6days
New member
But Meshak… That is NOT what scripture tells us. If you wish, just post the verses which tell us why they wanted to kill Him.
John 20:28 and the Trinity
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
I read the scripture contextually. I don't read it to fit into illogical doctrines.
That's what most trin believers are doing.
Guess they never quite understood Him did, they? How many times did they attempt to stone Him?
Rosenritter
New member
The meaning behind the reference to Psalm 82 was two-fold.
1. On the surface naming the Pharisees as corrupt judges ("ye are gods") which itself gets their attention, but
2. More importantly the charge of blasphemy is void in the because face that He (Jesus) is the God that judges the gods with ultimate judgment.
Since both the Old Testament and Christ's words in the New Testament establish that the LORD God Jehovah is he who judges the "gods" and all men (and who can forgive sin but God alone?) the meaning is complete.
I suspect you may be questioning the KJV translation "God judges among the gods" as both "God" and "gods" are from the same Hebrew elohim... but the Hebrew grammar itself shows that the first elohim "God" is speaking of a single person, not a grouping. The "thou" is singular.
Psalms 82:8 KJV
(8) Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
You may want "O God" and "God judges the gods" to mean "not the LORD God" but who else could this be? If it meant "the LORD God plus one" or "the LORD God plus many" (in the sense of elohim including others like saints or created angels) then "thou" (singular) should be "you" (plural).
This means that Jesus is the God that judges the gods, he is the God that shall inherit all nations, he is the God that judges the quick and the dead in the final day. Even if you have reservations (paradigm seldom shifts that quickly) do you at least understand the premise, as to why "I have said, ye are gods" doesn't dispute Christ's status as the LORD God?
Spoiler
Greetings again Rosenritter,
Kind regards
Trevor
I understand that Jesus is the new Elohim, the new Judge who replaces the 70 under Moses, and He, Jesus will judge the former Elohim, the Judges because they were unfaithful and failed to fulfil their role of being impartial, and sought their own wealth and pride through their position of responsibility. God the Father has given this role to Jesus, the Son of God because of his faithfulness, his sinlessness, and Jesus combines all the many roles revealed partially in the OT, High Priest, King, Judge, Prophet, Shepherd. All of this does not prove he is God, but the Son of God, born of Mary, holy in character and raised from the dead and exalted to sit at the right hand of God. Jesus is Elohim, as he represents God and fully reveals all that God is in power and character and immortal being and he is Lord and Master John 20:28. The OT language where it uses "Elohim" for the Judges prepares the way to understand "Elohim" when it applies to Jesus, and helps to understand John 20:28.
Kind regards
Trevor
Mixed_Brown
New member
May I ask where you got that definition of Christian?
This is the first time I have heard that definition so I looked it up in multiple lexicons and they all give a similar definition of ' a follower of Christ' No mention of worship.
Which lexicon did you use?
Rosenritter
New member
That's not the reason we are given why Jesus is the judge. Didn't Jesus say that he had all right of Judgment before he had completed his life, when potentially (as you believe) he had the ability to sin and revoke his faith?
Here's what we are told, below:
Hebrews 1:2-4 KJV
(2) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
(3) Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
(4) Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
If it is by inheritance, this means that Jesus didn't need to do anything to have that more excellent name than the angels. It isn't a question of faith or lack of sin or "living a perfect life" or anything of that sort. Inheritance means it is yours before you enter the equation. Can you explain how that could be possible with a mortal man, someone other than God?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
it literally means "little Christs", a originally derogatory term that was adopted by His followers with pride
Greetings again Rosenritter,
Acts 17:30–31 (KJV): 30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Kind regards
Trevor
I suggest it is remarkable that Jesus was given all authority before his death and resurrection, but nevertheless this was given to him by God, not because he had this in possession before he was born as you would suggest. You seem to work from the concept that Jesus is God, while I work from the concept that that there is one God the Father and that Jesus is a man, born the Son of God.
Acts 17:30–31 (KJV): 30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Jesus is the heir because he is the Son of God, and the potential that was there at his birth was fulfilled in his life, his crucifixion, his death and his resurrection and exaltation. Notice it is God who is speaking through His Son, thus even in this passage we have defined that there is one God the Father, and Jesus is the Son of God.
