John 20:28 and the Trinity

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Rosenritter,

I'm confused here as to your perspective. You are not acknowledging Jesus as God yet his actual thoughts are recorded far in advance in scripture. The only way that can occur is if his thoughts existed at that time, which would imply either:
a) Jesus also existed at that time, thus his thoughts in response to that situation could be known
b) The world is in a timey-whimey state where the past present and future all exist at the same time and God has a magic scrying ball, thus he read Jesus's thoughts "outside of time"

I suggest that you read Psalm 139:1-18 as some evidence of God’s complete knowledge of all things, and I especially commend Psalm 139:13-16 as a testimony about Jesus’ thoughts about how he was specially formed in the womb, and for Apple7’s benefit also mentions his “mother”, even though Apple7 denies that Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus here is depicted as being specially prepared in the womb, not just left to chance. I also recommend Psalm 139:23-24 where God knew fully the heart of Jesus, and as a loving creator was able to fully purify him through the trials and circumstances of life. There is no limit to God’s knowledge of the present and the future. On the next level these are also David's words and this indicates David's trust in God to purify his thoughts and ways, and hence also we should commit ourselves unto God as the faithful creator. I agree that it is difficult for us to fathom that God knows our thoughts and the very process of our thinking, even before these thoughts come into our conscious area.

Spoiler

Without trying to pick a fight I'm getting mixed up which of the Unitarians here acknowledge Jesus's prior existence from those that don't. There's a lot of variety, Meshak is Unitarian while even acknowledges that Jesus personally created the whole universe.

Spoiler

I do not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus. Part of this is that I do not believe in immortal souls, and as such both Jesus and the rest of us humans are a product of our parents. Jesus did not have two minds, but was a child that grew in wisdom Luke 2:40,52.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[john w]

Jesus was the Lamb of God, he resembled the Lamb that was offered on behalf of the Israelites for their sins, animals though couldn't really wash away man' sins, only Jesus as the lamb of God could.

(John 1:29) “..The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and he said: “See, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!..”

(Hebrews 10:1-4,10) "..For since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered year after year, make those who approach perfect. 2 Otherwise, would not the sacrifices have stopped being offered, because those rendering sacred service once cleansed would have no consciousness of sins anymore? 3 On the contrary, these sacrifices are a reminder of sins year after year, 4 for it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away...By this “will” we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time.."

So, to answer your question, the ransom is paid to God, the same way the animal sacrifices, which were a "shadow of the good things to come", were offered to God. Show me anything to the contrary.

What a mess....

LORD God-must I go into the ditch, with him, to help him out of it? Very well...

You learn through repetition; Therefore,one more time-to clear up this John 1:29 KJV stumper, that the drones shout, "See!!!! The Baptist knew!!!"


John 1 KJV

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world

That has NADA to do with a sin offering, drones-it was a reference to carrying away our griefs, burdens-NADA to do with dying for our sins. John the Baptist had no clue that the Lord Jesus Christ would die for our sins.

As others have been shown, chapter and verse, no one knew at that time that Christ was going to be put to death. The 11 were clueless. John the Baptist was clueless, witness his puzzlement that he was in prison, and his message to the Lord. "What the heck is happening?". He was expecting the warrior King Messiah, not a suffering servant. It was not until the Sanhedrin declared the Lord Jesus Christ's destruction(Mt. 12:32 KJV), that the Lord Jesus Christ revealed that He was going to die. Again, the 11 were clueless. Everyone was. The passover lamb did not represent "bearing sin," and a lamb was never the sin offering victim. Nor was it "the sin of the world" that the scapegoat bore away-it was the sins of Israel, per Lev. 16:21 KJV. The "bearing of the sin of the world" is not a reference to, a prophecy, pointing to Calvary, but a revelation of what the Lord Jesus Christ was during His earthly ministry. "taketh away"-taking up and carrying burdens, not a "sacrificial" term here.

