John 20:28 and the Trinity

[Apple7]

Again your position here is unorthodox and almost every single scholar disagrees with you.

Please show the exegetical reasoning for these scholars of yours.

Good.

Luck.

 

[Apple7]

This is extremely poor reasoning, the adversary being spoken of in the verse you alluded to was the one possibly throwing the other party into prison. The adversary himself is not the one being spoken of as in prison. You've literally seen the word "adversary" and the word "prison" in a verse where they aren't even contextually referencing the adversary going or being in prison and somehow believe this is evidence that Satan the adversary was bound in a completely unrelated verse.

Proper exegesis requires full examination of all locations of the word in question, its inflections, as used in scriptural context.

As you can easily see, the context is used in the same manner.

Please start putting forth some effort into your replies, in lieu of shooting from the JW hip...of which, does not impress anyone...

 

[Rosenritter]

Show us where Jesus refers to Mary as His 'mother'.

Good luck...

Matthew 1:18 KJV
(18) Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

John 19:25-27 KJV(25) Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
(26) When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
(27) Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

The gospels don't count? Or do you have to see the word in red ink? Do you not accept Jesus as the ultimate author of the scriptures?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Apple7,

Greetings again Apple7, You have not responded to the fact that the Scriptures state that Mary is the mother of Jesus.

Show us where Jesus refers to Mary as His 'mother'. Good luck...

Matthew 2:13-14 (KJV): 13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. 14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
I do not need to follow your confused reasoning, as the statement by the Angel and Matthew’s historical account, a twofold Divine witness, is sufficient to prove that Mary is the mother of Jesus. What are you trying to prove? You seem to have had a break for a while, but you should have had a longer rest, as you seem to be confused. Are you saying that Jesus disagrees with this Divine witness?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Apple7]

Matthew 1:18 KJV
(18) Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

John 19:25-27 KJV(25) Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
(26) When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
(27) Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

The gospels don't count? Or do you have to see the word in red ink? Do you not accept Jesus as the ultimate author of the scriptures?

You and Trevor need to learn to read.

Jesus NEVER refers to Mary as His Mother!

In fact, you showed that He refers to her as 'woman'....NOT 'mother'.

You peeps are something else...

 

[Apple7]

Greetings again Apple7,
Matthew 2:13-14 (KJV): 13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. 14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
I do not need to follow your confused reasoning, as the statement by the Angel and Matthew’s historical account, a twofold Divine witness, is sufficient to prove that Mary is the mother of Jesus. What are you trying to prove? You seem to have had a break for a while, but you should have had a longer rest, as you seem to be confused. Are you saying that Jesus disagrees with this Divine witness?

Kind regards
Trevor

You peeps keep failing to show where Jesus referred to Mary as His 'mother'!

Where is the passage?

Such a simple request, and yet, you miss it, entirely...

 

[Apple7]

You think yourself a scholar and yet you don't know the basics. Psalms 49:7 destroys your statement. Physically yes, a ransom applies to a person holding prisoners, but God is not physical, thus it does not relate in exactly the same way. Jesus was a ransom on behalf of mankind since no sinful man (or animal) can ever be a ransom for man.

(Psalm 49:7) "..None of them can ever redeem a brother Or give to God a ransom for him, 8 (The ransom price for their life is so precious That it is always beyond their reach); 9 That he should live forever and not see the pit..."

Your very own example proves my point!

God cannot receive a ransom!

You already admitted that a ransom is a price paid by one party, to another party, for the release of prisoners.

God holds no prisoners, thus He cannot be paid a ransom!

How hard is this to grasp?


Now....

Tell us to whom Jesus' paid His ransom?


Think real hard...

 

[Apple7]

God is a God of justice, Adam sinned against God thus and became sinful by nature. We inherited this sinful nature through Adam, a sinful man could not pay the debt owed to God for Adams transgression. The only thing that could pay back was what was lost was something of equal or greater value. Since God is a God of justice and only demands something of equal value (Deuteronomy 19:21) that it was was given, namely Jesus, the last Adam.

(1 Corinthians 15:45) So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.



What can I say, ignorance is bliss.

Chucky did not train you very well.

Jesus, as God, is the only worthy ransom....you already agree to this fact.

But....to whom was Jesus' ransom paid?


Don't run.

 

[Apple7]

Where does it reference the Devil in Col 2:15? It doesn't, once again you assume it does.

(Colossians 2:15) "..He [Jesus] has stripped the governments and the authorities bare and has publicly exhibited them as conquered, leading them in a triumphal procession by means of it.."

Jesus had conquered the world prior to his death (John 16:33), so Col 2:15 is nothing new in terms of revelation, nor is it proof that Jesus has bound/conquered Satan himself, since, as already stated, Jesus has conquered the world, and who is the ruler of the world pre-Jesus, Satan, the wicked one. The verse is simply talking about overcoming the world and its natural powers and influence, not Satan himself.

