2 Cor 4.4 (Jesus, The God of this age!)

[Danoh]

The Trinity.

Psalm 110: 1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

That's Two - where's the Other Member of said Trinity?

In the passage itself.

For it was the Spirit Who revealed that to David; back when the Spirit was doing that sort of thing; 2 Peter 1:19-21.

Rom. 5: 6-8.

 

[Apple7]

Psalm 110: 1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

That's Two - where's the Other Member of said Trinity?

In the passage itself.

For it was the Spirit Who revealed that to David; back when the Spirit was doing that sort of thing; 2 Peter 1:19-21.

Rom. 5: 6-8.

The Right Hand of God is The Holy Spirit.

 

[7djengo7]

Contrary to popular modern belief, ‘The God of this age’, (ho Theos tou aiōnos toutou), actually pertains to Jesus Christ and NOT Satan, and provides yet another potent scriptural proof for Jesus’ deity.

Is Charles Hodge (19th century) modern?
Is Albert Barnes (19th century) modern?
Is John Wesley (18th century) modern?
Is John Calvin (16th century) modern?
Is Origen (3rd century) modern?
Is Paul, the Apostle (1st century) modern?

These are some guys who knew that Paul was referring to Satan, rather than to Jesus, as "the god of this age". Do you accuse them of holding to "popular modern belief"?

When, exactly, did the period you call "modern" begin?

 

[7djengo7]

Satan was bound at The Cross...added proof that 2 Cor 4.4 does not pertain to Satan.

Even if it were true that Satan (as you say) was "bound at The Cross", why, exactly, do you say that Satan's having been "bound at The Cross" must be proof that--must entail that--"the god of this world" who "hath blinded the minds of them which believe not" is NOT Satan?

Before Satan (as you say) was "bound at The Cross", could/did he blind people's minds or not? Did Satan, when he was (as you say) "bound at The Cross", go from being able to blind/blinding people's minds to no longer being able to blind/blinding people's minds?

Or, would you say that Satan has never, at any time, blinded/been able to blind peoples minds?

In one place, you wrote:

So....no, Satan does not have the power to blind the hearts and minds of the people...but Jesus, as God, most certainly does...

So, you're saying, here, that Satan, at least nowadays, cannot (and thus, does not) blind the minds of men. Do you say that that has always been the case, or, on the contrary, that Satan was previously able to blind/blinding the minds of men, but that he left off being able to do so when he was (as you say) "bound at The Cross"?

 

[7djengo7]

Those verses don't answer my question. If the god of this world blinds us, then he must have more power than the Gospel....which none of us believe. So it has to be he's given indirect credit somehow. Sin, for instance.

Consider this:

"If the god of this world [is Satan, and Satan] blinds us, then [Satan] must have more power than the Gospel...which none of us believe"
​

Now, what if we exchange 'Jesus' for 'Satan', therein:

"If the god of this world [is Jesus, and Jesus] blinds us, then [Jesus] must have more power than the Gospel...which none of us believe"​

It may seem wrong to say that "Satan must have more power than the Gospel," yet, also, it seems downright nonsensical to say that "Jesus must have more power than the Gospel", which seems nearly tantamount to saying that "Jesus must have more power than Jesus".

Theodicy sure beats the heck out of me! And yet, why can I not stay away from trying to understand....

 

[7djengo7]

Satan was bound at The Cross...added proof that 2 Cor 4.4 does not pertain to Satan.

In another place, you wrote of John 14:30 KJV, in which Jesus said "the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me", saying:

John 14 is pre-Cross scripture.

Obviously, you do not mean that John 14:30 was inscripturated prior to the cross, much less circulated and read then. You seem, then, to mean that the event of Jesus' speaking narrated in John 14:30 occurred prior to the event of the cross, which is manifestly true. However, what, exactly, were you thrusting at, there? What, exactly, were you objecting that against?

Jesus, by the phrase "the prince of this world", clearly was not referring to Himself, right? Only an abject fool could read that verse and say that Jesus was referring to Himself as "the prince of this world". To whom, then, would you say that Jesus was referring by His phrase, "the prince of this world"? To Satan? If not to Satan, then to whom?

Clearly, also, Jesus was saying, of "the prince of this world", that he "cometh". When, exactly, would you say "the prince of this world", according to Jesus, here, was to come? Sometime pre-cross? Sometime post-cross? Would you say that "the prince of this world" has come, already, since that pre-cross time when Jesus stated that he "cometh"? If so, when did "the prince of this world" come?

