John 20:28 and the Trinity

[john w]

Quit limiting God and start believing the word.

And you're also a clown,spouting that warn out cliche, of "limiting God."


No, moron-He, by His scriptures, limits us, moron.

An atheist, Muslim, to you: There is more than one path to God!!!Quit limiting God!!

You" Well, uh, urr...Right on!!!! We must not limit God!!!!

...,start believing the word...

1. Wow! None of us had ever thought of that, until you graced our TOL age!!!! That ends the debate!!! Teach us...Please?

2. The Lord Jesus Christ is God. Start believing the word.


So there. I won. Case closed. You taught us that debate ender/clincher-we learned it from you.



Get saved, Christ rejector.

 

[john w]

God is spirit, therefore Jesus should have been spirit, but God was not selfish, .

And you are going to debate, given the above made up assertion, sport? You lied. explain to the TOL audience, your motivation, for lying.

John 4:24 KJV

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


God is a spirit, not "God is spirit,"as you carelessly asserted, demonstrating your disdain for the details of the book, your laziness.

Of course, details of the bible, a book of details, don't matter to you, or any of you Christ rejectors, explaining why you deny that the Lord Jesus Christ is God.

 

[oatmeal]

He is a man, moron. He is God.

By your "argument," he is not a man. You "argued:"



Slower:

Does "Son of man" mean that Jesus is not a man?

You:"Son of man literally means, "son of man."It does not mean "the son is a man," nor "Man the Son."It means that Jesus Christ is the son of man, but not a man.
____________

Does "Son of man" mean that Jesus is not a man?

You: Well, uh, urr..


You are clueless as to the various biblical meanings of "son," "father"-the context tells us its implications.


You would "argue": "Well, if we have 'God the Father,' then we must have 'God the Mother,' as he must have a wife, you see, well, uh, urr....."


=grade school "logic."

I see you resort to insults again.

That is due to your shortage of scriptural substance.

In other words, you lose.

Likewise you sidestep my post with straw men arguments

In other words, who ever "educated" you regarding the trinity failed you miserably.

I can only speak for myself on the quality of my education, but I personally got tired of everything being a "mystery"

So, what are the children of Abraham that God can make out of stones?

Are the sons of stones?

Or are they children of Abraham?

You teachers never took a hard look at scripture.

Thus you avoid that truth taught in that scripture

We all need humility and meekness to learn more.

You have that in other subjects, why not here?

 

[oatmeal]

And you're also a clown,spouting that warn out cliche, of "limiting God."


No, moron-He, by His scriptures, limits us, moron.

An atheist, Muslim, to you: There is more than one path to God!!!Quit limiting God!!

You" Well, uh, urr...Right on!!!! We must not limit God!!!!



1. Wow! None of us had ever thought of that, until you graced our TOL age!!!! That ends the debate!!! Teach us...Please?

2. The Lord Jesus Christ is God. Start believing the word.


So there. I won. Case closed. You taught us that debate ender/clincher-we learned it from you.



Get saved, Christ rejector.

Evidently,

Actually believing scripture is rare.

Take for instance, I Timothy 2:5

Who is the one mediator between God and men?

a. God?

b. God the son?

c, the second person of the trinity

d. the man Christ Jesus

How difficult for some to comprehend that, let alone, believe that truth

 

[Apple7]

A cheap way to say that you can't or won't make a reply.

I already provided the original anarthrous Greek proving my position.

As a poorly trained jehovah witness, you completely ignore the original languages, context, exegesis, and then proceed to bark out your disdain from behind someone else's rendering that you, yourself, can never defend.

Not too impressive..

 

[Apple7]

God does not pay a ransom to God according to your understanding, Jesus does pay a ransom to God according to scripture.

Nope.

Who were sin offerings offered to under the law in the OT?

Who was the passover lamb sacrficed to under the law in the OT?

Where is a sin offering mentioned as being a ransom in the OT?

Was Jesus the passover lamb accoridng to scripture? (1 Cor 5:7)

(1 Corinthians 5:7) "..Clear away the old leaven so that you may be a new batch, inasmuch as you are free from ferment. For, indeed, Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed.."