His earthly ministry-sin bearer, in the sense of taking up and carrying burdens-his groans and tears at the grave of his friend Lazarus....He took up and bore the burden of human sin; not, during His earthly life as to guilt(that was not until Calvary), but as to sufferings and sorrows it brought upon all of mankind:

Is. 53:7 KJV
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

No sacrificial language is intended here, as slaughter merely means "shambles," as it foretold of the Christ's earthly life of "humbling Himself", and suffering.

 

[john w]

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?131175-The-Gospel-Proper/page4

Post #54-The Kinsman Redeemer

 

[Dartman]

And I could make a thousand more defective translations like the above given a few minutes with a computer program. Address the source text.

I have included the initials of each translation.
1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh .. ASV

1 Tim 3:16 By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, NASU

1 Tim 3:16 And without argument, great is the secret of religion: He who was seen in the flesh, BBE

1 Tim 3:16 Great beyond all question is the formerly hidden truth underlying our faith: He was manifested physically and proved righteous spiritually ... CJB

1 Tim 3:16 And by common confession great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, NASB

1 Tim 3:16 And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great: He was manifested in the flesh .. (from Holman Christian Standard Bible)
1 Tim 3:16 And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh ...Douay-Rheims

1 Tim 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, ESV

1 Tim 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh, RSV

The program I used to find all these translations is;

(PC Biblesoft ... Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

[FONT=&quot]Bruce Metzger writes:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][“He who”] is supported by the earliest and best uncials…no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports theos; all ancient versions presuppose hos or ho [“he who” or “he”]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading theos. The reading theos arose either(a)accidentally, or (b) deliberately, either to supply a substantive for the following six verbs [the six verbs that follow in the verse], or, with less probability, to provide greater dogmatic precision [i.e., to produce a verse that more clearly supports the Trinitarian position].” [1]

https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/1-Timothy/chapter3/16[/FONT]

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again john w,

What a mess....must I go into the ditch, with him, to help him out of it? Very well...
The passover lamb did not represent "bearing sin," and a lamb was never the sin offering victim. Nor was it "the sin of the world" that the scapegoat bore away-it was the sins of Israel, per Lev. 16:21 KJV. The "bearing of the sin of the world" is not a reference to, a prophecy, pointing to Calvary, but a revelation of what the Lord Jesus Christ was during His earthly ministry. "taketh away"-taking up and carrying burdens, not a "sacrificial" term here.
His earthly ministry-sin bearer, in the sense of taking up and carrying burdens-his groans and tears at the grave of his friend Lazarus....He took up and bore the burden of human sin; not, during His earthly life as to guilt(that was not until Calvary), but as to sufferings and sorrows it brought upon all of mankind:
Is. 53:7 KJV He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
No sacrificial language is intended here, as slaughter merely means "shambles," as it foretold of the Christ's earthly life of "humbling Himself", and suffering.

1 Corinthians 5:7 (KJV): Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
Isaiah 53:10 (KJV): Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Jesus is the fulfilment of all the types and shadows of the Law including the Passover Lamb and the Sin, Trespass, Burnt and Peace Offerings.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[john w]

Greetings again john w,
1 Corinthians 5:7 (KJV): Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
Isaiah 53:10 (KJV): Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Jesus is the fulfilment of all the types and shadows of the Law including the Passover Lamb and the Sin, Trespass, Burnt and Peace Offerings.

Kind regards
Trevor

Slower, bible corrector, Christ rejector:

The passover lamb did not represent "bearing sin," and a lamb was never the sin offering victim. The commemorative sacrifice of Passover lambs in the temple each year was not considered as an atonement for sin. Nor was it "the sin of the world" that the scapegoat bore away-it was the sins of Israel, per Lev. 16:21 KJV. The "bearing of the sin of the world" is not a reference to, a prophecy, pointing to Calvary, but a revelation of what the Lord Jesus Christ was during His earthly ministry. "taketh away"-taking up and carrying burdens, not a "sacrificial" term here.
His earthly ministry-sin bearer, in the sense of taking up and carrying burdens-his groans and tears at the grave of his friend Lazarus....He took up and bore the burden of human sin; not, during His earthly life as to guilt(that was not until Calvary), but as to sufferings and sorrows it brought upon all of mankind:

Is. 53:7 KJV He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

No sacrificial language is intended here, as slaughter merely means "shambles," as it foretold of the Christ's earthly life of "humbling Himself", and suffering.