Clearly, Jesus--Whom we know is, indeed, a prince, since He is the Prince of Peace--was referring to someone other than Himself as "the prince of this world". So, the Prince of Peace, King of Kings, Lord of Lords is not the prince of this world.

Just because it is true that Jesus is God, it does not follow that Jesus is the person to whom Paul was referring as "the god of this world", any more than it follows that, since Jesus is a prince, Jesus is the person to whom He was referring as "the prince of this world".

You say that "Satan was bound at The Cross". Is "the prince of this world" Satan? Was "the prince of this world" "bound at The Cross"?

 

[7djengo7]

'The Ruler' baton of this world has been passed from Satan to Jesus, as declared in Rev 1.5. which further proves that Satan was bound at The Cross, when it declares Jesus as being The Ruler due to His blood which released us from our sins.

The baton has been passed.

Satan is no longer 'The Ruler' of anything.

Here, you are saying that, at least at one time, Satan was the ruler of the world.

Was Satan, at that time, able to blind, and blinding, the minds of men, or not?

Did Jesus take over where Satan left off at blinding the minds of men?

Who is it that is blinding me, and probably the vast majority of Trinitarians, at this time, from believing your rare claim that Paul was not referring to Satan, but to Jesus, as "the god of this world"? It's peculiar to think that, though we are somehow not being blinded from believing Trinitarianism, we are, apparently, blinded from believing your claim as to the identity of "the god of this world" written of by Paul. Why are we being blinded from believing your claim, but not being blinded from believing the doctrine of the Trinity? And, again, who is it that is blinding us against believing your claim? Your consistent, manifest inability to rationally support your claim sure isn't helping to un-blind us, to enable us to believe your claim!

 

[7djengo7]

The verbs employed in Rev 20, are in the aorist, completed action.

Its a done deal.

The Dragon, The Old Serpent, The Devil, Satan was bound ‘edēsen’ (completed action), cast into the abyss ‘ebalen’ (completed action), shut ‘ekleisen’ (completed action), and sealed ‘esphragisen’ (completed action), that he can no longer deceive people‘planēsē’(singular, completed action), by Jesus. Rev 20.1 – 3


Too many people use Rev 20 as their premise for eschatology...of which, results in serious errors...

And the devil that deceived them was cast [εβληθη] (completed action) into the lake of fire and brimstone...

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast [εβληθη] (completed action) into the lake of fire.

So, you think the devil, as well as whosoever wasn't found in the book of life, have already, in our past, been cast into the lake of fire, also? When did that occur?

Obviously, you're not going to do yourself any favor by trying to claim, on the one hand, that Satan has already been bound, 2,000 years ago, while claiming, on the other hand, that Satan has not yet been cast into the lake of fire. So, I'm going to be charitable, here, and assume you're not going to be disingenuous enough to try, on the one hand, specially pleading for Satan's having been bound already, while, on the other, trying to claim that Satan (and all those not found in the book of life) have not yet been cast into the lake of fire. So, again, when was Satan cast into the lake of fire? What year, what month, what day, in history, was Satan cast into the lake of fire?

 

[Apple7]

Is Charles Hodge (19th century) modern?
Is Albert Barnes (19th century) modern?
Is John Wesley (18th century) modern?
Is John Calvin (16th century) modern?
Is Origen (3rd century) modern?
Is Paul, the Apostle (1st century) modern?

These are some guys who knew that Paul was referring to Satan, rather than to Jesus, as "the god of this age". Do you accuse them of holding to "popular modern belief"?

When, exactly, did the period you call "modern" begin?

Show us their respective exegesis.

Good luck...

 

[Apple7]

Even if it were true that Satan (as you say) was "bound at The Cross", why, exactly, do you say that Satan's having been "bound at The Cross" must be proof that--must entail that--"the god of this world" who "hath blinded the minds of them which believe not" is NOT Satan?

Scripture states that Satan was bound at The Cross, not me.

Satan being bound at The Cross occurred before 2 Cor 4.4; thus, this passage cannot be referring to him.

If Satan is your god, as you so admittedly proclaim, then worship him - which you already are, by placing the title of Theos upon him.

Now...go pray to him, as well....

Before Satan (as you say) was "bound at The Cross", could/did he blind people's minds or not? Did Satan, when he was (as you say) "bound at The Cross", go from being able to blind/blinding people's minds to no longer being able to blind/blinding people's minds?

Or, would you say that Satan has never, at any time, blinded/been able to blind peoples minds?