How was the law a "shadow of the things to come" when speaking about animal saccrfices as detailed in Hebrews 10:1-5?

(Hebrews 10:1-5) "..For since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered year after year, make those who approach perfect. 2 Otherwise, would not the sacrifices have stopped being offered, because those rendering sacred service once cleansed would have no consciousness of sins anymore? 3 On the contrary, these sacrifices are a reminder of sins year after year, 4 for it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away. 5 So when he comes into the world, he says: “‘Sacrifice and offering you did not want, but you prepared a body for me...By this “will” we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time."

Absolutely no mention that a RANSOM was paid by God to God.

Keep trying...

 

[Apple7]

You're using Heb 2:14-15 as proof of your idea here when that is one of the original scripture in question that you have yet to prove fits your interpretation. Once again, nothing in the verse suggest Jesus has brought Satan to nothing in the verse, there is no reason why it cannot be a future event. Moreover, as we are currently discussing, scripture makes clear references to Satan still having power now, you've yet to show a shred of convincing evidence that clearly shows Satan as currently bound or that Satans Demons are the one being spoken of when Satan is mentioned as active post-cross.

I agree with your sequence of events that you mentioned, I deny that we have entered into the period where Satan has been bound.

Once again you've ignored my question again:

"Also you ignored my question in my last post to you that would have answered your confusion if you simply answered the question, If the conquering is regarding the conquering of Satan himself, then why does Jesus say that others will conquer just as he conquered if the conquering(Satan) has already been done?"

I've got a great idea....

How about YOU actually addressing the scriptural exegesis in my posts in lieu of addressing me with your unreferenced opinion?

Don't be so afraid of scripture...

 

[Apple7]

8. Where did the magic pratciing priest get their power from to turn staffs into snakes, water into blood and call frogs from the wilderness (Exo 7:8-11, 7:20-22, 8:5-7)

The Triune God.

 

[Apple7]

7. How does Rev 20 show ONLY God has the power to bind Satan. Once again instead of giving a informed response you post a chapter, how does that answer my question? I might as well answer Genesis Chapter 1 - Revelation 22 in every instance a defense is called upon me, how foolish. show us where the bibles the teaches that only God has the power to bind Satan? And don't forget to show me the post number where you've "apparently" answered this

Ever heard of Context?

And I saw a Messenger coming down out of Heaven, having the key of the abyss, and a great chain on his hand. And he laid hold of the dragon, the old serpent who is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and threw him into the abyss, and shut him up, and sealed over him, that he should not still lead astray the nations, until the thousand years are fulfilled. And after these things, he must be set loose a little time. And I saw thrones, and they sat on them. And judgment was given to them, and the souls of the ones having been beheaded because of the witness of Jesus, and because of the Word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast nor its image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand. And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (Rev 20.1 – 4)


By providing four epithets each to that of Jesus and that of Satan, Revelation informs the reader quite plainly that it was Jesus who bound The Devil.

You already FULLY acknlowledged that Jesus is Theos, so what possible argument could you have now?

As further proof, we were already informed, way back in Rev 1.18, that ONLY Jesus holds the ‘keys’ to the events in Revelation – thus, this can only mean that the ‘Messenger’, having the key, here IS Jesus…and, as already seen in scripture, Jesus’ binds Satan at The Cross.

 

[Apple7]

6. Once again, did Demons occupy flesh by means of possession or did they occupy flesh the same way Jesus "became flesh" (John 1:14)? Answer please.

The Word occupied flesh in the OT, not just in the NT.

Demons must have permission to occupy flesh.

 

[Apple7]

5. Angelic beings and even Jesus himself are compared to as Lions, if you don't believe referring to them as having attributes of Lions infers they are Satan or Demons, based on the argument of consistency how does your argument about the beast in Revelation being demons stand?

That would be your argument, not mine.

 

[Apple7]

4. Who is the identity of the king of the locusts as mentioned in Rev 9:11, the one named Abandon?

Satan.

 

[Apple7]

Here is a list of points/question you conveniently ignored in your responses to me (and I'm the one who needs to put effort in my replies right? Lol)

1. When is says that Jesus apēlthen/went away does it simply mean that he left the location he was in? Does it have anymore meaning? Answer please.

