John 20:28 and the Trinity

[Apple7]

Rev 1:5 states that Jesus is the ruler of the kings of the earth, Jesus at the time of the prophecy did not have complete control of heaven or the earth, this can be clearly seen by Rev 12:9-12 that states a battle is/was to be fought in heaven and that the Devil himself was cast down to earth along with his angels and that he is the one misleading the entire world. This verse alone destroys your entire argument of Satan being bound and ONLY his evil spirits having power.

(Revelation 12:9-12) "..So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him...be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you..”

Revelation was not written linearly.

Any serious student of scripture can easily see that Revelation repeats itself endlessly, with varying epithets.

 

[Dartman]

So it is important for you to know what you are thinking, and where it comes from.

Most importantly, does your thinking come FROM the Scripture, in contrast to your interpretation OF the Scripture to fit what you are thinking.
We know the trinity was NOT EVER explained, stated or preached in the Scriptures.
We know the trinity began with "converted" students of Greek philosophy, that were re-interpreting the Scriptures to match their thinking( a classic example is Justin Martyr).
We know the trinitarian theory took almost 300 years to develop ... (Paul said the "falling away" was already "at work" as he was writing the leter to the Thessalonians, and that the finishing touches to the trinitarian theory were stated in the Council of Constantinople in 381AD.)
We know that Paul instructed the Church in Corinth to beware those teaching "another Jesus";
2 Cor 11:3-4 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

 

[Apple7]

This was not missed. As I said before, God was prophetically announcing that the nation he was trying to lead would disregard his efforts. The example I gave of this was that of Pharaohs heart being hardened. This understanding is readily accepted in the scholarly community, again, your literal interpretation of this verse is the unorthodox one here, not mine.

Show us...

Then how is it possible Satan is misleading the entire inhabited earth as Rev 12:9-12 clearly shows?

He's not.

Remember, Rev was not written linearly.

The fact that Satan is bound in Rev 12, is proven-out in Rev 13 which describes the fact that Satan is not there in person.

 

[Rosenritter]

Do you think Thomas, as a Jew, arbitrarily called Jesus God?

It's not so arbitrary at that point. He who made himself God (John 5:18, 10:33) was justified in his resurrection from the dead. It's what Jesus had claimed quite a few times through inference and now here was the proof that "in three days I will raise it up."

John 2:19-22 KJV
(19) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
(20) Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
(21) But he spake of the temple of his body.
(22) When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

Matthew 13:10-11 (NIV2011)
The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

Jesus spent some time with the disciples after His resurrection. How many secrets of the kingdom of heaven have been given to them, but not you?

The most obvious meaning of "My Lord and my God" is that he actually did mean "My Lord and my God." Asserting that "Thomas couldn't possibly have meant that because he was a Jews" is one of those logical fallacy items that you should be avoiding.

 

[Rosenritter]

Men have a soul, spirit, and body made in the image of God.

>The soul is the identity
>The spirit is the faculty of will
>The body is the physical incantation

Your being is a trifecta.

So why is it so hard to believe that God is, Himself, His own Trinity?

That is an interesting analogy and there might be a valid way of applying that pattern to God in a similar sense, but I cannot remember anyplace that God speaks of himself like that. And regardless, what you just stated there is NOT correct Trinity doctrine, and a proper Trinitarian would shred you as a heretic for suggesting such.

 

[Apple7]

Our conversation so far has been about whether Jesus is the one referred to as ho thoes in 2 Cor 4:4, not once have I even mentioned or denied that he isn't referred to as thoes in other scripture. So your comment above is a little pointless.

Sweet.

Jesus is Theos in other scriptures, per your very own admission.

How many times is Satan referred to as Theos in other scriptures?

That's correct.

Zero.

So....even by your very own admission, the odds by this very own fact, place the likelihood on the side of Jesus.