This terrible thing called context, and exegesis comes into the picture, once again, and utterly destroys your Chucky worldview...


Col 2.13 – 15

και υμας νεκρους οντας τοις παραπτωμασιν και τη ακροβυστια της σαρκος υμων συνεζωοποιησεν υμας συν αυτω χαρισαμενος ημιν παντα τα παραπτωματα εξαλειψας το καθ ημων χειρογραφον τοις δογμασιν ο ην υπεναντιον ημιν και αυτο ηρκεν εκ του μεσου προσηλωσας αυτο τω σταυρω απεκδυσαμενος τας αρχας και τας εξουσιας εδειγματισεν εν παρρησια θριαμβευσας αυτους εν αυτω

kai hymas nekrous ontas en tois paraptōmasin kai tē akrobystia tēs sarkos hymōn synezōopoiēsen hymas syn auto charisamenos hemin panta ta paraptōmata exaleipsas to kath' hēmōn cheirographon tois dogmasin ho ēn hypenantion hemin kai auto ērken ek tou mesou prosēlōsas auto tō staurō apekdysamenos tas archas kai tas exousias edeigmatisen en parrēsia thriambeusas autos en autō

And you, being dead in the transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven you all the transgressions, having blotted out the handwritten bond in the decrees against us, which was an adversary to us, and He has taken him out of the way, having nailed him to The Cross; having stripped of authority the rulers and the powers, He made a show of them in public, triumphing over them in Him.



Here is the rational for this passage pertaining to Satan:

• The closest preceding nominative (subject) word to ‘He has taken him out of the way’ is the word ‘hypenantion’, rendered as ‘adversary’.
• ‘Adversary’ is singular.
• The only other inflection of this word, in the entire NT, is in the plural term ‘hypenantious’ and is used in Heb 10.27 in the context of a fiery judgment for the ‘adversaries’.
• Clearly, the singular ‘hypenantion’ is Satan; and the plural ‘adversaries’ are the demons.
• The singular neuter personal pronoun ‘auto’ which follows it, can, and does, apply to ‘him’.
• Juxtaposed to this is the conquering of evil in the statements of disarming ‘the rulers and the powers’, which are evil spirits.
• This public display, at The Cross, is referred to using the term ‘thriambeusas’, triumphing, which carries the meaning, ‘I lead one as my prisoner in a triumphant procession’.
• Clearly, and unmistakably, the reader is informed that Satan was bound as a prisoner at The Cross.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Apple7,

You peeps keep failing to show where Jesus referred to Mary as His 'mother'! Where is the passage? Such a simple request, and yet, you miss it, entirely...

I cannot fathom your reasoning here. Is this a specialised debating tactic? I am also waiting for your great statement that will blow away my belief that there is One God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Apple7]

Greetings again Apple7,I cannot fathom your reasoning here.

Kind regards
Trevor

When can we expect to see the passage in which Jesus calls Mary His 'mother'?

 

[Rosenritter]

You and Trevor need to learn to read.

Jesus NEVER refers to Mary as His Mother!

In fact, you showed that He refers to her as 'woman'....NOT 'mother'.

You peeps are something else...

How ironic. You didn't seem to read what you were replying to.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Apple7,

When can we expect to see the passage in which Jesus calls Mary His 'mother'?

Actually I am waiting for your response. I already proved that Mary is the mother of Jesus and also you did not respond to my earlier quotation of Psalm 22:9-10 where Jesus mentions his mother. Are you suggesting that in the 30 years before his ministry that Jesus never addressed Mary as his mother? Are you suggesting that Jesus did not have a mother. So keep on playing your game if you like, but I cannot understand your reasoning here.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Rosenritter]

Greetings again Apple7,Actually I am waiting for your response. I already proved that Mary is the mother of Jesus and also you did not respond to my earlier quotation of Psalm 22:9-10 where Jesus mentions his mother. Are you suggesting that in the 30 years before his ministry that Jesus never addressed Mary as his mother? Are you suggesting that Jesus did not have a mother. So keep on playing your game if you like, but I cannot understand your reasoning here.

Kind regards
Trevor

I don't know whether he is disputing that Mary is the mother of Jesus (which is said many times in black text) or whether he has some special point because of the term of address, "Woman" that Jesus and other of the disciples used.

Luke 22:56-58 KJV
(56) But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him.
(57) And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not.
(58) And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.

John 4:21 KJV
(21) Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

John 8:10 KJV
(10) When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

Considering that "Man" and "Woman" seem to be standard forms of address used in the gospels, by Jesus and Peter, and used when addressing quite a few people, I don't think that anything can be particularly drawn one way or the other from its usage. But regardless of whether the word "mother" is in red, Mary did call Jesus her son, a designation that Jesus did not correct or deny.