Kind regards
Trevor
Rosenritter
New member
Strictly speaking, on its face there is nothing contradictory between those two statements. If there is a difference, you would be confusing the meaning of the word "man" from its context.
... such as there, for example. Paul is not preaching "Jesus was only a man" but he is referring them to the the person that they crucified, and introducing the resurrection. Yet the way you are reading "man" is not as if it meant "person" but as if it was a metaphysical species. Genesis 18:2, remind me please, were any of those "three men" simply men in the metaphysical sense? Or were they men as "persons" or even in the form of male persons?
I speak to you through Rosenritter but that doesn't mean there's two different persons with different characters and wills.
If God was trying to persuade you that He was He, is there any form of identification you would accept? Or would nothing work, because no matter what you would in your mind believe that he would never speak directly to you, always staying behind a dark curtain and sending someone else to speak for him?
Greetings again Rosenritter,
Kind regards
Trevor
The contradiction is that I do not accept that Jesus is God in the English sense of the word. I believe that he is “God” (Elohim) in the Biblical sense of the word, and I have tried to explain this when I was speaking about the Judges. In some contexts the Angels are also called “God” (Elohim). There is only one God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
I believe that Jesus was born human, a man child, and he has continued to be a man, but because of his birth also the Son of God. Jesus never had two natures, God and man, but only human nature. He came in the flesh. Jesus is not God in the English sense of the word. The three Angels were in appearance as men, but they were Angels. The record is stating the first impression that these Angels had on Abraham when he first saw them, but he soon realised that they were Angels, and one of them an Arch Angel. They discussed the birth of Isaac and the fate of Sodom.
God has revealed Himself through His Angels and Prophets, but He dwells in Heaven, who no man has seen or can see, in light unapproachable. Jesus is a man, the Son of God, and Peter, James and John saw Jesus in glory at the Transfiguration, a vision of what Jesus will be like at His return.
Kind regards
Trevor
Rosenritter
New member
I'm having trouble discerning an answer from that, but it seemed like a "no". Here's the question again. Was your answer "no, no identification would be or could be accepted?"
Spoiler
Greetings again Rosenritter,
I have stated my basic differences compared to some of the views that you have presented. There is one God the Father. Our Lord Jesus Christ is a man, the Son of God. I feel satisfied in presenting my view of the OT use of Elohim for the Judges and how this helps to understand the subject of this thread John 20:28.
Kind regards
Trevor
I suggest that your comment (repeated in the spoiler) and question is obscure and I would like to avoid this unless you are more specific in what you are aiming at.
I have stated my basic differences compared to some of the views that you have presented. There is one God the Father. Our Lord Jesus Christ is a man, the Son of God. I feel satisfied in presenting my view of the OT use of Elohim for the Judges and how this helps to understand the subject of this thread John 20:28.
Kind regards
Trevor
NWL
Active member
Again your position here is unorthodox and almost every single scholar disagrees with you.
This is extremely poor reasoning, the adversary being spoken of in the verse you alluded to was the one possibly throwing the other party into prison. The adversary himself is not the one being spoken of as in prison. You've literally seen the word "adversary" and the word "prison" in a verse where they aren't even contextually referencing the adversary going or being in prison and somehow believe this is evidence that Satan the adversary was bound in a completely unrelated verse.
You're clutching at straws buddy.
(Matt 5:25) "...Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison..."
Stop with your assumptions! You assume its talking about a demon. almost all scholars, if not all, understand the "Devil" in 1 Peter 5:8 to be Satan, no one understands it to be a demon. The devil is only ever referred to in the singular. Moreover Rev 12:9 plainly shows the Devil (with no definite article) being identified as Satan, destroying your argument.
Poor argumentative skills Bowman. You can't use a scripture in your defense where you've assumed the meaning and is the very point in question.
You assume that the animal/beast are references to demons as spoken in Rev 9, we are currently arguing this point, nowhere in Rev does it say the demons are the ones being spoken of. You trying to link the Devil being called "a roaring lion" and the beasts/animal in Rev having "teeth like a lion" but fail to mention that they are also described as like "horses prepared for battle [with] faces were like human faces, 8 but they had hair like women’s hair" kind of destroys the argument.