The claim that Satan blinded the minds and hearts of people is YOUR claim...therefore, the onus is upon YOU to prove it.

Why would you want me to 'prove your' argument for you?

Can't do it yourself?

Silly.

 

[Apple7]

In another place, you wrote of John 14:30 KJV, in which Jesus said "the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me", saying:



Obviously, you do not mean that John 14:30 was inscripturated prior to the cross, much less circulated and read then. You seem, then, to mean that the event of Jesus' speaking narrated in John 14:30 occurred prior to the event of the cross, which is manifestly true. However, what, exactly, were you thrusting at, there? What, exactly, were you objecting that against?

Jesus, by the phrase "the prince of this world", clearly was not referring to Himself, right? Only an abject fool could read that verse and say that Jesus was referring to Himself as "the prince of this world". To whom, then, would you say that Jesus was referring by His phrase, "the prince of this world"? To Satan? If not to Satan, then to whom?

Clearly, also, Jesus was saying, of "the prince of this world", that he "cometh". When, exactly, would you say "the prince of this world", according to Jesus, here, was to come? Sometime pre-cross? Sometime post-cross? Would you say that "the prince of this world" has come, already, since that pre-cross time when Jesus stated that he "cometh"? If so, when did "the prince of this world" come?

Clearly, Jesus--Whom we know is, indeed, a prince, since He is the Prince of Peace--was referring to someone other than Himself as "the prince of this world". So, the Prince of Peace, King of Kings, Lord of Lords is not the prince of this world.

Just because it is true that Jesus is God, it does not follow that Jesus is the person to whom Paul was referring as "the god of this world", any more than it follows that, since Jesus is a prince, Jesus is the person to whom He was referring as "the prince of this world".

You say that "Satan was bound at The Cross". Is "the prince of this world" Satan? Was "the prince of this world" "bound at The Cross"?

Pre-Cross scripture refers to events leading up to The Cross.

Post-Cross scripture refers to events AFTER The Cross.

No one, but you, had a hard time understanding this simple concept...



Like wise, The Ruler of This World, in John 14.30, pertains to Satan and is Pre-Cross scripture.

Rev 1.5 further proves that Satan was bound at The Cross, when it declares Jesus as being the Ruler of the World due to His blood which released us from our sins.

Scripture prior to The Cross mentions, repeatedly, that Satan was the Ruler.

The Ruler baton was passed at The Cross.

 

[Apple7]

Here, you are saying that, at least at one time, Satan was the ruler of the world.

Scripture makes this claim, not me.

Was Satan, at that time, able to blind, and blinding, the minds of men, or not?

Not according to scripture.

Only God has this power and prerogative.

Did Jesus take over where Satan left off at blinding the minds of men?

As God, The Second Person of The Trinity always had this power.

 

[Apple7]

Who is it that is blinding me, and probably the vast majority of Trinitarians, at this time, from believing your rare claim that Paul was not referring to Satan, but to Jesus, as "the god of this world"? It's peculiar to think that, though we are somehow not being blinded from believing Trinitarianism, we are, apparently, blinded from believing your claim as to the identity of "the god of this world" written of by Paul. Why are we being blinded from believing your claim, but not being blinded from believing the doctrine of the Trinity? And, again, who is it that is blinding us against believing your claim? Your consistent, manifest inability to rationally support your claim sure isn't helping to un-blind us, to enable us to believe your claim!

No two people believe identically, on any topic.

God reveals Himself to each one as He pleases.

 

[Apple7]

And the devil that deceived them was cast [εβληθη] (completed action) into the lake of fire and brimstone...

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast [εβληθη] (completed action) into the lake of fire.

So, you think the devil, as well as whosoever wasn't found in the book of life, have already, in our past, been cast into the lake of fire, also? When did that occur?

Obviously, you're not going to do yourself any favor by trying to claim, on the one hand, that Satan has already been bound, 2,000 years ago, while claiming, on the other hand, that Satan has not yet been cast into the lake of fire. So, I'm going to be charitable, here, and assume you're not going to be disingenuous enough to try, on the one hand, specially pleading for Satan's having been bound already, while, on the other, trying to claim that Satan (and all those not found in the book of life) have not yet been cast into the lake of fire. So, again, when was Satan cast into the lake of fire? What year, what month, what day, in history, was Satan cast into the lake of fire?

I said it hundreds of times before, but it goes in one ear and out the other for peeps like you.

Ever hear of CONTEXT?

Apparently not.