 

[Rosenritter]

Rather than guess what you are thinking, could you be more specific?

For that matter, is anything I posted a problem for you?

What specifically in my post do you have a problem with?

These parts below:

John 20:28 is not literal but a figure of speech.

Jesus is called god in Hebrews 1:8

But Jesus is no more "the God" than Moses (or any other human in authority) is The God, the Almighty God

 

[Rosenritter]

Greetings again Rosenritter, I suggest that you read Psalm 139:1-18 as some evidence of God’s complete knowledge of all things, and I especially commend Psalm 139:13-16 as a testimony about Jesus’ thoughts about how he was specially formed in the womb, and for Apple7’s benefit also mentions his “mother”, even though Apple7 denies that Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus here is depicted as being specially prepared in the womb, not just left to chance. I also recommend Psalm 139:23-24 where God knew fully the heart of Jesus, and as a loving creator was able to fully purify him through the trials and circumstances of life. There is no limit to God’s knowledge of the present and the future. On the next level these are also David's words and this indicates David's trust in God to purify his thoughts and ways, and hence also we should commit ourselves unto God as the faithful creator. I agree that it is difficult for us to fathom that God knows our thoughts and the very process of our thinking, even before these thoughts come into our conscious area.

Spoiler

I do not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus. Part of this is that I do not believe in immortal souls, and as such both Jesus and the rest of us humans are a product of our parents. Jesus did not have two minds, but was a child that grew in wisdom Luke 2:40,52.

Kind regards
Trevor

So to summarize, not option A but option B, the "timey-whimey" view of reality. Or the more politically correct way of stating this is that you believe in a "Closed Future" where everything that shall every happen, including the thoughts and decisions of men that do not yet exist, are (were?) already known to God... and this is how his thoughts are recorded in the Psalms?

 

[oatmeal]

These parts below:



[/COLOR]

What about them observations?

 

[Rosenritter]

What about them observations?

John 20:28 is not literal but a figure of speech.

Jesus is called god in Hebrews 1:8

But Jesus is no more "the God" than Moses (or any other human in authority) is The God, the Almighty God

1. John 20:28 is literal when Thomas says, "My Lord and my God."

The conditions in your examples aren't applicable to John 20:28. For example, the instance of Moses was qualified within the text as an analogy, "See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet." Moses is not called "God" and even the word "god" is in the example of "a god to Pharaoh" and because of the situation where Moses himself will not be speaking, but another for him.

Lacking any context that would render this statement as a mere analogy, we have John's own statements that introduces the book, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... " of which we are all familiar with. Almost every word in the English language can be used literally or as part of a metaphor, but this fact is not sufficient to dismiss literal meaning when there is no other indicator that the word is not to be taken seriously or at face value.

2. Jesus is not called "god" in Hebrews 1:8, he is called "God" in Hebrews 1:8. It's capitalized. Even the New Jerusalem Bible capitalizes it. In English the word "god" (lowercase) has a different meaning than "God." Thus the objection.

3. Jesus is certainly more "God" than Moses or any other human in any authority. He created the heavens and the earth, he is the LORD of the Sabbath, the angels worship his name, the devils are banished in his name, he is the LORD of Hosts, the King of Glory, and besides him there is no other God. That is certainly higher than Moses, who is dead, whom has yet to be woken from the grave.

The other statements were technically correct, but it was those specific conclusions you drew that lacked data.