(1 Peter 5:8) "..Keep your senses, be watchful! Your adversary, [the] Devil, walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone.."
(Revelation 9:7, 8) "...And in appearance the locusts resembled horses.. their faces were like human faces, 8 but they had hair like women’s hair. And their teeth were like those of lions[/I...And the sound of their wings was like the sound of horse-drawn chariots rushing into battle. 10 Also, they have tails with stingers like scorpions]..."
The two visual comparisons hardly match up.
Angelic beings and even Jesus himself are compared to as Lions, I doubt you would claim they too are Demons or the devil. You're reasoning is not consistent.
(Revelation 5:5) "..But one of the elders said to me: “Stop weeping. Look! The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has conquered so as to open the scroll and its seven seals..”
(Revelation 10:1) "..And I saw another strong angel descending from heaven, arrayed with a cloud, and a rainbow was on his head, and his face was like the sun, and his legs were like pillars of fire... and he cried out with a loud voice just as when a lion roars. And when he cried out, the voices of the seven thunders spoke.."
Answer me this, who is the identity of the king of the locusts as mentioned in Rev 9:11, the one named Abandon?
Last edited:
NWL
Active member
NWL said:
That is one definition that you've cherry picked as it supports your unorthodox belief which all past and present scholars reject.
Strong's concordance
Definition: to change in fashion or appearance
Usage: I change the outward appearance (the dress, the form of presentment) of something, transfigure; I adapt.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Definition
to change in fashion or appearance
NASB Translation
disguise (1), disguises (1), disguising (1), figuratively applied (1), transform (1).
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
middle present μετασχηματίζομαι; to change the figure of, to transform
Show me a single usage where "autos" is used with the understanding of "himself/he" on a person where the subject is referring to a group of beings despite the use of "autos" to a singular said person. As I've mentioned before, your ignoring the language "Satan himself turns in a Angel of light" deal with the reasoning.
I said
John 20-28
said
Where do you come up with this stuff??? Thomas knew that God was in Christ. And Thomas was addressing both of them. And so that He wouldn't be rude by leaving one or the other un addressed. He addressed both of them. My Lord Jesus, and also my God the Father.
John 20:28
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
(NKJ)
2 Cor 5:19
19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
(NKJ)
Matt 7:21-23
21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'LORD, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 "Many will say to Me in that day, 'LORD, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
(NKJ)
Luke 6:46
46 "But why do you call Me 'LORD, Lord,' and do not do the things which I say?
(NKJ)
Luke 13:25-27
25 "When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, 'LORD, Lord, open for us,' and He will answer and say to you, 'I do not know you, where you are from,'
26 "then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.'
27 "But He will say, 'I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.'
(NKJ)
NWL
Active member
And where have I made the claim the verse directly states demons were mentioned. You keep knocking on about that point but I plainly asked you numerous times where the men who turned sticks into snakes, water into blood and frogs to invade the land got their power from. Where did these men get their power to do these supernatural things?
Also, who were the "gods" in reference to when Yahweh in Exo 12:12 said "For I will pass through the land of Egypt on this night and strike every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from man to beast; and I will execute judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am Jehovah"
NWL
Active member
NWL said:
So you claimed you answered my question when you clearly did not, basically you lied. When I asked you where the "apparent" post was all you did is reply "Rev 20". If I'm wrong and you didn't lie in you original response to me, then provide the post number where you answered my point.
Secondly, how does Rev 20 show ONLY God has the power to bind Satan. Once again instead of giving a informed response you post a chapter, how does that answer my question? I might as well answer Genesis Chapter 1 - Revelation 22 in every instance a defense is called upon me, how foolish.
Once again, show us where the bibles the teaches that only God has the power to bind Satan? And don't forget to show me the post number where you've "apparently" answered this
NWL
Active member
NWL said:
You didn't answer my question, all you did is repeat yourself, furthermore, I never stated or asked if demons occupied Jesus flesh, so have no clue why you said what you said about Jesus, this is not in dispute.
Once again, did Demons occupy flesh by means of possession or did they occupy flesh the same way Jesus "became flesh" (John 1:14)? Answer please.
Last edited: