Notice I was aware of it. But why is the word sin in singular translated into English as a mass noun implying plural sins, not one.Apple7 said:
John 20:28 and the Trinity
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
Apple7
New member
No rendering of Rom 6.23 ever uses plural (sins).
Neither does mine, but there is also no rendering has the wages of the sin is death, or wages of a sin is death.
Apple7
New member
But it is a deceit in the english.
If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death. (1 John 5:16-17)
“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us” (1 John 1:8–10).
Apple7
New member
NWL
Active member
I pity you apple7, your arrogance is so great that I actually believe you trick yourself into believing you've handled my questions and reasoning and believe yourself to be right. I don't understand how you can go around believing you're correct on the matter when you cant answer basic questions and provide answers to the inconsistencies in your belief system. It's clear you are incapable of answering my questions, in this current one you provided no explanation for how Psalms 49:7,15 explains that only God himself could be the ransom. You can assert all you want that you've answered the question but you have not all you did is quote two scripture with no other response.
Moreover you have failed to deal with all my other questions. I can only assume that your refusal to deal with them is because your understanding of the scripture cannot trump the inconsistencies I've highlighted in my response and given questions.
The questions are below when you're capable of tackling them:
1. At the moment I assume you mean Satan in regards to the identity to the angel who held the key of the abyss in Rev 9:1-3, please can you confirm this?
2. How Titus 1:14, Psalms 49:7 or any other scripture express that Jesus needed to be "God" for the ransom to mean something?
3. Did demons occupy flesh by means of possession or in the same fashion as Jesus, by becoming flesh (John 1:14). As I earlier said, if you don't agree with either questions implications then explain excatly how they occuipied flesh.
4. Who were sin offerings offered to under the law in the OT?
5. Who was the Passover lamb sacrificed to under the law in the OT?
6. Was Jesus the Passover lamb according to scripture? (1 Cor 5:7)
7. How was the law a "shadow of the things to come" when speaking about animal sacrifices as detailed in Hebrews 10:1-5?
8. 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?
9. Do God or kingdoms work against themselves according to the principles of Jesus teachings?(Matthew 12:22-26)
10. 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"
11. 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
12. 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?
NWL
Active member
NWL said:
No, you didn't. You made a series of replies to the questions but replying to a question and answering a question are two different things. You could ask me how my day was, if I reply and say "purple" I have replied to you question but I have not answered. Like I said, you've replied to my questions but have not answered most.
Below I have detailed you apparent answers to my questions, as you and most will see you have not actually answered them. Granted, you have answered a few questions in our discussions but when you do so you don't answer in full, answering multiple question with a single word without making me aware to which question you are responding to or often quoting a single scripture without stating how the verse answers the point. All this coming from the man who accuses me of not answering questions and not providing full exegesis of scripture.
I do not expect you to reply by giving actual informed answers/reasoning to the questions as it seems you lack the humility to deal with them properly. You will no doubt claim you have answered them despite the clear evidence you haven't actually answered them anymore than the response of "purple" is an answer to the question "how are you". I expect nothing more than a two or three worded response back from this as you lack the knowledge to deal with the plain truth of scripture.
See below:
I asked two question, "Who is the identity of the Angel in Revelation 9:1-3who has the key of the Abyss, who opens the shaft of the abyss to let the locusts (demons according to you) out of the abyss after which they receive authority? Also, if Satan is bound having no authority but only his demons, who gives authority to these locust(apparent Demons)?
You gave one answer, “Satan”, you did not state which question you were answering. I have since asked you to confirm which one you were answering and you have not responded. How is this an honest answer to the question?
---------------
I asked "if the conquering (Rev 12:11) is regarding the binding of Satan himself, then why does Jesus say that others will conquer just as he conquered if the conquering(Satan) has already been done? "
You responded "Further, you already answered yourself with your Trinitarian selection, which states that we become victorious AFTER Jesus first became victorious. Further still, all 29 Greek inflections pertain to becoming victorious over evil....again, yet more proof that Jesus bound Satan and became victorious first, for us to follow. "
By your statement your saying that followers of Christ become victorious AFTER Jesus first became victorious. How does this deal with the question of why Jesus says that others will conquer just as he conquered if the conquering is already done. All you given in your response if you original position that you believe the conquering is already done, nothing explains what followers of Christ are conquering according to the verse that contradicts your statement.