 

[oatmeal]

1. John 20:28 is literal when Thomas says, "My Lord and my God."

The conditions in your examples aren't applicable to John 20:28. For example, the instance of Moses was qualified within the text as an analogy, "See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet." Moses is not called "God" and even the word "god" is in the example of "a god to Pharaoh" and because of the situation where Moses himself will not be speaking, but another for him.

Lacking any context that would render this statement as a mere analogy, we have John's own statements that introduces the book, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... " of which we are all familiar with. Almost every word in the English language can be used literally or as part of a metaphor, but this fact is not sufficient to dismiss literal meaning when there is no other indicator that the word is not to be taken seriously or at face value.

2. Jesus is not called "god" in Hebrews 1:8, he is called "God" in Hebrews 1:8. It's capitalized. Even the New Jerusalem Bible capitalizes it. In English the word "god" (lowercase) has a different meaning than "God." Thus the objection.

3. Jesus is certainly more "God" than Moses or any other human in any authority. He created the heavens and the earth, he is the LORD of the Sabbath, the angels worship his name, the devils are banished in his name, he is the LORD of Hosts, the King of Glory, and besides him there is no other God. That is certainly higher than Moses, who is dead, whom has yet to be woken from the grave.

The other statements were technically correct, but it was those specific conclusions you drew that lacked data.

If indeed John 20:28 is literal, then most certainly John 20:31 is also literal

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Jesus is literally the son of God, the male offspring of God, not God himself.

So did God contradict himself?

No, "son of God" does not mean "the son is God"

If the meanings of words and phrases and passages are so blurred as to not have clear meanings using the laws of language, then can we trust any of God's word?

Does "in the beginning" mean "in the beginning" or does it mean "ind the end"?

Maybe "Almighty God" means "sort of powerful, in a smoke and mirrors sort of way demigod"

When are we going to learn that God's word is God's words authored solely by God?

Evidently you are not aware that translators took the liberty to capitalize and not to capitalize according to their choices that punctuation marks, verses, paragraph markings even the titles of some of the books are mens' additions to the texts.

If you have a Greek interlinear you might have noticed that many words which are not capitalized in the Greek are capitalized in the English.

I am not a Hebrew scholar but it would not surprise me if the same held true for the Aramaic and Hebrew.

So, capitalization could be attributed to private interpretation which we are forbidden to do. II Peter 1:20

God called Moses a god, if you want to argue that Moses was not a god even though God designated him to be one, well you can answer to God for that.

God said Moses is a god (to Pharaoh) God said it, that settles it.

Evidently you wish to lessen what God had to say about Moses, but you would consider the words of Thomas to have more weight than God himself.

Really? You really want to go there? Have you really thought about what you are implying?

Was Cain the son of Adam or was Cain actually and literally Adam?

Was Jesus the son of Mary or was Jesus literally Mary?

Is Jesus the son of God? or is he literally God?

Jesus is literally the son of God, not God himself.

You might want to make a goal of taking God's word as truthful, not be subject to men's traditions, fantasies and wishful thinking

The Greek theos in Hebrews 1:8 is not capitalized, as is both occurrences of God in Hebrews 1:9

Therefore the Jerusalem Bible is in error in capitalizing god.

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Nor is son capitalized in the Greek

Jesus is more "god" than any other human that God refers to as god?

Chapter and verse please.

I have never attended any Bible college yet I know these things

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again john w,

The passover lamb did not represent "bearing sin," and a lamb was never the sin offering victim. The commemorative sacrifice of Passover lambs in the temple each year was not considered as an atonement for sin.

The Passover Lamb was the required animal to be slain, eaten and the blood on the lintels so that the firstborn in each house would not be slain, but the Angel of death would pass over that particular house. Real events, real teaching pointing forward to the sacrifice of Christ.

Nor was it "the sin of the world" that the scapegoat bore away-it was the sins of Israel, per Lev. 16:21 KJV. The "bearing of the sin of the world" is not a reference to, a prophecy, pointing to Calvary, but a revelation of what the Lord Jesus Christ was during His earthly ministry. "taketh away"-taking up and carrying burdens, not a "sacrificial" term here.
His earthly ministry-sin bearer, in the sense of taking up and carrying burdens-his groans and tears at the grave of his friend Lazarus....He took up and bore the burden of human sin; not, during His earthly life as to guilt(that was not until Calvary), but as to sufferings and sorrows it brought upon all of mankind:
Is. 53:7 KJV He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
No sacrificial language is intended here, as slaughter merely means "shambles," as it foretold of the Christ's earthly life of "humbling Himself", and suffering.

It is good that you share this, indicating that it was not just Calvary, but I suggest that all of these sacrifices pointed forward to Jesus’ whole life, suffering, crucifixion, death and resurrection.

I suggest that you have not explained the following:
Isaiah 53:10 (KJV): Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

The following is some indication of the meaning of the burnt offering:
Mark 12:28–33 (KJV): 28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. 32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: 33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Apple7]

Please show me how Jesus's divinity is revealed within Psalm 22. I don't see it there. One generally has to keep reading to Psalm 24, and that's a show stopper if you can get someone to answer on the spot.

Isa 53 parallels Psa 22.

Both chapters declare the divinity of the Second Person of The Trinity.

His soul died; He bore the sins and made intercession for many (Isa 53.12) and was bowed down to and worshiped (Psa 22.29).

His seed (Isa 53.10) shall worship Him (Psa 22.30).

 

[Apple7]

But you have not yet answered “Is Mary the mother of Jesus?”

Kind regards
Trevor

Already answered.

Numerous times.

Please show us that Jesus ever referred to Mary as 'my mother'.

Oh...and good luck locating that passage...

 

[Apple7]

I'll do it the easy way and post scholarly translations of the verse in question that shows them understanding "diabolos" to be referring to "the Devil" and not a devil. I'll leave it up to you to show me scholarly work where their exegesis shows that "the(singular) devil" relates to demons here in the verse. Good luck.

New International Version
Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.

Chucky did not teach you very well.

Slavishly hiding behind someone else's rendering, of which you have no way to defend, only makes witnesses look silly...

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Rosenritter,

So to summarize, not option A but option B, the "timey-whimey" view of reality. Or the more politically correct way of stating this is that you believe in a "Closed Future" where everything that shall every happen, including the thoughts and decisions of men that do not yet exist, are (were?) already known to God... and this is how his thoughts are recorded in the Psalms?

I do not endorse your assessment of prophecy. Could you explain your thoughts on Psalm 22. Firstly how would you explain the following:
Psalm 22:1 (KJV) My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
Matthew 27:46 (KJV): And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
I will give my view and you may give a different perspective. This is a prophecy not only of the actual words of Jesus on the cross, but his thoughts of utter despair when facing his circumstances. God knew in advance, and I do not believe that Jesus is quoting, but the outpouring of his feelings at the time. I also suggest that Psalm 22 depicts a process of despair, then reassurance, and then rejoicing as is the pattern in many Psalms. I also suggest that this process precludes your suggestion that Jesus is the author of Psalm 22.

God’s foreknowledge does not in any way influence the decisions of the individual. Jesus knew that Peter would deny him thrice, before the rooster crowed. Peter reacted according to his feelings and the circumstances at that time even though Jesus had warned him. Nevertheless Jesus knew that this would happen even down to the finest detail. How is this different from God knowing the words of Jesus in Psalm 22:1?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Apple7]

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

Jesus’ blood ransomed ‘elytrōthēte’ (completed action) us from godless behavior passed down by our forefathers. 1 Peter 1.18

Jesus gave ‘edōken’ (completed action) Himself and ransomed ‘lytrōsētai’ (completed action) us from Lawlessness. Titus 2.14

Now what, chap...?

I've already answered your question, the ransom is paid to God.

Not found in scripture.

God does not pay a ransom to God.

Silly Chucky chap...

 

[Rosenritter]

If indeed John 20:28 is literal, then most certainly John 20:31 is also literal

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Jesus is literally the son of God, the male offspring of God, not God himself.

So did God contradict himself?

I'm stopping you there because your logical is immediately in error. "Son of God" is obviously a title with meaning and this is beyond dispute. This does not mean that everything written in the bible is a metaphor and means the opposite of what it says.

"My Lord and my God" is not spoken in the context of a metaphor, and no indication is given that it should be understood that Thomas meant anything other than exactly what that sounds like. That's hardly blurred at all, you would be hard pressed to find a more direct statement.

 

[Apple7]

Once again your clutching at straws and are using your own understanding in translations scripture and ingoring all others scholars understanding of the original languages. Enlighten the people here on TOL of the translation you have used above RBOWMAN, what scholar agrees with the above translations? I've yet to see a single translation that does as you favor the defintions of words to fit your false assertions.

For the purpose of others on this thread this is how most if not all scholars roughly translate Col 2:13-15:

(Colossians 2:13-15) "..Furthermore, though you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcised state of your flesh, God made you alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses 14 and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake. 15 He 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.."

Compare the above with Bowmans/apple7 quoted verse in orange and other translations as through the link https://biblehub.com/colossians/2-14.htm Apple7 twists the language to suit his own twisted understanding.

Once we bring other context and understand into view, this further destroys your argument. Col 2:13-15 is not about all government and authority but the ones that were trying to oppress Jesus in his day. Jesus totally brings all government and authority to nothing, including Satan, when he hands back things to the Father, at that time, only death itself is the last enemy.

In lieu of repeatedly expressing your disbelief, how about putting your rage-induced reply energy into actually rebutting the point bullets that I already provided for Col 2?

Make Chucky proud.....for once...

 

[Apple7]

(1 Corinthians 15:24-26) "..Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.."

Has Jesus handed back all things to his Father today?

A review…

Heb 2.14 - 15

Since, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, in like manner He Himself also shared the same things, that through death He might render entirely idle (katargēsē) the one having the power of death, that is, the devil; and might set these free (apallaxē), as many as by fear of death were subject to slavery through all the lifetime to live.

The reader is informed that at Jesus’ death:

• The Devil is rendered entirely idle (katargēsē)
• Because The Devil has been rendered impotent, this then sets people free (apallaxē)
• No mention that The Devil has been defeated, only bound


Compare to where the exact term ‘katargēsē’ is used in 1 Cor…

1 Cor 15.20 - 26

But now Christ has been raised from the dead; He became the firstfruit of those having fallen asleep. For since death is through man, also through a Man is a resurrection of the dead; for as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ, the firstfruit; afterward those of Christ at His coming. Then the end, after He delivers the kingdom to The God and Father, after He might render entirely idle (katargēsē) all rule and all authority and power. For it is right for Him to reign until He puts all the hostile ones under His feet; the last hostile thing made to cease is death.


The reader is informed of an ordered sequence of events:

• The First Resurrection: Christ first, then The Righteous at His return (i.e. at the end of His reign)
• Binding of Satan: The Devil (singular) is rendered entirely idle and occurs BEFORE the reign of Christ (i.e. at Jesus’ death upon the Cross)
• Reigning Period: There is a period of Christ reigning (i.e. 1,000 years, etc) until all the enemies (plural, demons) are conquered
• The Second Resurrection: (Second Death – when Satan & death are defeated). This is the end of time – which occurs AFTER Jesus has delivered up the kingdom and AFTER Jesus had first bound Satan.



Again, we can see agreement in other scripture that Satan is first bound at the Cross – which is followed by the ‘1000 year’ reign of Christ, in which The Righteous are allowed to come to Christ without the direct blockage of Satan.