You randomly cherry-pick out a verse or two, out of its original context, and then claim that it does not fit the narrative.

Well....what is the narrative of Rev 20.10 -15 vs. the narrative of Rev 20.1 - 3?

Go study up, and come back with a plausible answer...

 

[glorydaz]

Consider this:

"If the god of this world [is Satan, and Satan] blinds us, then [Satan] must have more power than the Gospel...which none of us believe"
​

Now, what if we exchange 'Jesus' for 'Satan', therein:

"If the god of this world [is Jesus, and Jesus] blinds us, then [Jesus] must have more power than the Gospel...which none of us believe"​

It may seem wrong to say that "Satan must have more power than the Gospel," yet, also, it seems downright nonsensical to say that "Jesus must have more power than the Gospel", which seems nearly tantamount to saying that "Jesus must have more power than Jesus".

Theodicy sure beats the heck out of me! And yet, why can I not stay away from trying to understand....

That's something I put up on the shelf.

 

[glorydaz]

Scripture states that Satan was bound at The Cross, not me.

Satan being bound at The Cross occurred before 2 Cor 4.4; thus, this passage cannot be referring to him.



The claim that Satan blinded the minds and hearts of people is YOUR claim...therefore, the onus is upon YOU to prove it.

I'd like to put this forth for your consideration. Please check it out.

A copy of Nancy Paulson's synopsis of that part of Blades' book referred to in the book as "Satan's Policy of Evil in the Dispensation of Grace."

http://www.oocities.org/ambassadors4christ/writings/paulson/policy.html

by Nancy Paulson

The revelation of the mystery was a death blow to Satan's plan of evil. The heavenly places had seemed to be secure. Up until the time the mystery was revealed to the Apostle Paul, God had been focusing on mere men who could not exist nor function in the heavenly realm.

Satan had formulated a plan to be like the Most High God (Isaiah 14:13-14) but this had turned out to be his "undoing".

God made a "public display of Satan and his cohorts in the cross of Christ" (Colossians 2:14-15). How Satan must hate this "new revelation" and the new creation that is now being formed. Satan has declared war! (Once again) He wants to obliterate if not obscure the knowledge of the mystery of Christ.

Just as Satan constructed a policy of evil against the nation of Israel so he has constructed a policy of evil against the body of Christ.

Paul uses these words and phrases to describe Satan's policy of evil:

Wiles of the devil
Wrestling against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places
Fiery darts of the wicked
Paul warns of:

Satan's devices
Satan's subtlety
Being beguiled by him
Being falsely persuaded
Being spoiled
Being deceived
Paul alerts us to the operations of:

Satan's ministers in disguise
Counterfeit signs
Seducing spirits
Doctrines of devils
Doctrines of false prophets
Doctrines of another spirit
Seducers
Forms of godliness
Paul tells us to be on guard against:

Winds of doctrine
Slight men and cunning craftiness
Giving place to the devil
Turning aside after Satan
Being taken in the snare of the devil
Giving Satan opportunity to speak reproachfully
Paul also warns of:

Extra Biblical revelation
Profane and vain babblings
Heeding old wives fables
Deceitful workers coming in the name of Christ
The major ingredient of Satan's policy of evil today is DECEPTION.

Satan's contempt for us as the new creation goes beyond recognizing who and what we are in God's plan and purpose.

(Ephesians 3:8-12 KJV) Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; {9} And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: {10} To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, {11} According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: {12} In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.
The church, the body of Christ, is privileged with bearing a testimony to God's glory before the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.

How do we make known the manifold wisdom of God?

The celebrating and displaying of the manifold wisdom of God happens when the body of Christ understands and appreciates the mystery just like Paul did. When we come to understand Paul's knowledge of the mystery we make an impact to the glory of God's genius in the face of the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. We do not see the impact made, nor do we hear of it but it is made.

Israel's impact is on the earth --"Law contract"
The Body of Christ's impact is in the heaven --"Mystery of Christ"

Satan's policy of evil is to minimize or eliminate this impact in the heavenlies by mocking God and speaking of us reproachfully in the heavenly places.

Satan desires the members of the body of Christ to be tossed to and fro, carried about by every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:14), not even knowing for themselves what is the fellowship of the mystery.

The result: Christians do not know the manifold wisdom of God and are kept ignorant of what is needed for them to make an impact in the heavenlies.

The new creation is slandered, ridiculed and defamed when the Body of Christ members are ignorant of God's manifold wisdom and act contrary to God's program that He is administering in this dispensation of grace.

Satan is at work to keep Christians ignorant of the "mystery of Christ" but not of the Bible as a whole. His goal is to keep members of the Body of Christ as "children", that is, doctrinally immature and not growing up into Christ "unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Ephesians 4:13).

Satan desires Christians into believing things that they should not believe. Hence, he doctrinally blinds them so they do not see and know what God wants them to know.

Paul uses the term "devil" instead of the name "Satan" to emphasize the tactics and ploys against us. "Devil" means slanderer, accuser; one who lays charges or makes accusations against us. The terms speaks of one who, especially with malicious intent, seeks to malign your character, attack your reputation, foul or besmirch your name, or slander you and belittle you in the eyes of others, particularly by speaking against you with vilifying, abusive, or reviling accusations and remarks.

Satan's goal is to carry out spiritual wickedness against us in the heavenly places in contrast to God speaking well of us in Christ Jesus. Satan is most effective when Christians get caught up in the contrary doctrine of what God is doing today.

Satan has declared war on the message of the "mystery of Christ".

Source:Satan and His Plan of Evil by Keith Blades

 

[way 2 go]

I'd like to put this forth for your consideration. Please check it out.

I liked this point

Mat 4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

1Pe 5:8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

G1228
διάβολος
diabolos
dee-ab'-ol-os
From G1225; a traducer; specifically Satan
false accuser, devil, slanderer.

 

[7djengo7]

I had written to you:

Is Charles Hodge (19th century) modern?
Is Albert Barnes (19th century) modern?
Is John Wesley (18th century) modern?
Is John Calvin (16th century) modern?
Is Origen (3rd century) modern?
Is Paul, the Apostle (1st century) modern?

These are some guys who knew that Paul was referring to Satan, rather than to Jesus, as "the

god of this age". Do you accuse them of holding to "popular modern belief"?

When, exactly, did the period you call "modern" begin?

To which you reacted, in post #409, by writing:

Show us their respective exegesis.

Good luck...

Respectively? I don't see why, but, whatever you wish:

• Albert Barnes' exegesis of Paul's phrase, "the god of this world", is that it is a reference to Satan.
• John Wesley's exegesis of Paul's phrase, "the god of this world", is that it is a reference to Satan.
• John Calvin's exegesis of Paul's phrase, "the god of this world", is that it is a reference to Satan.
• Origen's exegesis of Paul's phrase, "the god of this world", is that it is a reference to Satan.

• What (if anything) do you mean by saying "show us [Paul's] respective exegesis" of Paul's phrase, "the god of this world"? I don't understand what (if anything) you are asking me, here. Perhaps you have forgotten that Paul is the one who wrote the phrase in the first place?

See, I don't say, to you, "Hey, Apple7, show me your exegesis of Paul's phrase, "the god of this world!"" And, why do I not say this? Simple: because you have no exegesis of it; you reject exegesis of it, and, instead, you accept an eisegesis (one of, perhaps, innumerable possible eisegeses) of it--your eisegesis being your claim that the phrase is a reference to Jesus, rather than to Satan. Obviously, I'm not going to ask you for what I know you don't have.

There's only one--there can be only one--exegesis of Paul's phrase, "the god of this world", and you, for one, are loud and clear that you despise, and reject it as "modern popular belief", and that you, instead, proudly accept an eisegesis of it.

So far (at least as recently as your post, #409) you have stonewalled against the question I asked you (I think more than once), which is, to what time frame are you referring by your word "modern", when you claim that it is a "modern popular belief" that Paul was referring to Satan as "the god of this world"? I ask this, because, for all we know, you may be the only person who has ever promulgated the claim that the phrase refers to Jesus, instead of to Satan, and that, only as early as the 21st century. You haven't cited a single, solitary, other soul, in the last two thousand years, besides yourself, who has been recorded as having been in agreement with your view. In fact, you, thus far, seem quite determinedly reticent against acknowledging, to us, whether or not you are aware of anybody down through the ages who agreed with what you are promulgating in the 21st century. I'm just saying that it really has the appearance, at least, of you desiring to be thought of as some hero of exegesis, single-handedly having discovered some gem of truth that everybody else had been benighted about--blinded against--until superior you, in the 21st century, came onto the scene. Which, when you think about it, is kind of ironic, seeing as you are disparaging the truth as "modern popular belief"! At this point in time, how much more modern can anything be than a view you have just recently discovered, in the 21st century?