---------------
I asked and stated "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.
You answered "No"
I asked and gave two different options in regards to what you believe, your reply to those two options was “No”. How is this an answer to the question? Your response was simply a response and not an answer
---------------
I asked "How Titus 1:14, Psalms 49:7 or any other scripture express that Jesus needed to be "God" for the ransom to mean something?"
You have given no response to this question or given an explanation of how the two above verses proof your point when you originally showed them to me. If I'm wrong tell me the post number.
---------------
I asked these three questions
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?
Your single answer to all three of these specific question was “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) "
My question was not about Satan, but rather, Jesus, an Angel and Joseph, how then does your response that “the devil departed in a absolute manner and left behind his demons” and answer to the questions pertaining to Jesus, the Angel and Jospesh? Your response was just a response and not an answer, how does it answer the question?
---------------
I asked did "Demons occupy flesh by means of possession or did they occupy flesh the same way Jesus "became flesh" (John 1:14)? Answer please."
You answer “Word occupied flesh in the OT, not just in the NT. Demons must have permission to occupy flesh.”
How does your statement that “the word occupied flesh in the OT and NT and demons must have permission to occupy flesh” answer the question whether demons occupied flesh by means of possession or in the same way Jesus "became flesh"? Your response was simply a response and NOT an answer to the question.
---------------
I asked “do God or kingdoms work against themselves according to the principles of Jesus teachings?(Matthew 12:22-26)”
You have never answered or responded to this question, if I'm wrong tell me the post number.
---------------
I asked “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?“
You have never answered or responded to this question, if I'm wrong tell me the post number.
---------------
I asked two question of “Who were sin offerings offered to under the law in the OT?” and “Who was the Passover lamb sacrificed to under the law in the OT?”.
You answered “Where is a sin offering mentioned as being a ransom in the OT?”.
Your response was just a response and not an answer, how does it answer the question?
---------------
I asked “Was Jesus the passover lamb according to scripture? (1 Cor 5:7)” and “How was the law a "shadow of the things to come" when speaking about animal sacrifices as detailed in Hebrews 10:1-5?”
You answer to these two questions was “Absolutely no mention that a RANSOM was paid by God to God.”
Your response was just a response and not an answer, how does your response answer the question?
---------------
I asked “At the moment I assume you mean Satan in regards to the identity to the angel who held the key of the abyss in Rev 9:1-3, please can you confirm this?” I asked this because you gave a single answer to two separate question and thus did not know to which question your answer pertained.
You have yet to respond to this, if I'm wrong then tell me the post number.
I do not expect you to reply by giving actual informed answers/reasoning to the questions as it seems you lack the humility to deal with them properly. You will no doubt claim you have answered them despite the clear evidence you haven't actually answered them anymore than the response of "purple" is an answer to the question "how are you". I expect nothing more than a two or three worded response back from this as you lack the knowledge to deal with the plain truth of scripture.
Only in your worldview can you deny the word sin is singular in that context.
Apple7
New member
Yes, I did.
Now....in lieu of jumping haphazardly, from one topic to yet another, pick your very best 'argument' and defend it.
Enough of your copy-pasted list of questions that you pose for everyone, and then you conveniently forget to reply, or to whom you even reply to, or you just post paragraph after paragraph expressing your contempt and astonishment.
Pick one, and stick with it.
Show your exegesis, if you can.
No more running for you.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Ha! Good luck with that. You're dealing with N(ew)W(orld)L(iar). He's the guy who said:
AND
So, NWL claims he worships Jesus--just not "directly". Which, of course, must mean that he worships Jesus "indirectly". Do you think NWL has ever explained what (if anything) he imagines it is to worship someone "directly"? Of course he hasn't!
In addition to that, NWL has, as a part of his cultic language games, invented a phraseology of "worshiping the Father through Jesus". Needless to say, it's nowhere to be found in the Bible. But this is what NWL says:
Now, as you saw above, NWL claims that Jesus is not to be worshiped "directly". But, notice, in this last excerpt that, according to NWL, people are (somehow) to worship God the Father "through" Jesus. So, one wonders whether NWL would claim that God the Father is to be worshiped "directly". Bearing in mind that NWL, as a Christ-hater, considers Jesus to be a creature, we see that NWL is telling people that they are to worship God the Father "through" a creature. So, why should anybody be taken seriously who would say, on the one hand, that God the Father is to be worshiped "directly", while saying, on the other hand, that God the Father is to be worshiped "through" a creature?
