John 20:28 and the Trinity

[john w]

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.

No, he must be a man, and God, and stuff your "no evidence" spam, as I've given evidence, for years, but that 2 Cor. 4:4 KJV blinds you to it, Christ rejector.

 

[john w]

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.

.

John

Thanks for the spirited argument.

But John, really? You think you are getting the upper hand by insulting me?

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Are you a son of God?

Do you the nature of your Father?

Are you God?

Well I am still awaiting your answer to my question regarding

Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Are they sons of stone or sons of Abraham?

Yes, the son has the nature of the Father.

Are you a son of God?

I John 3:2

I am a son of God.

Not by adoption, but by seed.

I Peter 1:23

Your logic requires that I as a son of God is God?

Is that what you are telling me?

For that matter, you do admit, evidently that Jesus is a son.

And as a son has the nature of the Father

God is his Father. If Jesus is God, then Jesus must be his own son?

Why the confusion?

Why not enjoy the clarity of scripture rightly divided?

=spam, misdirection, changing his argument, create a moving target, side step, doing the hokey pokey, and turn all around, as the Christ rejector, forgets his own "argument."..


That is slick, Forest....Real slick...

Slower:

There is no mention of God the Father in the OT

So what?

Is that supposed to be an argument that supports some wisdom of yours?

It isn't.

All it proves is that God the Father is not mentioned in the OT.

Peter is not mentioned in the OT either.

Are you going to suggest that Peter is not really a person that Jesus Christ spent time with?

If you have some point to make, you might want to make it, you know, before Jesus Christ returns.

Why don' you read what I wrote instead of staining it with your false doctrines and illogic?

What does omnipotent mean?

What does omniscient mean?

What are your definitions of those terms?

Who knows maybe I could agree with your definition, but until you define them, I see no way to discuss the issue.

So rather than divide, how about you define those terms?

Now, can I be how stupid?

If you have to resort to insults, then I know you have no scriptural reply.

Man up and admit you are wrong about the trinity, that is is a false doctrine that is in now way taught by God in the scriptures.

Man up boy.

Gird up your loins and admit it

You missed it.This is your grade school argument, clown:

There is no "God the Son" mentioned in the scriptures.

You can't be this stupid. I take that back. All Christ rejectors, which, by definition, are those that reject that the Lord Jesus Christ is God, are stupid.

You: Since the bible does not employ, "mention," the terms, "atheism...monotheism...rapture...omnipotent...omniscient.... God the Son... God the Holy Spirit...The Sermon On The Mount.. Holy of Holies... God the Holy Spirit.........." ........................................these concepts, like "Trinity," are false.

You're a moron.Grow a brain, or get saved-or both.

Man up boy.

Real tough guy, are you, punk? Impressive. Lack confidence, do you, punk? Yes... I've fought bigger girls than you, sis, so you don't scare me.

If you have to resort to insults, then I know you have no scriptural reply.

I always insult wolves. Too bad, cry baby, and stuff your "Poor me....wounded soul....accusation of hate technique" made up false "doctrine," as exposing, marking, identifying wolves, like yourself, and calling them names, is biblical, despite your spineless protests to the contrary.


And get this, punk: wolves, and sheep, generally don't get along. But, if that gives you the "warms and fuzzies," knock yourself out, talk show groupie.

Am I clear, wolfie? And kindly show me the scripture, where I must "reply" to anyone, including a wolf, and Christ rejector, such as yourself.

I thought so.

Does God the Father have a wife?

Son, in the book, means one possessing the nature of something, whether literal or figurative("Son of man," which the Saviour used over, and over again, "sons of thunder," "sons of disobedience"...survey Mark 3:7 KJV, Ephesians 2:1 KJV,....) Typically, when "son of" is used in relation to a person (son of man, son of Abraham, son of David,.......) the son possesses the nature of his father.



Con artist.

 

[john w]

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

Another stock cliche that woos the TOL audience...Weighty.

 

[john w]

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.

=misdirection, side step....Slick...Real slick, like Genesis 3:1 KJV...