Don't get me wrong, here: I really couldn't care less whether or not anybody else in the last 2,000 years has eisegeted Paul's phrase, "the god of this world", in the same manner that you've eisegeted it in the 21st century. I'm just trying to find out why you are calling what, for instance, Origen, in the 3rd century, believed a "modern popular belief".

 

[7djengo7]

Scripture states that Satan was bound at The Cross, not me.

No it doesn't. You do, over and over and over.... But, Scripture doesn't state that Satan was "bound at the Cross" (a phrase found nowhere in Scripture).

Satan being bound at The Cross occurred before 2 Cor 4.4; thus, this passage cannot be referring to him.

For the sake of argument, let's say Satan was, indeed, as you say, "bound at the Cross"; what, then, does that even mean? Why, exactly, do you say that that supposition (were it true) must needs debar Paul's phrase, "the god of this world", from being a reference to Satan? If you can set aside your copy/pasting of Greek text for a moment, and, instead, put on your thinking cap, perhaps you would be willing to construct, for us, a valid syllogism, or a chain of valid syllogisms (however many it takes you), and show us, step by step, exactly how it is that your claim that "Satan was bound at the Cross" necessarily entails your claim that Paul was not calling Satan "the god of this world". Bear in mind, though: you will find no help in hiding behind your Greek font, here.

If Satan is your god, as you so admittedly proclaim, then worship him - which you already are, by placing the title of Theos upon him.

Now...go pray to him, as well....

You're the one blaspheming Jesus by championing the falsehood that Paul was referring to Jesus by his phrase, "the god of this world", not me. You're saying that Jesus is causing people to sin.

Remember, according to Paul:

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

So, you are saying that Jesus is causing people to commit the sin of not believing the gospel of Jesus. You are making God the Son out to be causing people to sin, to be the author of their sin of unbelief:

In whom [Jesus Christ] hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

You wrote:

The claim that Satan blinded the minds and hearts of people is YOUR claim...therefore, the onus is upon YOU to prove it.

That can just as easily be turned right around, right back to your lap, as follows:

The claim that [Jesus] blinded the minds and hearts of people is YOUR claim...therefore, the onus is upon YOU to prove it.

You claim Jesus caused/causes people to sin in unbelief AGAINST HIMSELF, so YOU prove that. The truth of Trinitarianism hath no need of your paradox theology, your Calvinistic irrationalism.

You said:

Why would you want me to 'prove your' argument for you?

Sloppy as always, you. You've obviously wasted your time in pretending to be a Greek scholar, when you should have, instead, been studying how to think logically. An argument isn't something one proves; a proposition is what one proves, by means of an argument. The proposition one proves, by means of an argument, is called a conclusion. Arguments are neither true, nor false, and whatever is not true is something that cannot be (and, therefore, is not) proved. Only propositions are true or false, and only true propositions can be proved.

Also, why the quotes around the words, 'prove your'? Just for ornament?

Can't do it yourself?

Again, one does not, nay cannot, prove an argument; one can only prove a proposition.

Silly.

Was you're last noise, here, merely emotive? Because, I do not know what (if anything) you were trying to say.

 

[7djengo7]

Pre-Cross scripture refers to events leading up to The Cross.

Post-Cross scripture refers to events AFTER The Cross.

No one, but you, had a hard time understanding this simple concept...

All pre-cross Scripture was written BEFORE the event of the cross, so all 39 books of the Old Testament are pre-cross Scripture, and are not post-cross Scripture, whereas, all post-cross Scripture was written AFTER the event of the cross, so that all 27 books of the New Testament are post-cross Scripture, and are not pre-cross Scripture. Do you not understand this?

Like wise, The Ruler of This World, in John 14.30, pertains to Satan and is Pre-Cross scripture.

Um, no. John 14:30 is New Testament Scripture--not Old Testament Scripture--and is, thus, post-cross Scripture, and not pre-cross Scripture, since John 14:30 was written AFTER the event of the cross.

Rev 1.5 further proves that Satan was bound at The Cross, when it declares Jesus as being the Ruler of the World due to His blood which released us from our sins.

Um, no. Revelation 1:5 neither states, nor entails "that Satan was bound at The Cross" (which unScriptural phrase, for all we know, is simply meaningless).

Scripture prior to The Cross mentions, repeatedly, that Satan was the Ruler.

So does the New Testament.

The Ruler baton was passed at The Cross.

You've already gotten as much good out of that sorry, unScriptural slogan as you're ever going to get out of it, which is, of course, absolutely zero good.