 

[Rosenritter]

I can tell from the Bible that God is a Trinity. By my own experience (rather a supernatural encounter) God is a Trinity. I had this "knowing His Trinity" experience even before I was formally a Christian, I basically had zero biblical knowledge back then.

To put it another way, I believe that He "showed" me the He's a Trinity, and that's before I had any concept about what a Trinity could possibly be! I didn't have any Christianity concept back then, as I was raised an atheist with no religion.

1. How would one possibly "experience" God being a Trinity?

2. Were you given a divine revelation that would define "Trinity" or did you indirectly apply something from another revelation?

3. Can you please define what you mean by "Trinity" regardless of if this represents divine revelation or your own understanding?

No trap intended. Just trying to understand your meaning.

 

[Apple7]

Where does it say in this passage, or any passage, that Satan was bound at the cross?

Heb 2.14

επει ουν τα παιδια κεκοινωνηκεν αιματος και σαρκος και αυτος παραπλησιως μετεσχεν των αυτων ινα δια του θανατου καταργηση τον το κρατος εχοντα του θανατου τουτ εστιν τον διαβολον

epei oun ta paidia kekoinōnēken haimatos kai sarkos kai autos paraplēsiōs meteschen tōn autōn hina dia tou thanatou katargēsē ton to kratos echonta tou thanatou tout' estin ton diabolon

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 the one having the power of death, that is, the devil;



καταργηση = ‘katargēsē’

‘katargēsē’ definition:

Strong’s #G2673. Aorist tense verb, 3rd person singular. The Devil is to be reduced to inactivity through the death of Christ (Heb 2.14). The Epistle to the Hebrews fills out this declaration by stating that through the death of Christ even the one who has power over death, the devil, is condemned to inactivity or ineffectiveness in relation to the Christian (Heb 2.14). To cause something to come to an end or no longer in existence, abolish, wipe out, set aside. To render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative. To cause a person or thing to have no further efficiency. To deprive of force, influence, power. To cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish. To cease, to pass away, be done away. To be severed from, separated from, discharged from, loosed from any one. To terminate all intercourse with one. to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively: - abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void. To cause something to be unproductive, use up, exhaust, waste. To cause something to lose its power or effectiveness, invalidate, make powerless. From #G2596 & #G691.

Strong’s #G2596. Down from.

Strong’s #G691. To be idle.


References:
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, & Geoffrey W. Bromiley, volume one, pp. 452 - 454
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature, 3rd edition (BDAG), Frederick William Danker, pp. 525 - 526
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Joseph H. Thayer, p. 336
The Complete Wordstudy Dictionary of the New Testament, Warren Baker, Warren Baker, based on the lexicons of Edward Robinson & John Parkhurst, pp. 841 - 842
The New Strong’s expanded exhaustive concordance of the Bible (red-letter edition), James Strong, LL.D., S.T.D., p. 133

 

[Jacob]

Most importantly, does your thinking come FROM the Scripture, in contrast to your interpretation OF the Scripture to fit what you are thinking.
We know the trinity was NOT EVER explained, stated or preached in the Scriptures.
We know the trinity began with "converted" students of Greek philosophy, that were re-interpreting the Scriptures to match their thinking( a classic example is Justin Martyr).
We know the trinitarian theory took almost 300 years to develop ... (Paul said the "falling away" was already "at work" as he was writing the leter to the Thessalonians, and that the finishing touches to the trinitarian theory were stated in the Council of Constantinople in 381AD.)
We know that Paul instructed the Church in Corinth to beware those teaching "another Jesus";
2 Cor 11:3-4 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

What is the bearing of the things that we read about in scripture upon the subject of the Trinity doctrine that developed later?

 

[Apple7]

So again, Jesus death brought Satan, the one who is the original sinner and originator of death, to nothing at the cross as he opened up the way for all to be saved. Without Jesus sacrifice we would be doomed to the sin and death Satan caused. Hebrews 2:14 says nothing about Satan being bound, if it does please show it.

Perhaps this passage is a little clearer for your viewing...


2 Thes 2.6 - 7

και νυν το κατεχον οιδατε εις το αποκαλυφθηναι αυτον εν τω αυτου καιρω το γαρ μυστηριον ηδη ενεργειται της ανομιας μονον ο κατεχων αρτι εως εκ μεσου γενηται

kai nyn to katechon iodate eis to apokalyphthēnai auton en tō heautou kairō to gar mystērion ēdē energeitai tēs anomias monon ho katechōn arti heōs ek mesou genētai

And you know that which is binding him for now, to be revealed in his appointed time. For The Hidden, The Lawless is already working, only he is bound at present, taken out of the way, until he comes out of the midst.

 

[Apple7]

That's not what Rev 12:9-12 states, a post-resurrection verse. What do you do with the said scripture.

Rev 12 shares the same Greek term applied to Satan, 'apēlthen', as that of Jesus' parable in Mat 13.24 - 30, in which Satan goes away in the absolute sense (i.e. he is bound).

 

[Apple7]

2Co 4:4 among whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of those who do not believe so they would not see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God.

So your saying Jesus... the god of this age has... blinded the minds of those who do not believe so they would not see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ?

Really, did you just post this?

:think:
Paul

Satan is NOT Theos.

 

[Crucifer]

That is an interesting analogy and there might be a valid way of applying that pattern to God in a similar sense, but I cannot remember anyplace that God speaks of himself like that. And regardless, what you just stated there is NOT correct Trinity doctrine, and a proper Trinitarian would shred you as a heretic for suggesting such.

>Note that I differentiated 'trifecta' with 'trinity'.
>God made man in His image and likeness- notice that this is not an absolution but a statement of similarity

There's nothing I've said that is in conflict with the Trinity- the thing is, when dealing with God, things get a bit different fundamentally.
Three beings emanate as individuals altogether.

 

[meshak]

Your half-quote is not the answer. You quoted the preface, not the commandment (a commandment contains a command.)

So you are correcting Jesus.

good day.

 

[Idolater]

It's so interesting Jacob how many passages in John, where Christ is claimed to be God, even though He never uttered the exact words, "I am God." Not only John 20:28 KJV, but also John 1:14 KJV, John 5:18 KJV, John 8:58 KJV, and John 10:33 KJV. Don't you see right here right now that He's claimed to be God five times just in these five passages alone, all just in John's Gospel? John wrote this after Peter died, the prince of the Apostles had been gloriously martyred in Rome. Peter called Him God in Matthew 16:16 KJV, "Thou art ...the Son of the living God," according to John 5:18 KJV's "said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God," and consider also some other times that He is referred to as the "Son of God." Matthew 14:32-33 KJV, John 11:27 KJV, Acts 8:37 KJV, Acts 9:20 KJV and what Paul called Him, 1st John 4:15 KJV and John's specifically saying what must comport with his explanatory John 1:12 KJV's "them that believe on his name," John 3:16 KJV's "whosoever believeth in him," and John 20:31 KJV, each of which is why he wrote his Gospel, stated in other words.

"The Son of God" means God.

 

[Dartman]

What is the bearing of the things that we read about in scripture upon the subject of the Trinity doctrine that developed later?

The Scriptures warn us about false Christs, about "another Jesus", about false Gods. Those warnings apply directly to Church history.

 

[Dartman]

It's not so arbitrary at that point. He who made himself God (John 5:18, 10:33)

You are mistaking the error of the Jews for truth. Again, the Jews were WRONG. THEY are the ONLY ONES that stated Jesus made himself equal to God, and now trinitarians and oneness base their most important faith on the error of the Jews.
Jesus clearly corrected them.
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent.


John 20:17 ... I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

... was justified in his resurrection from the dead. It's what Jesus had claimed quite a few times through inference and now here was the proof that "in three days I will raise it up."

John 2:19-22 KJV
(19) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
(20) Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
(21) But he spake of the temple of his body.
(22) When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

Yep, and when his God had resurrected him back to life, that same body (now flesh and bone... not flesh and blood) stood up. You just keep ignoring the Scriptures, because they get in the way of your pet theories;
Gal 1:1-3 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead
2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

The most obvious meaning of "My Lord and my God" is that he actually did mean "My Lord and my God." Asserting that "Thomas couldn't possibly have meant that because he was a Jews" is one of those logical fallacy items that you should be avoiding.

You are completely brain washed. There is NO discussion of Jesus being God in this context, or any other. There certainly is discussion regarding Christ's God, and our God resurrecting Jesus from the dead.
Thomas wasn't merely limited by the Jewish understanding of God, Thomas was ALSO limited by his Lord's own words;
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent.


John 20:17 ... I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

 

[Dartman]

It's so interesting Jacob how many passages in John, where Christ is claimed to be God, even though He never uttered the exact words, "I am God." Not only John 20:28 KJV, but also John 1:14 KJV, John 5:18 KJV, John 8:58 KJV, and John 10:33 KJV. Don't you see right here right now that He's claimed to be God five times just in these five passages alone, all just in John's Gospel?

Of course not. Not one of those texts indicates JESUS claimed to be God. Most of them merely record that the JEWS accused Jesus of claiming to be God, and Jesus CORRECTED THEM!! Jesus NEVER said:

"well, duh, I claim to be God because I AM God"!!

John wrote this after Peter died, the prince of the Apostles had been gloriously martyred in Rome. Peter called Him God in Matthew 16:16 KJV, "Thou art ...the Son of the living God," according to John 5:18 KJV's "said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God," and consider also some other times that He is referred to as the "Son of God." Matthew 14:32-33 KJV, John 11:27 KJV, Acts 8:37 KJV, Acts 9:20 KJV and what Paul called Him, 1st John 4:15 KJV and John's specifically saying what must comport with his explanatory John 1:12 KJV's "them that believe on his name," John 3:16 KJV's "whosoever believeth in him," and John 20:31 KJV, each of which is why he wrote his Gospel, stated in other words.

"The Son of God" means God.

That's utterly preposterous. You are not your dad.

 

[Rosenritter]

>Note that I differentiated 'trifecta' with 'trinity'.
>God made man in His image and likeness- notice that this is not an absolution but a statement of similarity

There's nothing I've said that is in conflict with the Trinity- the thing is, when dealing with God, things get a bit different fundamentally.
Three beings emanate as individuals altogether.

Q1. "Three beings" & "[three] "individuals" ... how do you differentiate that from polytheism?

Q2. Does your definition differ from this definition; why or why not?

"It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms “being” and “person.” It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what is the difference? We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognize what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. For example, we speak of the “being” of man—human being. A rock has “being”—the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well. That is, we recognize both “what” and “who” when we talk about a person.

The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings—God, man, and angels. What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of “cat kind.” Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who’s."

Q3. If your definition does not agree with that definition, do you consider that definition polytheistic?

 

[Rosenritter]

You are mistaking the error of the Jews for truth. Again, the Jews were WRONG. THEY are the ONLY ONES that stated Jesus made himself equal to God, and now trinitarians and oneness base their most important faith on the error of the Jews.
Jesus clearly corrected them.

Just to interrupt your monologue for a moment, but I need to point out that when you say that "the Jews were the only ones who stated that Jesus made himself equal to God...." that "the Jews" are the pretty much entire audience of the gospel.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent.

John 20:17 ... I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Explain for us why Jesus spoke in proverb and parable while he was on the earth again? Was it to make plain or to conceal the meaning for a time? It seems very strange that you could cling to a literal meaning of a metaphor ("like Father") when the apostles and Jesus himself puts forth literal meaning after the time for proverb and parable is past.