John 20:28 and the Trinity

[NWL]

You don't even have a clue as to the definition of the Greek word used in your Trinitarian English translation.

Who knew that you were actually a closet Trinitarian?

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.

Study up, 'ol chap...

You have not dealt with the questions implications, read harder. 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 have not explained how the apostles conquering was different to Jesus conquering as mentioned?

You say "that we become victorious AFTER Jesus first became victorious", then why does Jesus say "To the one who conquers", if we are already victorious, what is left to conquer?

 

[NWL]

Sorry my mistake, I accidentally quoted Revelation 1:1-3 instead of Rev 9:1-3. Who is the identity of the Angel in Revelation 9:1-3 who 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)?

Eazy-peasy. Satan.

Thank you for answering. You say Satan, but so I can progress, could you confirm to which answer you were answering Satan to, as I had two questions in my post as yo can see above. 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?

Again, please confirm to which question you answer pertains, I'll await your reply.

 

[NWL]

Stating that your knowledge of scripture to be weak, is fact.

Is this where you invoke self pity?

:guitar:

Says the man who refuses to answer my questions as you know by answering you'll be digging yourself into a hole. Once again:

Who were sin offerings offered to under the law in the OT?

Who was the Passover lamb sacrificed to under the law in the OT?

Was Jesus the Passover lamb according to scripture? (1 Cor 5:7)

How was the law a "shadow of the things to come" when speaking about animal sacrifices as detailed in Hebrews 10:1-5?

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?

Do God or kingdoms work against themselves according to the principles of Jesus teachings?(Matthew 12:22-26)

A. 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"

B. 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

C. 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]

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.

No.

"No" is not a grammatically correct answer to my question, the question was multiple choice. Once again, it' clear you can't answer it but instead pretend to give an answer for whatever deceitful reason. If you don't agree with either choice then simply explain exactly what it means for demons to "occupy flesh".

If Demons occupied flesh was it by means of possession or in the same fashion as Jesus by becoming flesh (John 1:14). Answer the question, deal with the question.

What are the 'multiple choices' that you now wish to make up?

Playing the fool game again I see.

Again, did demons occupy flesh by means of possession or in the same fashion as Jesus, by becoming flesh (John 1:14). As I ealier said, if you don't agree with either questions implications then explain excatly how they occuipied flesh.

Either your previous example of the locusts having teeth like lions as proof of them being demons or having the authority of Satan is wrong, or you need to explain how other persons (Jesus, Angels) are described as lions, but this magically doesn't make them Demons. Explain the inconsistency. In short does something being described as a lion prove that they are Demon(s)?

This is your reasoning, not mine.

Then what was the purpose of this comment you made when speaking about 1 Peter 5:8 "The key word ‘hōs’ literally means ‘in the same manner as’, and is used to describe demons in Revelation, ‘in the same manner as’ a lion (Rev 9.8)"?

 

[NWL]

A man cannot at all ransom a brother, nor give to God a ransom for him, for the ransom of their soul is precious, and it ceases forever, (Psalm 49.7 – 8); but God will ransom my soul from the grave. (Psalm 49.15)

Now what, chap?

Gonna cry?:cigar:

This verse in regards to sinful man and shows it is to God the ransom it owed, why else would the bible writer apply the ransom as being given to God.

Futhermore, how excatly does the verse express only God is capable of being the ransom? Reasoning please.

 

[Apple7]

This verse in regards to sinful man and shows it is to God the ransom it owed, why else would the bible writer apply the ransom as being given to God.

Futhermore, how excatly does the verse express only God is capable of being the ransom? Reasoning please.

I provided precisely what you asked for.

Deal with it.

Now...answer the question....are you going to cry now?

 

[SabathMoon]

I provided precisely what you asked for.

Deal with it.

Now...answer the question....are you going to cry now?

I would think that an ignoramus like yourself is incapable of answering the question

Futhermore, how excatly does the verse express only God is capable of being the ransom? Reasoning please.

 

[Apple7]

I would think that an ignoramus like yourself is incapable of answering the question

Are you also going to go cry like your JW friend?

Answer the question.

:cigar:

 

[SabathMoon]

Are you also going to go cry like your JW friend?

Answer the question.

:cigar:

what question? And maybe you should answer the question about how God needs to be his own Passover, eh?

 

[Apple7]

what question? And maybe you should answer the question about how God needs to be his own Passover, eh?

Help out your JW friend, if you can...

 

[SabathMoon]

Help out your JW friend, if you can...

You are unwilling to repeat the question. And I am not a JW.

 

[SabathMoon]

TSKS Greek grammar mandates that both God and Savior have the same referent, Jesus Christ.

Study up...

Trouble is the referant is "the" glory of "the" god in Titus 2:13.
Because you know little greek, you didn't notice.

 

[Apple7]

You are unwilling to repeat the question.

What question would that be?

And I am not a JW.

You deny The Triune God.....so, where's the difference?

 

[Apple7]

Trouble is the referant is "the" glory of "the" god in Titus 2:13.
Because you know little greek, you didn't notice.

No.

Regardless, Jesus is The Glory to begin with.

You're hosed either way...

 

[SabathMoon]

What question would that be?




You deny The Triune God.....so, where's the difference?

The difference is a god who is not bloodthirsty and doesn't need to supernaturally justify mankind, because he knows every human being is capable of righteousness, and obeying his laws. But I am not a JW.

 

[Apple7]

The difference is a god who is not bloodthirsty and doesn't need to supernaturally justify mankind, because he knows every human being is capable of righteousness, and obeying his laws. But I am not a JW.

According to what scripture?

 

[SabathMoon]

According to what scripture?

There are several mistranslated verses to chose from which give the standard total inability doctrine. Of which, I would rather discuss.

 

[Apple7]

There are several mistranslated verses to chose from which give the standard total inability doctrine. Of which, I would rather discuss.

Start quoting...

 

[SabathMoon]

Rom 6:23 KJV
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
6:23 τὰ γὰρ ὀψώνια τῆς ἁμαρτίας θάνατος τὸ δὲ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ ζωὴ αἰώνιος ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν

More correctly:
Because some wages of a sin become the death, thence a favor of a god becomes eternal prosperity in Jesus Christ our Lord.


Not the wages of sins is death, but rather some wages of a sin is death (Thanatos i.e. capital punishment)

But there is a lot invested in fooling people into thinking original sin makes all sinners. All may have sinned, but all are not sinners.

 

[Apple7]

Rom 6:23 KJV
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
6:23 τὰ γὰρ ὀψώνια τῆς ἁμαρτίας θάνατος τὸ δὲ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ ζωὴ αἰώνιος ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν

More correctly:
Because some wages of a sin become the death, thence a favor of a god becomes eternal prosperity in Jesus Christ our Lord.


Not the wages of sins is death, but rather some wages of a sin is death (Thanatos i.e. capital punishment)

But there is a lot invested in fooling people into thinking original sin makes all sinners. All may have sinned, but all are not sinners.

A few things...

You just quoted an English Trinitarian rendering for your denial of it. That does absolutely nothing to strengthen your position.

Next...show us the word 'some' in the Greek of this passage.

Third, you mention sins (plural) which also is not in the passage, of which, is arthrous singular.