Matthew 16:4 - "Jesus then left them and apēlthen/went away"

2. Since the Angel apēlthen/went away, does that mean he was bound as you believe Satan was or does it simply mean he left the location, which one is it?

Luke 1:38 - An Angel apēlthen/went away from speaking with Mary

3. Since this apparently proves your point, namely, that when "Satan apēlthen/went away" according to Matthew 13:25 that what it really means is that 'Satan was bound', are you saying that Joseph was bound the same way Satan was bound?

Ever heard of CONTEXT?

The Evil One, The Hostile One, The Devil departed in an absolute manner ‘apēlthen’ (completed action), but left behind his demons; Jesus’ Parable of the Wheat & the Tares (Mat 13.25)

 

[Rosenritter]

Son of God literally means, "son of God"

It does not mean "the son is God" nor "God the Son"

It means that Jesus Christ is the son of God.

You are the son of your father, you are not your father, You are derived from him and your mother.

You have similarities, but you are not your father,

You are "son of father" which is far different in meaning from "father the son"

When you decide that language is designed to communicate thoughts and concepts and things with some degree of accuracy then it will become clearer to you.

If you can show me anywhere in my posts dating anywhere back to when I first started posting on this forum or even any other writing of mine that I have written where I have ever referred to Jesus as "God the Son" then I will acknowledge that your response was justified. Otherwise, it's identified a straw man argument that should be an indication (to yourself) that you aren't responding to what is actually being said.

You may take as much time as you like with that, but when you are done searching in vain, and feel like dealing with the subject at hand, the issue raised was that you are supporting your argument with circular reasoning. If you were to start reading the bible with no outside idea of the meaning of "the Son of God" you would see that it is used in different senses, but that it is applied in a different sense to Jesus in the context of the New Testament writings. It is "THE" Son of God, not "a" son of God. That meaning includes:

1) The Word was God, created all things, and was made flesh and dwelt among us
2) Is rightfully addressed as "My Lord and my God" without rebuke
3) and is also described in terms like "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life." (Hebrews 7:3)

Your argument has been that Jesus is not God. So you start with a preconceived notion of the meaning of the title "The Son of God" of meaning "not God" which is exactly the same as your argument, and on the weight of that (preconceived circular logic loop) you're tossing out all of the meanings scripture gives us that describe "the Son of God."

Non-circular logic should start with a blank slate and then gather all the pieces together to see what they form.

 

[Rosenritter]

Evidently,

Actually believing scripture is rare.

Take for instance, I Timothy 2:5

Who is the one mediator between God and men?

a. God?

b. God the son?

c, the second person of the trinity

d. the man Christ Jesus

How difficult for some to comprehend that, let alone, believe that truth

A and D.

 

[john w]

I see you resort to insults again.

I always insult wolves, and do not negotiate with them. That is scriptural. But it takes the heat off you, with that "poor me...I am a victim...don't attack me" fluff.


That is your best "yelp," wolfie?

That is due to your shortage of scriptural substance.

No, wolfie, I've given you, and other wolves, chapter, verse, for years, in which to soak your brain, but due to 2 Corinthians 4:4 KJV, 1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV, you cannot see it, so stuff your sound byte.

In other words, you lose.

No, that would be what the Lord Jesus Christ tells you, at the great white throne judgment, before he sends you packing, on your way to hell, for denying, while you were alive, that he is God.


That is your best cliche, wolfie? Weighty.

Likewise you sidestep my post with straw men arguments.

Nice cliche. No, I picked apart your grade school scribble, demonic "argument," leaving you just to spam cliches.

In other words, who ever "educated" you regarding the trinity failed you miserably.

I can only speak for myself on the quality of my education, but I personally got tired of everything being a "mystery"

You are beginning to bore all of us, wolfie, with these boring cliches, sound bytes.

So, what are the children of Abraham that God can make out of stones?

Are the sons of stones?

Or are they children of Abraham?

You teachers never took a hard look at scripture.

Thus you avoid that truth taught in that scripture

We all need humility and meekness to learn more.

