John 20:28 and the Trinity

[NWL]

You, yourself admitted that you google your replies.

No mystery here...

You're stammering again.

Apple7/Bowman you have yet again demonstrated that you are incapable of defending your position when they are scrutinized and question, I asked numerous questions and reasoning all your points and instead of addressing them you simply mock, change the subject and ask pointless questions in show of unwitting defeat, I will once again shame you by posting my questions and your meaningless responses to them. Either learn how to engage in debate or do not attempt to debate at all.

You have previously accused me of stock piling question when in truth they only developed overtime as you fail to deal with question as they come but instead to ignore them because you find them to troublesome to answer. You are doing exactly the same thing as you did before. What are your intentions this time, to ignore all my question yet again and pick a single one which you think you can best deal with but will no doubt fail again as you have this time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I, NWL, asked the following three questions in reply to your statement of "this passage [Psalms 49:7,8 does NOT show that a ransom is OWED to God" in post 880:

Q. You say "no, this passage does NOT show that a ransom is OWED to God", does Psalms 49:7,8 say that no man can "give to God a ransom"?

Q. According to the verse why can man not pay the ransom to God?

Q. Does the below verse infer that if a man could pay for himself/another that they would "live on forever and not see decay"?

(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, so that they should live on forever and not see decay..."

Your reply to these questions was "You're stammering again" as you can see by your post quote above. How does this answer the question I asked? Why are you blatantly ignoring my questions?

I ask you to answer these question properly so that I can properly develop my point and reply to what you stated. If you all can make in reply are snide and pointless remarks I will presume you are incapable of answering the questions and are purposely ignoring them as you know answering them will prove the points I have already made true.

 

[NWL]

You're playing this game already, just shows you're already losing. It's actually quite pitiful that you question me here when you know my reasoning is sound.

Romans 6:10 does not have the word ransom in it, but Jesus death was the ransom and the thing being referred to in Roman 6:10 despite the word ransom not being directly used.

We can see in Colossians 1:14 it states "by means [Jesus] of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins". Romans 6:10 the scripture I used where you have pulled me out on as it does not directly mention ransom states "For the death that he [Jesus] died, he died with reference to sin once for all time". The "death in reference to sin" is the ransom, no branch of Christianity denies this. The verse states that this death, referring to the ransom, was "once for all time". So if you argument is that God ransom only means ransom according to lexicons then how has God ransomed others in the past yet it was not once for all time back then, was Gods ransom then somehow lesser. The reasoning is poor at best.

Was Jesus death as mentioned in Romans 6:10 talking about the ransom?

Providing the ransom and being the ransom are two different things. You've previously mentioned and the very question you initially replied to was in regards to "how God was the ransom". It seems you are now changing your argument as you've probably come to the realization you cannot defend your initial claim. Are you now suggesting that God in times past has only provided the ransom and you no longer are arguing that God was the ransom?

You provided us with numerous examples showing that ONLY God can ransom His people.

Now...

Show us where a mere man can ransom God's people.


Good luck...

I asked in response to your post:

Q. Was Jesus death as mentioned in Romans 6:10 talking about the ransom?

Q. Are you now suggesting that God in times past has only provided the ransom and you no longer are arguing that God was the ransom?

Your response above does not suffice as an answer to either of the questions.

Deal with my questions and then I will deal with yours, a reasonable request.

I also asked the following question and you failed to answer:

Q. We both agree to what you say in regards to Psalms 49 "that man is unable to ransom another person, himself, nor is man able to provide a ransom to God for another man", but, were the men/mankind being spoken of referring to sinful man/mankind or sinless man/mankind?

 

[Apple7]

I thought you would be familiar with Psalm 23:1-2, but this may not fit in with your theology. Is Yahweh a literal shepherd?

Is Yahweh a literal ARM?

Is Yahweh a literal HAND?

The Triune God of the Holy Bible has 1000+ names, titles and epithets, all, of which, are already comprehended by The Trinity.

Study.

Up.

 

[NWL]

Instead of doing the jitter bug around your passage, please show us the previous scripture passages showing EXACTLY How Yahweh ransomed His people.

This should be fun...

No, deal with my reasoning I presented in post 884 instead of trying to create a strawman to try and run away from said reasoning.

Did God ever hold Israel to ransom? If not then explain how Israel were ransomed as you would insist the verse to be understood. "YHWH thy God ransomed thee" (Deut 15:15).

Is the word "redeem" in Deut 15:15 an accurate translation and understanding of the text when placed within it?

 

[NWL]

You admit that Jesus IS Theos.

Thus, let's review, once again the context of one such passage declaring that Jesus is Theos...


Titus 2.13 - 14

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. Psa. 130:8; Eze. 37:23; Deut. 14:2


So...

Unless you suddenly forgot how to read, Jesus is Theos in the sense that He already RANSOMED us!

Only God can pay the RANSOM.

You give an inaccurate translations of the believed understanding of the word lytrōsētai In titus 2:14. Once again you have quoted the verse to mean ransom over redeem. Out of thirty (30) of the widely used trinitarian bibles today 29 out for 30 use the word "redeem" over the word "ransom", and the single translation (Young's Literal Translation) that I saw that does use the word ransom is a literal translation of the bible, thus it used the literal translation of the word, not the best word to suit the original writers intended meaning. The reason why is plain to see, as we will see by my following question and your lack of answer no doubt.

Once again, the translation you conveniently used states "[Jesus] gave Himself on our behalf, that He might ransom us". Tell me, who was the ransom according to scripture, Jesus or us, if Jesus is your answer explain why your translation of the text expresses that Jesus was not the ransom but rather he ransom "us"?

Silence is golden.

Trinitarian bibles that has Titus 2:14 saying that Jesus "freed", "redeemed, "purchased", "recused" us that were randomly searched: WEB, WNT, WBT, BSB, ERV, DRB, ASV, AKJV, KJV, CEB, JB, NAS, GWT, ABPE, NHEB, NET, ISV, HCSB, GNT, CEV, CSB, KJB, TMB, NASB, BLB, ESV, NLT, NCV, NIV,

The only instance out of the above search a bible having Titus 2:14 say Jesus ransomed us: YLT

Which argument do you believe would be more convincing to others, that you Apple7 are correct and the Greek word lytrōsētai in Titus 2:14 means ransom in a plain sense, despite it contradicting Jesus being the ransom as it would imply he "[Jesus] ransomed us", (Jesus didn't ransom anyone he was the ransom), with every major scholar and every major translation being wrong. Or, is it more convincing that every major scholar and every major translation is correct and Jesus "freed" and "redeemed" us as the ransom according to Titus 2:14.

 

[Apple7]

Also another layer of Psalm 23 is that it speaks of God the Father as being Jesus’ Shepherd during his ministry, but this would not agree with your theology. Possibly you do not like figurative language such as “Man of War”.

Kind regards
Trevor

Shepherd, Rod and Staff refer to The Second Person of The Trinity, in Psalm 23.

What can you do now, Trev?

 

[Apple7]

I only gave a small sample of some of the resources and speakers. I like a Magazine series in the 1950s “The Name of Salvation” by a respected expositor. We may use some external scholars, but with some care as some of their ideas are based on wrong foundations, such as the Documentary Hypothesis or the Trinity.

Who is 'we'...?

Tell us exactly how 'we' defines The Trinity.

I have read a well-known Trinitarian that gives “I will be” and connects this with God’s purpose, rather than “I AM” in the sense of God's existence, but I would not normally reference such a writer because of his other views. He wrote a few commentaries and has given translations of a few of the OT books. He was also a Hebrew lecturer.

Kind regards
Trevor

And?

 

[Squeaky]

John 20-28
said
Where do you come up with this stuff??? Thomas knew that God was in Christ. And Thomas was addressing both of them. And so that He wouldn't be rude by leaving one or the other un addressed. He addressed both of them. My Lord Jesus, and also my God the Father.

John 20:28
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
(NKJ)

2 Cor 5:19
19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
(NKJ)


Matt 7:21-23
21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'LORD, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 "Many will say to Me in that day, 'LORD, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
(NKJ)

Luke 6:46
46 "But why do you call Me 'LORD, Lord,' and do not do the things which I say?
(NKJ)

Luke 13:25-27
25 "When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, 'LORD, Lord, open for us,' and He will answer and say to you, 'I do not know you, where you are from,'
26 "then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.'
27 "But He will say, 'I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.'
(NKJ)

 

[Apple7]

You give an inaccurate translations of the believed understanding of the word lytrōsētai In titus 2:14. Once again you have quoted the verse to mean ransom over redeem. Out of thirty (30) of the widely used trinitarian bibles today 29 out for 30 use the word "redeem" over the word "ransom", and the single translation (Young's Literal Translation) that I saw that does use the word ransom is a literal translation of the bible, thus it used the literal translation of the word, not the best word to suit the original writers intended meaning. The reason why is plain to see, as we will see by my following question and your lack of answer no doubt.

Please show us the exegetical reasoning of these 30 renderings that you slavishly googled.

What's that?

None are worthy to show their reasoning?

If translators provide NO reasoning behind their renderings, then how can a mere witness?

Further, as you verified yourself, ALL lexicons provide the definition of ransom.

Every. Single. One.

Did it ever occur to you that the lexical terms are corollaries for one another?

Your brain.

Use it.

 

[Apple7]

Trinitarian bibles that has Titus 2:14 saying that Jesus "freed", "redeemed, "purchased", "recused" us that were randomly searched: WEB, WNT, WBT, BSB, ERV, DRB, ASV, AKJV, KJV, CEB, JB, NAS, GWT, ABPE, NHEB, NET, ISV, HCSB, GNT, CEV, CSB, KJB, TMB, NASB, BLB, ESV, NLT, NCV, NIV,

The only instance out of the above search a bible having Titus 2:14 say Jesus ransomed us: YLT

Ransomed us from whom?

 

[Apple7]

Again...

Please refrain from posting endless paragraphs expressing your surprise, contempt and feelings towards me.

You need to refocus your energies on comprehending scripture.

I, NWL, asked the following three questions in reply to your statement of "this passage [Psalms 49:7,8 does NOT show that a ransom is OWED to God" in post 880:

Q. You say "no, this passage does NOT show that a ransom is OWED to God", does Psalms 49:7,8 say that no man can "give to God a ransom"?

Correct.

Q. According to the verse why can man not pay the ransom to God?

Only God can ransom a person's soul. Psalm 49.15; Hosea 13.14.

Q. Does the below verse infer that if a man could pay for himself/another that they would "live on forever and not see decay"?

(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, so that they should live on forever and not see decay..."

No.

 

[glorydaz]

John 20-28
said
Where do you come up with this stuff??? Thomas knew that God was in Christ. And Thomas was addressing both of them. And so that He wouldn't be rude by leaving one or the other un addressed. He addressed both of them. My Lord Jesus, and also my God the Father.

:doh:

 

[Apple7]

I asked in response to your post:

Q. Was Jesus death as mentioned in Romans 6:10 talking about the ransom?

Is a ransom mentioned?

Q. Are you now suggesting that God in times past has only provided the ransom and you no longer are arguing that God was the ransom?

Are you arguing that Jesus is God?

Q. We both agree to what you say in regards to Psalms 49 "that man is unable to ransom another person, himself, nor is man able to provide a ransom to God for another man", but, were the men/mankind being spoken of referring to sinful man/mankind or sinless man/mankind?

Who is without sin?

 

[Apple7]

Did God ever hold Israel to ransom? If not then explain how Israel were ransomed as you would insist the verse to be understood. "YHWH thy God ransomed thee" (Deut 15:15).

Is the word "redeem" in Deut 15:15 an accurate translation and understanding of the text when placed within it?

Deut 15.15 is YOUR example to begin with, witness!~

How many times do you expect me to finish your arguments for you?

We already know that JW's are lazy scriptural bottom-feeders, but come on...

Again....let me repeat, since this is YOUR example, show us EXACTLY how Yahweh ransomed His people from Egypt!

Simple.

 

[Jacob]

Clearly Thomas is claiming Jesus is God and Jesus is not refusing that claim. Notice that when John tries that with an Angel the Angel refuses to allow it.

Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

Matthew 28:17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.

Acts 10:25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him.

Matt 14:33 Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, “Truly You are the Son of God.”

Jesus did instruct, say, to pray to the Father, His Father, our Father (God). I recognize Jesus as the Son of God.

 

[Jacob]

Ransomed us from whom?

Are you asking because you do not know or because you want to know or to challenge the thinking of the poster?

 

[Apple7]

Are you asking because you do not know or because you want to know or to challenge the thinking of the poster?

I already know the answer.

 

[Jacob]

I already know the answer.

There are different theories, and nobody.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Apple7,

No one even knows the 'argument' that you are attempting to make, Trev.
I already showed you the lexical definition of the terms involved, of which, includes present and future inherent in the Hebrew root, itself.
Keep fighting that straw-man argument, force-fed to you from your cult leaders that you idolize so much...

cult
Exo 3.14 And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM; and He said, You shall say this to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.
Why is 'I AM' repeated three times in that verse...?

I have previously suggested that Ehyeh should be rendered “I will be” as per Tyndale and the RV and RSV margins and thus Yahweh is “He will be”. “I will be” is the correct translation, while “I AM” is an incorrect translation. Also I have stated that Exodus 3:14 and Exodus 3:15 are both part of the explanation of God’s Name. Some readily accessible commentaries clearly state this but you seem to have denied this. Maybe you do not look at these as you are convinced that you fully understand Exodus 3:14-15 by quoting TWOT and also reverting back to “I AM”.

Then start referencing and quoting them.

The problem is that most “authorities” have some wrong ideas. If I may be selective Adam Clarke on Exodus 3:14 says “the original words literally signify, I will be what I will be”.

I have not responded to your other posts as they are not beneficial.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[clefty]

Greetings again Apple7,
I have previously suggested that Ehyeh should be rendered “I will be” as per Tyndale and the RV and RSV margins and thus Yahweh is “He will be”. “I will be” is the correct translation, while “I AM” is an incorrect translation. Also I have stated that Exodus 3:14 and Exodus 3:15 are both part of the explanation of God’s Name. Some readily accessible commentaries clearly state this but you seem to have denied this. Maybe you do not look at these as you are convinced that you fully understand Exodus 3:14-15 by quoting TWOT and also reverting back to “I AM”.
The problem is that most “authorities” have some wrong ideas. If I may be selective Adam Clarke on Exodus 3:14 says “the original words literally signify, I will be what I will be”.

I have not responded to your other posts as they are not beneficial.

Kind regards
Trevor

I have also read were “I will be” is more appropriate as He waits for a people that prove that He is...not only God almighty but worthy of an obedient blameless worshipping free willed people...at which point He IS.

So he He waits for us...so that He might be...complete...