Luke 2:48-50 KJV
(48) And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
(49) And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
(50) And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Rosenritter,

I don't know whether he is disputing that Mary is the mother of Jesus (which is said many times in black text) or whether he has some special point because of the term of address, "Woman" that Jesus and other of the disciples used.
Luke 22:56-58 KJV, John 4:21 KJV, John 8:10 KJV,
Considering that "Man" and "Woman" seem to be standard forms of address used in the gospels, by Jesus and Peter, and used when addressing quite a few people, I don't think that anything can be particularly drawn one way or the other from its usage. But regardless of whether the word "mother" is in red, Mary did call Jesus her son, a designation that Jesus did not correct or deny.

I appreciate your collection of these quotes and perspective on the normal use of “man” and “woman”. Yes, I do not know what obscure argument Apple7 imagines here. I find it interesting that he seems to have difficulty conveying his special perspective to you as well as me, a Trinitarian and a non-Trinitarian.

Luke 2:48-50 KJV (48) And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. (49) And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? (50) And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.

This seems to indicate that the terms mother and son are applicable to Mary and Jesus and were part of their normal conversation.

I gain the impression that Apple7 specialises in testing out new, sometimes obscure arguments on the Trinity, because he specialises in this subject. I suggest that he, as an old Archer, should put this arrow back in his quiver, or even remove it from the quiver as it shoots well wide of the mark, confusing Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians alike. His unique arguments are most probably applauded in his close, narrow community, just as a few Trinitarians on this forum have endorsed many of his obscure posts in the past.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Rosenritter]

Greetings again Rosenritter, I appreciate your collection of these quotes and perspective on the normal use of “man” and “woman”. Yes, I do not know what obscure argument Apple7 imagines here. I find it interesting that he seems to have difficulty conveying his special perspective to you as well as me, a Trinitarian and a non-Trinitarian.
This seems to indicate that the terms mother and son are applicable to Mary and Jesus and were part of their normal conversation.

I gain the impression that Apple7 specialises in testing out new, sometimes obscure arguments on the Trinity, because he specialises in this subject. I suggest that he, as an old Archer, should put this arrow back in his quiver, or even remove it from the quiver as it shoots well wide of the mark, confusing Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians alike. His unique arguments are most probably applauded in his close, narrow community, just as a few Trinitarians on this forum have endorsed many of his obscure posts in the past.

Kind regards
Trevor

Except I am not especially Trinitarian. I am "Jesus is our LORD and God" without all of the Trinity baggage and "persons" and "this is not that" and the "the Father does not feel passion" etc. I still don't know what Apple is trying to prove and if you like we could pull in a self-alleged Trinitarian to give a third opinion.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Rosenritter,

Except I am not especially Trinitarian. I am "Jesus is our LORD and God" without all of the Trinity baggage and "persons" and "this is not that" and the "the Father does not feel passion" etc.

An interesting variation. One of the passages that I sometimes discuss with Trinitarians is Psalm 110:1 and I am curious with your claim that "Jesus is our LORD and God" how you explain this verse, as I consider here that LORD (Yahweh) is God the Father and He invites Jesus the son of David, who is also the Son of God and David’s Lord, to sit at His right hand. This verse is extensively quoted and expounded in the NT, and my assessment of this is that this does not support the Trinitarian or your perspective.

I still don't know what Apple is trying to prove and if you like we could pull in a self-alleged Trinitarian to give a third opinion.

I doubt that anyone apart Apple7 could explain, and I am not sure if even he has a valid concept why he is asking this. I think it is a debating tactic, hoping we will give up, like a bluff and raising the stakes in a game of poker, because as far as I can assess the question does not make any sense.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Apple7]

Greetings again Apple7,Actually I am waiting for your response. I already proved that Mary is the mother of Jesus and also you did not respond to my earlier quotation of Psalm 22:9-10 where Jesus mentions his mother. Are you suggesting that in the 30 years before his ministry that Jesus never addressed Mary as his mother? Are you suggesting that Jesus did not have a mother. So keep on playing your game if you like, but I cannot understand your reasoning here.

Kind regards
Trevor

Where is Mary mentioned in Psalm 22, and where does Jesus call her His mother?

 

[oatmeal]

Well done Pierac regarding your post the second post on this thread.

 

[oatmeal]

I have read your post but I do not know what to do with it.

The right thing to do is to believe it.

Jesus is referred to a god in several places in scripture but so is Moses and as Pierac points out so are other earthly rulers or judges in scripture.

It is high time that people look at the entirety of scripture for answers, that is, for truly satisfying answers, answers that satisfy the conditions of II Tim 2:15 and II Peter 1:20