons. If you can't show it it's nothing more than an assumption.

Luke 10.

In where, Rev 13? Where does it state he is NOT there for you to ask "Why is Satan NOT there in person?"

All the verses you've showed so far have only expressed the Dragon give its power to another beast, it makes no mention of him being or NOT being anywhere. Again, you're reading thoughts into scripture.

According to scripture, before The Cross Satan possessed people, talked, and was present in the first-person.

After The Cross, Satan has NOT possessed anyone, never talks, and is NOT present in the first-person.

Pretty simple to figure it out, chap...

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Apple7,

Most translators render mê·’ĕ·lō·hîm as God in Psalm 8.5.
Again, your rebuttal fails to impress. What can you do now?

I was interested in your insistence that mê·’ĕ·lō·hîm should be translated as God in Psalm 8:5. Could you explain why the writer to the Hebrews translates this as “angels” and actually bases his argument upon this translation?
Hebrews 2:5–10 (KJV): 5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. 10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Rosenritter]

Are you intentionally ignoring the Jews that accepted Jesus, which NEVER called him "God"... but called him the "son of the living God"?
Instead, you cling to the errors made by those Jews that rejected Jesus .



We need to remember all of the rules for context; who is speaking, who is being spoken to, what is the topic, etc.
The texts that explain Jesus spoke in parables state that it was to the multitudes that he spoke in parables. NOT when he prayed to his God!

There is NO "metaphor" in John 17:3, it is entirely literal, and is a prayer to Christ's God;
And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent.

Was the writer of Hebrews "clinging to errors by those who rejected Jesus?" Because Hebrews seems to think that the Son of God meant someone who was literally immortal and uncreated. Tell me please, how are you deriving your interpretation of what "the Son of God" means?

 

[Rosenritter]

LOL .... going by YOUR interpretive method, Satan was correct in Gen 3, when he said "you will not surely die". You NEED to pay more attention to WHO you are quoting! You have accepted the excuses made by murderers as Gospel!! IN SPITE of Jesus own words;

And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent.

Are you operating on the assumption that the word "and" means the same as "not?" Jesus Christ is as much a part of God as my right arm is a part of me.

John 12:38 KJV
(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?

 

[Rosenritter]

Jesus was praying to his God, his Father ...... he was NOT praying to himself!! Your convoluted distortions of this text are hideous.

... and you know this because you, a very limited mortal being that can only be in one place and form at a time, has never talked to himself or read your own writing, and you extrapolate this upon God?

 

[meshak]

... and you know this because you, a very limited mortal being that can only be in one place and form at a time, has never talked to himself or read your own writing, and you extrapolate this upon God?

Why do you try so hard to read into twisted doctrine, and dismiss clear statements of Jesus?

 

[Rosenritter]

Without the thou pronoun, it wouldn't be both King and YHWH.

In the Septuagint LXX Greek, the phrase "my King and my God" is as follows:

ὁ βασιλεύς μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου

...which would be translated literally into English as "the King of me and the GOD of me".


It isn't because the second sentence is dependent on the first which has a plurality in Psa 5:2.

That isn't a plural. "Thee" and "thou" are singular. "Ye" and "you" are plural. "My king" is the same as "my God" in Psalm 5:2.

Thomas did not word anything which Thomas himself was saying. It is obviously an incomplete sentence, because there are not words connected to it afterward, but Jesus interrupts him immediately saying, "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: [now] blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

They were blessed because Thomas had stopped doubting, but why did Jesus interrupt Thomas, and not get praise for being God, eh?

It sounds like you are saying that your theory is that Thomas was starting to quote Psalm 5:2, but skipped the first part, was interrupted before he could say the last part, and that Thomas misunderstood "my King and my God" to be referring to two different people? That's a lot of unlikely events chained together.

"My Lord and my God" isn't stated as if it were interrupted. It would also be especially strange of the gospel writer to interrupt someone's speech where it would drastically change its meaning.

 

[Rosenritter]

The Son of God does not mean God.

Is there anyone else besides God who has neither beginning of days nor end of life?

 

[Rosenritter]

No, it only meant that to the ones that were wanting to kill him
John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.


Jesus REALLY helps us nail that down when he said" My Father is greater than I".

[MENTION=20936]Dartman[/MENTION], when did Dartman enter this forum? Did he come by himself, or did you create the account? So, to you, whomever you are, or whatever name you normally use outside of this forum, are you greater than Dartman?

 

[Rosenritter]

Son of God
God

different

Jacob spoke.
The mouth of Jacob spoke.

Different?

 

[Jacob]

Is there anyone else besides God who has neither beginning of days nor end of life?

Actually, you may be misunderstanding this. Melchizedek seems to come from nowhere. And we have Jesus.

 

[Jacob]

Jacob spoke.
The mouth of Jacob spoke.

Different?

If I spoke did my mouth speak? If I spoke or spoke aloud, yes.

 

[Rosenritter]

You think John 20:28 to be Thomas making a complete sentence and not a fragmentary one. And if I recall correctly, you don't even know the case of both nouns rendered lord and God in Greek.

Is "You there!" a complete sentence? Regardless, that style of phrase (addressing someone) is used in common speech. When someone kneels and says "My Lord" no one stops him and says he is using incomplete grammar.

 

[Rosenritter]

Then why does Jesus interrupt him almost immediately?

The text doesn't indicate that there is an interruption. I've heard you declare there is an interruption, but John didn't see fit to indicate such.

 

[Rosenritter]

Why do you try so hard to read into twisted doctrine, and dismiss clear statements of Jesus?

Leading question. Why do you keep beating your wife?

 

[Rosenritter]

Actually, you may be misunderstanding this. Melchizedek seems to come from nowhere. And we have Jesus.

Hebrews 7:1-3 KJV
(1) For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
(2) To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
(3) Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Everyone comes from somewhere... except God, who has always been, who describes himself as "I AM." No angel or man can be described as having "neither beginning of days, nor end of life." That's a description which belongs to God and God alone.

Yet the passage makes sense if Melchisedec was God in the flesh, nor is this a particular stretch of possibility considering God is later described as visiting Abraham with his angels, having their feet washed, and consuming food laid before them.

The relevant link in this passage is that "made like unto the Son of God" is the summation of these traits:
1. Without father, without mother
2. without descent
3. Having no beginning of days
4. Having no end of life

In other words, the Hebrew understanding of "Son of God" meant God in earthly form. Now you can understand why the Jews said that Jesus made himself equal with God by declaring himself the Son of God.

But aside from the Hebrew understanding, what was the Gentile use of the term? I can think of one example from the Old Testament:

Daniel 3:23-25 KJV
(23) And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.
(24) Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.
(25) He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.


As the servant of the king used the term, the Son of God looks like a man, but something about that form still distinguished it from any normal man. What might be different about this fourth man walking in the fire that looked different from the other three? I propose that this form of the fourth was Godlike. Even in the heathen realm, the term "Son of God" would have had an association with power, not simply any normal person.

 

[Jacob]

Hebrews 7:1-3 KJV
(1) For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
(2) To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
(3) Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Everyone comes from somewhere... except God, who has always been, who describes himself as "I AM." No angel or man can be described as having "neither beginning of days, nor end of life." That's a description which belongs to God and God alone.

Yet the passage makes sense if Melchisedec was God in the flesh, nor is this a particular stretch of possibility considering God is later described as visiting Abraham with his angels, having their feet washed, and consuming food laid before them.

The relevant link in this passage is that "made like unto the Son of God" is the summation of these traits:
1. Without father, without mother
2. without descent
3. Having no beginning of days
4. Having no end of life

In other words, the Hebrew understanding of "Son of God" meant God in earthly form. Now you can understand why the Jews said that Jesus made himself equal with God by declaring himself the Son of God.

But aside from the Hebrew understanding, what was the Gentile use of the term? I can think of one example from the Old Testament:

Daniel 3:23-25 KJV
(23) And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.
(24) Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.
(25) He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.


As the servant of the king used the term, the Son of God looks like a man, but something about that form still distinguished it from any normal man. What might be different about this fourth man walking in the fire that looked different from the other three? I propose that this form of the fourth was Godlike. Even in the heathen realm, the term "Son of God" would have had an association with power, not simply any normal person.

In the case of Melchizedek I believe that it may be that we know these things from the perspective of his being a man but that we know of him or read of him in scripture, and some things are absent from our record of him.