How could it ever meaningfully be said that to worship God "through" something is to worship God "directly"?
Apple7
New member
Agreed.
As a JW, he maintains that he is a Christian....but then redefines the term Christian to mean anyone who merely 'follows' Christ, as opposed to the original and true meaning of actually 'worshipping' Christ as God.
Its pretty silly of JW's to claim that they are Christian, when, in fact their only goal is to worship The Father, Jehovah, only.
If this is the case, then JW's should be calling themselves, Jehovahists in lieu of Christians.
Greetings again Apple7,
The following are the occurrences of the word “Christian”, and none of these help your definition:
Acts 11:26 (KJV): And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Acts 26:28 (KJV): Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
1 Peter 4:16 (KJV): Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
Also I doubt that you really look at the real meaning of the word “Christ”, and the fact that the man Jesus was anointed by God, His Father with the Holy Spirit and power:
Acts 10:38 (KJV): How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
This does not agree with a Trinity perspective.
Kind regards
Trevor
I would be interested as to where you support this definition of “worshipping Christ as God”. My Enhanced Strong’s states the following: 5546 Three occurrences; AV translates as “Christian” three times. 1 Christian, a follower of Christ.
The following are the occurrences of the word “Christian”, and none of these help your definition:
Acts 11:26 (KJV): And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Acts 26:28 (KJV): Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
1 Peter 4:16 (KJV): Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
Also I doubt that you really look at the real meaning of the word “Christ”, and the fact that the man Jesus was anointed by God, His Father with the Holy Spirit and power:
Acts 10:38 (KJV): How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
This does not agree with a Trinity perspective.
Kind regards
Trevor
Apple7
New member
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 5546: Χριστιανός
Χριστιανός (cf. Lightfoot on Philip., p. 16 note), Χριστιανου, ὁ (Χριστός), a Christian, a follower of Christ: Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16. The name was first given to the worshippers of Jesus by the Gentiles, but from the second century (Justin Martyr (e. g. Apology 1, 4, p. 55 a.; dialog contra Trypho, § 35; cf. 'Teaching etc. 12, 4 [ET])) onward accepted by them as a title of honor. CL Lipsius, Ueber Ursprung u. ältesten Gebrauch des Christennamens. 4to, pp. 20, Jen. 1873. (CL Sophocles' Lexicon, under the word, 2; Farrar in Alex.'s Kitto, under the word; on the 'Titles of Believers in the N. T.' see Westcott, Epistles of St. John, p. 125f; cf. Dict. of Chris. Antiqq., under the word 'Faithful'.)
Apple7
New member
Acts 10.38 is in the context of Jesus' TRIUNE baptism in which The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit were present.
The Son was NOT given anything...the word used here is 'anointed'.
Further, YOUR example of Acts 10.38 plainly states that Jesus was anointed with God The Holy Spirit.
Greetings again Apple7,
Kind regards
Trevor
This second part is his comment rather than a definition derived from the word or its usage, but nevertheless I worship and bow the knee to Jesus, the Son of God, to the glory of God the Father Philippians 2:10-11.
I notice that you try to weave the Trinity into these records where it is clearly not indicated or taught. Jesus was anointed by God the Father with the Holy Spirit and power. His status is that he is anointed as Prophet, Priest and King, roles that he did not have before his birth.
Kind regards
Trevor
“Christian” only as they were gentiles and spoke greek...one anointed in hebrew is not christ...but messiah
Christians have christened Him with a totally new name...first and even last...Jesus Christ...lol
This facilitates Christians forgetting He was a jew...and that He did customs Moses delivered to them...and demonstrated the lifestyle for the New Covenant age
And since these times are all PC and supporting ethnic heritages (some) and honoring races (not white) and demanding multiculturalism and enforcing diversity...(in some mainly white protestant countries)
I sure dont want to be racist or anti semitic...is why I dont call Him Jesus Christ...that is ROMAN, oppressive, colonizing...WESTERN CIV...cultural appropriation etc et al...
LOL
So dont be racist or anti semitic....mmmmmkay?
Apple7
New member
The Glory of The Father IS The Son!
Thus...you worship The Son!
Phil 2 is most definately Trinitarian.
You, however, have no clue as to the OT passage from whence it comes...