John 20:28 and the Trinity

[NWL]

Your quotation of Psalms 49:7,8, what translations are you using? I've never seen scholarly work that translates it the way you have shown it. There was only three results on google matching the phrase "A man cannot at all ransom a brother" and it was you making it on this forum, a bit suspect.

Sweet.

Thanks for admitting what ALL JW's do when researching scripture is to google a response.

Chuck would be so very proud of you.....yes?

So I say that I searched google to try and find the translation that you quoted (how else do you expect people to find specific renderings) and instead of thinking that I'm simply looking for the said translation you put me down (ad hominem) by making a false claim that I was "googeling for a response". No, I was simply looking for the translation that YOU made up and does not exist in an effort to better understand your point. If you quote from scholarly translations rather than making up your own ones -simply to try and bolster your arguments- then I won't need to use google to try and find them.

 

[NWL]

Firstly, scripture mandates that Jesus is God.

You already readily confirmed this as fact long ago, and you have no issue with it, so now is not the time to backpedal.

Yes I have admitted this, but we both well know that we disagree in what sense Jesus is God. I would not say Jesus as the almighty God is capable of being a ransom, Jesus as a God would be however. When I speak, unless clear, is for the sake of argument and I'm using language according to your understanding of scriptures.

Secondly, you already admitted, and proved with a scriptural example, that ONLY GOD can provide the RANSOM required for His people, in fact, you say that God repeatedly provides a RANSOM for His people....and yet, you still somehow have an issue with it?

Come on...start using your head...

Where have I admitted "that ONLY GOD can provide the RANSOM required for His people", show me where I have said such a thing?

The verse I showed express that he ransomed Israel in the sense of redeeming/saving/delivering them as the vast majority of scholars agree, God lost nothing in the process neither were Israel sacrificed/ransomed. The ransom of Jesus was very different and related to sacrifice/giving up his self on behalf of something else, namely sin and death of mankind.

You again use the phrase "ONLY GOD can provide the RANSOM" and "God repeatedly provides a RANSOM", this was not the issue in question and a change in stance from you, unless you means God provides the ransom in ransoming himself, I'm waiting for you to clarify that point. Let me remind you, YOU picked out the question that I asked, that question being "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 then showed Psalms 49:7,8,15 in an attempt to answer the question of how Jesus/God was the ransom himself. Your previous stance was "God was the ransom" according to the verses, now it seems to be "God provides the ransom" according to the verses, which is it?

You're all over the place.

 

[NWL]

We know according to scripture that the ransom was paid once for all time, "For the death that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time" (Romans 6:10), ,

Where is the word 'ransom'...?

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?

You just answered your very own question!

Who provides the RANSOM for people?

That's right, God.

Now what excuse are you going to use, witness?

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?

 

[NWL]

First of all, there are THREE DIFFERENT Hebrew words rendered as 'ransom' in Psalm 49...NOT one, as you ignorantly claim.

Secondly, ANY lexicon will provide the definition of 'ransom'...thus, effectively removing your jaded worldview from clouding the picture.

Please pick up the pace, lazy JW...

I really don't get you. Where have I claimed there was one definition of ransom in Psalms 49 for you to say "there are THREE DIFFERENT Hebrew words rendered as 'ransom' in Psalm 49...NOT one, as you ignorantly claim"? I know you love to put people down my christian friend, buts what the point of making up a lie like this when you'll know I'll call you out on it?

As you say, yes any lexicon will provide the definition of 'ransom', in fact this is excatly what I showed to you when I presented Deut 15:15 where is states God ransomed Israel when in Egpyt, I then demonstrated that despite God "ransoming" them that God himself gave nothing up, he didn't sacrifice himself and did not ransom Israel itself despite the verse saying YHWH ransomed Israel. Rather, he ransomed Israel in the sense ofredeeming them out of Egpyt, hence why translations render the word redeem and not ransom in like verses. Yet your claim with Psalms 49:15 is that God will ransom man, "But God will ransom me from the power of the Grave". As stated in my last post this makes no sense since when Jesus (who you believe is almighty God) came he did not ransom man but himself. Therefore the same sense of redeem as we see in Deut 15:15 in relation to God redeeming Israel needs to be applied in Psalms 49:15 for it to make any sense, and that is exactly what we see in the majority of translations.

KJV: "But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave"
BST: "But God shall deliver my soul from the power of Hades"
NIV: "But God will redeem me from the realm of the dead"
NLT: "But as for me, God will redeem my life."
NASB: "But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol"
ASV: "But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol"
CEV: "But God will rescue me from the power of death"

Secondly, ANY lexicon will provide the definition of 'ransom'...thus, effectively removing your jaded worldview from clouding the picture.

Out of thirty trinitarian produced (30) bibles I checked only three (3) out of of the thirty did the translators translate it to have a literal translation of the word ransom. The rest used words that express God "delivering", "redeeming" and "rescuing" in Psalms 49:15.

What should that tell you.

 

[NWL]

Psalm 49 uses THREE separate Hebrew words for 'ransom', stating, very plainly, that man is unable to ransom another person, himself, nor is man able to provide a ransom to God for another man.

Psalm 49 makes it clear that ONLY God is capable of providing the ransom required to rescue a person's soul.

How is this escaping your intellect?

It's not, I do not deny it, all I'm asking for you to do is show us exactly where it states what you claim, you say "Psalm 49 makes it clear", show us the verses in the chapter that "makes it clear" that "ONLY God is capable of providing the ransom required to rescue a person's soul" as you say. If it's clear then why are you struggling to show me, it should be simple. Also, now that you've stated "ONLY God is capable of providing the ransom" which is very different from "God being the ransom" as you've previously claimed are you changing you stance that this verse does not show that God is the ransom but rather provides it?

Also as we both agree 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", were the men/mankind being spoken of referring to sinful man/mankind or sinless man/mankind?

 

[Apple7]

Put forth some effort...

Put forth some effort...

Greetings again Apple7, I appreciate your suggestions here, but you seem to be avoiding the close connection between “Ehyeh” “I will be or become” or “I who will be” Exodus 3:14 and “Yahweh” “He will be or become” or “He who will be” Exodus 3:15.
I am not very proficient at Hebrew tenses, but I understand that Hebrew imperfect has the concept of an incomplete action and thus in some contexts this can be understood as a future tense.

Kind regards
Trevor

You have no earthly idea what point you are even trying to make.

Had you even bothered to look, but your cult forbids, then you would have seen that Yahweh is derived from the Hebrew verbal root word that you are having a love-affair with.

Observe that Yahweh, The Tetragrammaton, is God's personal name...NOT the verbal root from which i stems.

Now what are you going to do...?


יְהוָה = “Yahweh”

“Yahweh” definition:

H3068 Singular noun. The Tetragrammaton YHWH, the Lord, or Yahweh, the personal name of God and His most frequent designation in scripture, occurring 5321x. The word refers to the proper name of the God of Israel, particularly the name by which He revealed Himself to Moses (Ex: 6.2-3). It comes from the root “hawa” H1961, which means either existence, or development; “to be”. “The existing one”.

H1961 “hawa” A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.

H1933 “havah” A primitive root supposed to mean properly to breathe; to be (in the sense of existence): - be, X have.


References:
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, & Geoffrey W. Bromiley, volume three, pp. 1067 - 1081
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) #484a, Harris, Archer, Waltke, volume 1, pp. 210 – 212
The Complete Wordstudy Dictionary of the Old Testament, Warren Baker, Eugene Carpenter, p. 426

 

[Apple7]

If I could make a parallel, Yahweh God the Father was also David’s Shepherd. Did God the Father descend to Bethlehem and assume a shepherd outfit, possibly a skin for clothing, and a quiver with arrows. Did David one day venture out and sit down in green pastures with Yahweh as his Shepherd?

Quote the scripture.

 

[Apple7]

My main teachers on this subject are no longer alive. One in the 1860s wrote extensively on the subject of God Manifestation. I was introduced to this subject in a systematic way at a YP’s weekend when I was 19, and the speaker helped me in succeeding years, as well as another one of our expositors. These three have now passed off the scene. I have access to a copy of a thorough forum discussion on the “Understanding of the Yahweh Name”, and the member taught the future aspect of the Yahweh Name, and this was with some strong opposition, including the concept of "I AM". He had been a Bible language student and possibly reached the level of what you could call a scholar. He is alive and holds the same understanding of the future aspects of the Yahweh Name. He has in the past been active on another forum, sometimes in the language section. I rely and have relied on him for some affirmation of my understanding.

Kind regards
Trevor

File 13 your cult.

 

[Apple7]

So instead of admitting you formulated your own translation to try and make the scriptures express what you want them to mean you falsely claim I googled my answer.

You, yourself admitted that you google your replies.

No mystery here...

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"?


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

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..."

You're stammering again.

 

[Apple7]

Yes I have admitted this, but we both well know that we disagree in what sense Jesus is God. I would not say Jesus as the almighty God is capable of being a ransom, Jesus as a God would be however. When I speak, unless clear, is for the sake of argument and I'm using language according to your understanding of scriptures.

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.







Where have I admitted "that ONLY GOD can provide the RANSOM required for His people", show me where I have said such a thing?

Psalm 49.

 

[Apple7]

You again use the phrase "ONLY GOD can provide the RANSOM" and "God repeatedly provides a RANSOM", this was not the issue in question and a change in stance from you, unless you means God provides the ransom in ransoming himself, I'm waiting for you to clarify that point. Let me remind you, YOU picked out the question that I asked, that question being "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 then showed Psalms 49:7,8,15 in an attempt to answer the question of how Jesus/God was the ransom himself. Your previous stance was "God was the ransom" according to the verses, now it seems to be "God provides the ransom" according to the verses, which is it?

You're all over the place.

We always suspected that witnesses were way too stupid to consider context, and you most definitely prove it to be true!

 

[Apple7]

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...

 

[Apple7]

I really don't get you. Where have I claimed there was one definition of ransom in Psalms 49 for you to say "there are THREE DIFFERENT Hebrew words rendered as 'ransom' in Psalm 49...NOT one, as you ignorantly claim"? I know you love to put people down my christian friend, buts what the point of making up a lie like this when you'll know I'll call you out on it?

You take criticism really hard.

As you say, yes any lexicon will provide the definition of 'ransom', in fact this is excatly what I showed to you when I presented Deut 15:15 where is states God ransomed Israel when in Egpyt,

But....no mere man ransomed Israel?

Only God?

I then demonstrated that despite God "ransoming" them that God himself gave nothing up, he didn't sacrifice himself and did not ransom Israel itself despite the verse saying YHWH ransomed Israel. Rather, he ransomed Israel in the sense ofredeeming them out of Egpyt, hence why translations render the word redeem and not ransom in like verses.

Lol, hardly.

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...

 

[BobRyan]

Shalom.

The following verse seems to imply that Jesus is God. But is that what it says? Discuss.

John 20:28 NASB - Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

Shalom.

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.”

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Apple7,

You have no earthly idea what point you are even trying to make.
Had you even bothered to look, but your cult forbids, then you would have seen that Yahweh is derived from the Hebrew verbal root word that you are having a love-affair with.
Observe that Yahweh, The Tetragrammaton, is God's personal name...NOT the verbal root from which i stems. Now what are you going to do...?

I am going to insist that there is a strong connection between Ehyeh and Ehyeh asher Ehyeh in Exodus 3:14 and Yahweh in Exodus 3:15, which you seem to be ignoring previously and even in the above comments. Both of them are expressions of God’s Name and give an understanding of this Name in the future tense in the sense of what God would accomplish in His purpose. It is not speaking of God’s existence “I AM” as you have previously suggested. You have not given a simple explanation of any actual link between Exodus 3:14 and Exodus 3:15 as it interferes with your Trinitarian claims. You have also rejected the link between God’s Name and Purpose as expressed in Exodus 6:1-8. And btw I do not know where you get the idea that we do not use good reference material. For example, I have TWOT and BDB in book and electronic format.

Quote the scripture.

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? 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”.

File 13 your cult.

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. 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

 

[SabathMoon]

Looking at the LXX, Andros is not used, which would be male human being. The Hebrew, in this case, is less monotheistic than the LXX

Exodus 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
15:3 κύριος συντρίβων πολέμους κύριος ὄνομα αὐτῷ

 

[Apple7]

Greetings again Apple7, I am going to insist that there is a strong connection between Ehyeh and Ehyeh asher Ehyeh in Exodus 3:14 and Yahweh in Exodus 3:15, which you seem to be ignoring previously and even in the above comments. Both of them are expressions of God’s Name and give an understanding of this Name in the future tense in the sense of what God would accomplish in His purpose. It is not speaking of God’s existence “I AM” as you have previously suggested.

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...

 

[Apple7]

cult

cult

You have not given a simple explanation of any actual link between Exodus 3:14 and Exodus 3:15 as it interferes with your Trinitarian claims.

Kind regards
Trevor

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...?

 

[Apple7]

cultic...

cultic...

You have also rejected the link between God’s Name and Purpose as expressed in Exodus 6:1-8.

Kind regards
Trevor

The Malek Yahweh (Exo 3.2) said that He was the El Shaddai (Exo 6.3) who appeared to the patriarchs (Gen 17.1, 35.11).

Now what can you do, Trev?

 

[Apple7]

And btw I do not know where you get the idea that we do not use good reference material. For example, I have TWOT and BDB in book and electronic format.

Kind regards
Trevor

Then start referencing and quoting them.