You have that in other subjects, why not here?

Slower...

That is right,

Jesus is the son of man and he is a man.

He is not "man the son" He is human......

He is a man, moron. He is God.

By your "argument," he is not a man. You "argued:"

Son of God literally means, "son of God"

It does not mean "the son is God" nor "God the Son"

It means that Jesus Christ is the son of God.

Slower:

Does "Son of man" mean that Jesus is not a man?

You:"Son of man literally means, "son of man."It does not mean "the son is a man," nor "Man the Son."It means that Jesus Christ is the son of man, but not a man.
____________

Does "Son of man" mean that Jesus is not a man?

You: Well, uh, urr..


You are clueless as to the various biblical meanings of "son," "father"-the context tells us its implications.


You would "argue": "Well, if we have 'God the Father,' then we must have 'God the Mother,' as he must have a wife, you see, well, uh, urr....."


=grade school "logic."

 

[john w]

Evidently,

Actually believing scripture is rare.

That's your contribution? Please teach us. Please?

Take for instance, I Timothy 2:5

Who is the one mediator between God and men?

a. God?

b. God the son?

c, the second person of the trinity

d. the man Christ Jesus

How difficult for some to comprehend that, let alone, believe that truth

Quite irrelevant, to your "argument," clown....The Kinsman Redeemer doctrine, woven throughout the OC-he must be man, and God.

 

[oatmeal]

I always insult wolves, and do not negotiate with them. That is scriptural. But it takes the heat off you, with that "poor me...I am a victim...don't attack me" fluff.


That is your best "yelp," wolfie?




No, wolfie, I've given you, and other wolves, chapter, verse, for years, in which to soak your brain, but due to 2 Corinthians 4:4 KJV, 1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV, you cannot see it, so stuff your sound byte.


No, that would be what the Lord Jesus Christ tells you, at the great white throne judgment, before he sends you packing, on your way to hell, for denying, while you were alive, that he is God.


That is your best cliche, wolfie? Weighty.




Nice cliche. No, I picked apart your grade school scribble, demonic "argument," leaving you just to spam cliches.


You are beginning to bore all of us, wolfie, with these boring cliches, sound bytes.



Slower...



He is a man, moron. He is God.

By your "argument," he is not a man. You "argued:"



Slower:

Does "Son of man" mean that Jesus is not a man?

You:"Son of man literally means, "son of man."It does not mean "the son is a man," nor "Man the Son."It means that Jesus Christ is the son of man, but not a man.
____________

Does "Son of man" mean that Jesus is not a man?

You: Well, uh, urr..


You are clueless as to the various biblical meanings of "son," "father"-the context tells us its implications.


You would "argue": "Well, if we have 'God the Father,' then we must have 'God the Mother,' as he must have a wife, you see, well, uh, urr....."


=grade school "logic."

God had a son, that son is human, if you cannot handle that, that is your problem

I am a son of God and I am not God, or do you believe that I am?

Oh, God, I just used "I am" twice in a sentence, does that mean "I am" the "I am"?

God wanted to have one human son, so he did.

If that is problem for you, take that up with the Creator.

I am a son of God as are all Christians, does mean we are God?

Well according to your logic son of God means son is God, so you have miscounted the number of persons in the Godhead by millions if not billions.

You will ignore that as well

You would rather insult and defame than believe.

You could renew your mind, but will you?

God is not a man, but Jesus is.

The humble shall be exalted, not the arrogant who reject God's son.

 

[oatmeal]

That's your contribution? Please teach us. Please?


Quite irrelevant, to your "argument," clown....The Kinsman Redeemer doctrine, woven throughout the OC-he must be man, and God.

Yes, for you scripture is irrelevant when it comes to identifying the son of God

You do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God

 

[oatmeal]

That's your contribution? Please teach us. Please?


Quite irrelevant, to your "argument," clown....The Kinsman Redeemer doctrine, woven throughout the OC-he must be man, and God.

The kinsman redeemer is a man.

You have no evidence to support your claim that he must be God.

God is just, therefore it had to be a man, taken out of the flock, the flock of believers, who was to be our Passover lamb.