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.

What a mess.

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



Your argument: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."

 

[NWL]

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

Satan.

Who is the identity of the Angel in Revelation 1:1-3 who has the key of the Abyss, opens the shaft of the abyss to let the locusts (demons according to you) out of the abyss after which they receive authority?

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.

Are the Locusts "having teeth like lions" as stated in Rev 9:8 proof of them being Demons since "Satan" is spoken of as going about like a roaring Lion or not? It is your argument that something being described as a Lion relates to them being Satan/Demons, not mine. Answer the question.

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.

I'm not asking if the Demons had permission to occupy flesh as you answered, I'm sure you you're well aware of this. I'm asking if Demons occupied flesh by means of possession or in the same fashion as Jesus, by becoming flesh (John 1:14). Answer the question. Deal with the question.

Also, when you say "Demons must have permission to occupy flesh", this is clear evidence of your assumption in your understanding, If I'm wrong then correct me.

7. How does Rev 20 show ONLY God has the power to bind Satan.

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 acknowledged that Jesus is Theos, so what possible argument could you have now?

Apple7, I asked you to provide a scripture that shows that only God had the power to bind Satan, your reply was Rev 20. I then asked you to show where in Rev 20 it expressing the thing you professed it did, namely that its shows "that only God had the power to bind Satan". You've now given answer to this with that answer being "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.".

How does that answer the question? Where have you showed that only God had the power to bind Satan according to Rev 20 by your answer? All you've answered is the thing we both agree with, that Jesus bound Satan, show us where it could only be God who had the power to bind Satan as you claimed and as I originally asked.

8. Where did the magic practicing 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.

Lol.

I wonder if anyone else here on TOL will agree with you? I'm quite certain not a single scholar agree's with you, once again, your position and understanding here in unorthodox. Who would've guessed that you Bowman/Apple7 would have more unorthodox beliefs than a Jehovah's Witnesses, on the surface you appear as an orthodox Christian, but deep down you have more beliefs that differ from mainstream Christianity as taught through centuries than anyone I ever met.

Confirm you believe YHWH gave his holy spirit to sorcerers and the magic practicing priests who worshiped false gods of Egypt to empower them work against himself and explain why YHWH would do so?

Do God or kingdoms work against themselves according to the principles of Jesus teachings?

(Matthew 12:22-26) "..Then they brought him [Jesus] a demon-possessed man who was blind and speechless, and he cured him... the Pharisees said: “This fellow does not expel the demons except by means of Be·elʹze·bub, the ruler of the demons.” 25 Knowing their thoughts, he said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 In the same way, if Satan expels Satan, he has become divided against himself; how, then, will his kingdom stand?.."

"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...

Deal with 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?"

Show us scriptural evidence that suggest only Jesus "as God" could pay the ransom?

Jesus gave ‘edōken’ (completed action) Himself and ransomed ‘lytrōsētai’ (completed action) us from Lawlessness. Titus 2.14 Now what, chap...?Now what???

What exactly did you show or prove? I asked to verses that support you idea that Jesus needed to be "God" for his ransom to be acceptable, all you've done is show to verses about Jesus setting us free from sin? How does this prove Jesus needed to be God?

Chucky never used this thing called CONTEXT....and, neither do you. Observe what you and Chucky missed...

Looking for the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself on our behalf, "that He might ransom us from all lawlessness and purify a special people for Himself," zealous of good works. Titus 2.13 - 14

.

Are you for real!? You complain I did not read the context when it was YOU who provided the verse. I asked you for proof "that suggest only Jesus as God could pay the ransom", you showed us Titus 2:14, when I then asked "how does Titus 2:14 show what you claimed" you claim that I never used the context, it was YOU who was meant to show the context and YOU who quoted the verse, not me!

Furthermore I already know and understand you view Jesus as God and the ransom, so showing a verse which you believe that shows Jesus as God and the ransom does not answer me question. Again my question was not about proving that Jesus was God and the ransom, but was in regards to a verse that expresses/implies that it could only be God who could act as ransom. We both know you can't answer it, if you could, then you would have already. Once again, show us scriptural evidence that suggest only Jesus "as God" could pay the ransom?

The idea that only God himself could pay the ransom on behalf of mankind is not found in scripture, this is what I'm asking you to answer for since this is what you claimed.

A. 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"

A. 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

C. 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)

Deal with the questions! My questions (1,2) weren't about Satan but Jesus and an Angel. Stating your original position as proof of your original position is circular reasoning. Answer the above questions (A, B & C)

Questions you made excuses for, so as to not answer, please answer them:

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

Who was the Passover lamb sacrificed to under the law in the OT?

Was Jesus the Passover lamb according to scripture? (1 Cor 5:7)

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

 

[Apple7]

Are you for real!? You complain I did not read the context when it was YOU who provided the verse. I asked you for proof "that suggest only Jesus as God could pay the ransom", you showed us Titus 2:14, when I then asked "how does Titus 2:14 show what you claimed" you claim that I never used the context, it was YOU who was meant to show the context and YOU who quoted the verse, not me!

We can see how you just hate context.

Keep running!

 

[Apple7]

Deal with 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?"

Scripture?

 

[Apple7]

Who is the identity of the Angel in Revelation 1:1-3 who has the key of the Abyss, opens the shaft of the abyss to let the locusts (demons according to you) out of the abyss after which they receive authority?

Ever heard of context?

The angel mentioned in Rev 1 is NOT the Messenger described in Rev 20.

There is a break in the Rev 1 narrative, beginning at Rev 1.9, in which Jesus is described, by John, as holding the keys.

Do some research for once.

Chucky.

 

[Apple7]

Are the Locusts "having teeth like lions" as stated in Rev 9:8 proof of them being Demons since "Satan" is spoken of as going about like a roaring Lion or not? It is your argument that something being described as a Lion relates to them being Satan/Demons, not mine. Answer the question.

Satan is not spoken as roaring like a lion to begin with.

I already went over the exegetical reasoning as to why this is.

Let's review once again, for your limited intellect...


νηψατε γρηγορησατε ο αντιδικος υμων διαβολος ως λεων ωρυομενος περιπατει ζητων καταπιειν

nēpsate grēgorēsate ho antidikos hymōn diabolos hōs leōn ōryomenos peripatei zētōn tina katapiein

Be sober-minded, watch, the adversary devil of you walks about in the same manner as a roaring lion seeking whom to devour;


This passage does not refer to ‘The Devil’ himself, for several reasons:

• ‘Diabolos’ is anarthrous (i.e. it lacks a preceding Greek definite article). Thus, rather than referring to ‘The Devil’ it refers to ‘A devil’, a demon – of which, the NT often refers to demons as devils.

• ‘Ho antidikos’ (the adversary) is used in only one other NT passage, Mat 5.25, and is in the context of being thrown into prison.

• The key word ‘hōs’ literally means ‘in the same manner as’, and is used to describe demons in Revelation, ‘in the same manner as’ a lion (Rev 9.8).

• This passage does not pertain to 'The Devil"....but 'A devil'...i.e. a demon...



Now what, chap....?

 

[Apple7]

I'm not asking if the Demons had permission to occupy flesh as you answered, I'm sure you you're well aware of this. I'm asking if Demons occupied flesh by means of possession or in the same fashion as Jesus, by becoming flesh (John 1:14). Answer the question. Deal with the question.

No.

 

[Apple7]

Furthermore I already know and understand you view Jesus as God and the ransom, so showing a verse which you believe that shows Jesus as God and the ransom does not answer me question. Again my question was not about proving that Jesus was God and the ransom, but was in regards to a verse that expresses/implies that it could only be God who could act as ransom. We both know you can't answer it, if you could, then you would have already. Once again, show us scriptural evidence that suggest only Jesus "as God" could pay the ransom?

The idea that only God himself could pay the ransom on behalf of mankind is not found in scripture, this is what I'm asking you to answer for since this is what you claimed.

Your knowledge of scripture is...well....nearly zero.

I already provided Titus 2 as proof positive that Jesus is God, that Jesus is our Savior, and that Jesus ransomed us.

Where did Titus 2 come from?

That's right, the OT.

Now, chucky....tell us from where in the OT it came from...

:guitar:

 

[Apple7]

 

[oatmeal]

No, he must be a man, and God, and stuff your "no evidence" spam, as I've given evidence, for years, but that 2 Cor. 4:4 KJV blinds you to it, Christ rejector.

You asked earlier if God had a wife, and rather than try to find the post in which you asked, I will answer that here.

No, God did not have a wife.

He did not have to have one to have a child, for Mary did not become pregnant by having sex with God.

God did not sex with Mary.

Therefore God did not have to have a wife to have a son.

For that matter, God does not have a mother.

If God had a mother, then who would be the father of God?

 

[oatmeal]

No, he must be a man, and God, and stuff your "no evidence" spam, as I've given evidence, for years, but that 2 Cor. 4:4 KJV blinds you to it, Christ rejector.

Since you choose to not refute me with scripture, I believe that I am right and that you cannot support your opinion

 

[oatmeal]

A and D.

Sorry, but that verse says

the man Christ Jesus

 

[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."

You continue to grasp at straws rather than scripture

When you are ready to man up and share some scripture then I might take you seriously.

Jesus Christ sis the son of God as scripture teaches.

I am a son of God even as scripture teaches

Jesus Christ is my oldest brother.

He blazed the way to the Father for me.

And I follow his lead


Having said that John,

I have to admit I feel compassion for you, you are a sheep without a shepherd.

You are lost in the wilderness of religion, when you need truth

 

[Aimiel]

You asked earlier if God had a wife, and rather than try to find the post in which you asked, I will answer that here.

No, God did not have a wife.

He did not have to have one to have a child, for Mary did not become pregnant by having sex with God.

God did not sex with Mary.

Therefore God did not have to have a wife to have a son.

Your explanation demands that Jesus is MORE than just a man.

 

[oatmeal]

Your explanation demands that Jesus is MORE than just a man.

You are right

Jesus Christ was not just another man that some woman gave birth to.


His is indeed the one foretold of way back in Genesis 3:15

He is the son of God

The lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.

He is the man Christ Jesus who seated at the right hand of God is the one mediator between God and men. I Timothy 2:5

 

[Dartman]

Satan is not spoken as roaring like a lion to begin with.

I already went over the exegetical reasoning as to why this is.

Let's review once again, for your limited intellect...


νηψατε γρηγορησατε ο αντιδικος υμων διαβολος ως λεων ωρυομενος περιπατει ζητων καταπιειν

nēpsate grēgorēsate ho antidikos hymōn diabolos hōs leōn ōryomenos peripatei zētōn tina katapiein

Be sober-minded, watch, the adversary devil of you walks about in the same manner as a roaring lion seeking whom to devour;


This passage does not refer to ‘The Devil’ himself, for several reasons:

• ‘Diabolos’ is anarthrous (i.e. it lacks a preceding Greek definite article). Thus, rather than referring to ‘The Devil’ it refers to ‘A devil’, a demon – of which, the NT often refers to demons as devils.

• ‘Ho antidikos’ (the adversary) is used in only one other NT passage, Mat 5.25, and is in the context of being thrown into prison.

• The key word ‘hōs’ literally means ‘in the same manner as’, and is used to describe demons in Revelation, ‘in the same manner as’ a lion (Rev 9.8).

• This passage does not pertain to 'The Devil"....but 'A devil'...i.e. a demon...



Now what, chap....?

THE Devil is "a devil". THE Devil is also called Satan, "the serpent", and "dragon".... (which is seems to be a type of serpent).

 

[Apple7]

THE Devil is "a devil". THE Devil is also called Satan, "the serpent", and "dragon".... (which is seems to be a type of serpent).

'The' Devil is arthrous.

'A' devil is anarthrous.