For free will believers out there

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
And where was the KJV translated from?

Copies, and copies of copies.

And these copies of John 1:14, are they in English text or Greek text?

Tong
R2359

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
That Jesus is the Son of man is not by qualification. Jesus claimed and said He is the Son of Man. Scriptures speaks of Him to be the Son of Man. What Jesus says is the truth. No qualification needed for that.

Who was the "man" that Jesus was the son of?

Still asking that? Is Jesus and scriptures not enough for you to believe that Jesus is the Son of Man? Do you have doubts about that?

Scriptures also testified that Jesus is the Son of God? Do you believe that? If you do, why do you believe that? Is it not because the scriptures says so?

Tong
R2360

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<that transgression must be atoned for by someone equal to the authority of that law.>>>

I was wondering where is that taught in scriptures?

Throughout the Old Testament. Throughout the whole of scripture. The High Priest who made the final yearly atonement for Israel was the representative of the messiah, Christ, the Son of God. No-one else had the authority to enter the Most Holy Place to present the blood before the Ark containing the law of God. No-one but the Son, who gave the law at Sinai, has the authority to redeem those who rebelled against it.
The law of God is as sacred as God Himself, as it is a written reflection of the character of the Lawgiver. Thus only one as sacred as the law could atone for its transgression.

Who do you say transgressed or sinned? And to whom had they sinned against?

Is not the sinner the one who needs to make atonement to the one who they had offended and sinned against?

Now you said “transgression must be atoned for by someone equal to the authority of that law”. How is that? Is atonement for the transgression or for the transgressor? Who do you say must make atonement? Must it not be the one who transgressed?

Now, in the law, God told Israel how they could make atonement for themselves, individually and collectively. That they are to offer a sacrifice of atonement to God, which they could offer through the high priest. And when such have been done according to the law, have they made atonement or not?

Tong
R2361

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Nothing is as unbiblical as the trinity. The trinity is not in the Bible - not the word, not the idea.

The Word is made up but the reality is biblical as I have shown on multiple threads.

The Father is God and called Jehovah
The Son is God and called Jehovah'
The Spirit is God and called Jehovah (Hebrew N.T.)

The Father is called God
The son is called God
The Spirit is called God.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Still asking that? Is Jesus and scriptures not enough for you to believe that Jesus is the Son of Man? Do you have doubts about that?

Scriptures also testified that Jesus is the Son of God? Do you believe that? If you do, why do you believe that? Is it not because the scriptures says so?

Tong
R2360

And for most here that are gentiles and not Jews, son of Man is a Messianic title.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That in Adam all die and that includes the young and old, and that Jesus said concerning little children that of such is the the kingdom of God. That faith through which God saves man, comes from Him. That God have mercy on whom He wills. Those are all revealed in scriptures. And my view, though am not dogmatic about it, is based on that.

Until when? do pagan children count? do Muslim children who worship Allah count? I take it you believe in that mystical age of accountability that does not appear in the Bible. And the passage about jesus allowing children is a metaphor (for teh word such is used) It was not designed to be literal but to exemplify that child like trust is what makes up those in the kingdom.

It seems that you did not see the time when Jesus, by the Spirit preached the gospel. It was during the time when Noah was building the ark. Meaning, when they were still alive. And the gospel is not that of damnation but of salvation.

First, No where does it say Jesus
preached the gospel.
Second Paul specifically declares that the gospel is for damnation to those who reject it.
3. Are you saying that Jesus preached to the worlds inhabitants in the time of Noah and preached His death Burial and REsurrection? Are you also saying that all the worlds inhabitants except Noah and his family were in prison?

As I said in the post you were responding to, “I am afraid that you have a somewhat different perspective of what the gospel is, as I had in the past. But keep reading God’s words and perhaps the time will come when you too will see it as I see it now. And since no flesh and blood made me see that, I believe that too will be with you when you see it.”

Now, there are not two gospels of salvation but one, and that even from the beginning. Try asking yourself, if you believe that there is only one gospel of salvation (unto eternal life and inheritance), what is that one gospel that did not change?

That one gospel was preached to men throughout all generations. It came in various ways and forms, the last time, being through the Son of God, Jesus Christ. In all of those ways and forms, what is it that is preached in all?

so are you saying that the death and burial and resurrection of Jesus for sins has been preached since after the fall and not since just the start of the church age?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Manuscripts supporting Monogenes Theos:

• Papyrus 66 [Papyrus Bodmer II] A.D. c. 200 (Martin), A.D. 100-150 (Hunger)
• Papyrus 75 (A.D. 175-225)
• Codex א - Sinaiticus (c. 330–360)
• Codex B - Vaticanus (c. 325–350)
• Codex C - Eprhraemi Rescriptus (5th C.)
• Apostolic Constitutions (A.D. 375 -380)
• Codex L - Regius (A.D 701-800)
• Bohairic Coptic [Codex Bodmer III]
• (A.D. 300)Diatessaron ("Out of Four") of Titan the Syrian [Arabic version] (c. 160-175)
• Syriac Peshitta (A.D 150)
• Adysh manuscript (A.D 897)-Gregordian-Georgian/Iberian version
• Opiza manuscript (A.D 913)
• Tbet’ manuscript (A.D 995)
• Minuscule 423 (A.D 1556)

At John 1:18 it's needed to be explained that the word μονογενὴς is mono-produced. So μονογενὴς θεός does not mean the "only god" but "the only produced god", "the only created god", or "the only begotten god". It can't be denied that this passage describes an entity that is produced/created. So that the possibility exists that the passage says "the only produced/created god".

First of all the name Emmanuel means, "with us is God," not, "God in human flesh."

Also there was a Jew who was a prophet named Isaiah who first mentioned the name Emmanuel during King Ahaz reign. (Isaiah 7:14; 8:8)
During King Ahaz reign of the 8th century B.C.E. kings Pekah and Resin, the Kings of Israel and Syria were bent on overthrowing king Ahaz. Jehovah God remembered his kingdom Covenant with David and sent his prophet with this reassuring message: Listen, please, O house of David, Jehovah himself will give you men a sign: Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Emmanuel. Butter and honey he will eat by the time that he knows how to reject the bad and choose the good. For before the boy will know how to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground of whose two kings you are feeling a sickening dread will be left entirely.” Isaiah 7:13-16 Now this was around 8 centuries before Jesus was on Earth. So am I to consider this Jew God because he had the name Emmanuel? I don't think so. The scriptures are being very clear when it says no man has seen God at anytime. This would include when Jesus Christ was on Earth.

It was a common practice among Jews to embody the word “God,” even “Jehovah,” in Hebrew names. Even today Immanuel is the proper name of many men, none of whom are incarnations of God.

However the Angel Gabriel didn't tell Mary to name the child she was carrying Emmanuel, Mighty God, wonderful counselor, but Isaiah said he would be called these names. They were all prophetic title-names by which Messiah would be identified. Jesus lived up to the meaning of these names in every respect, and that is the sense in which they were prophetically given, to show his qualities and the good offices he would perform toward all those accepting him as Messiah. So also with his title Immanuel. He measured up to and fulfilled its meaning.

With the coming of his beloved Son to earth as the promised Messianic “seed” (Ge 3:15) and rightful heir to the throne of David, Jehovah was furnishing his greatest sign that he had not forsaken mankind or his Kingdom covenant. The title-name Immanuel, therefore, was particularly appropriate to Christ, for his presence was indeed a sign from heaven. And with this foremost representative of Jehovah among mankind, Matthew under inspiration could truly say, “With Us Is God.”

1. Some of those are very obscure manuscripts.
2. Jesus is called God in john 1:1 and John 1:18 yet you reject calling HIm God.
3. God is with us is the exact meaning of emmanuel- Jesus was Emmanuel- or God with us. Isaiah was prophesying about Jesus There was no Emmanuel before Jesus. NO written history of anyone called by that name. Jesus fulfilled those prophecies. The name Emmanuel appears only three times 2X times in Isaiah and once in Matthew and all three refer to jesus.

Yes Hebrews used God in names (like Michael) but never gave the name Emmanuel to anyone- that would have been blasphemy in Israel if not true of the person!

Yes Isaiah called Jesus the mighty god. JOhn called HIm almighty God!

And though your quote from watchtower material is slick and well written, it is a lie! Jesus represented HIs Father as God the Son! Not merely an angel who was or is god-like and a god(only one true god so I guess jesus is a false god like the others). And BTW "with us is god" is an improper translation of the passage. It is a transliteration but is incorrect grammatically. God is with us is the correct translation grammatically. But tehn again the Watchtower has never been keen on following rules of grammar.

 

[Wrangler]

In your mind perhaps. For truth never can be refuted.

That’s right. I provided multiple verses supporting my position that you ignored.

 

[Wrangler]

But that's what they were trying to kill him for! Not just any blasphemy.

Nope. For admitting being the Messiah, the Son, not incarnation. See Mark 14:61-62

 

[Wrangler]

= Speaking as God in the flesh.

Wrong. Over and over and over the Apostles and Jesus stated the God alone is the Father alone.

How did Jesus tell us to pray - only to the Father.

 

[Wrangler]

The Word is made up but the reality is biblical as I have shown on multiple threads.

The Father is God and called Jehovah
The Son is God and called Jehovah'
The Spirit is God and called Jehovah (Hebrew N.T.)

The Father is called God
The son is called God
The Spirit is called God.

Except none of this is true or in the Bible. There is no 3rd person who is God. There is only God and his son. God is Spirit and he is Holy. His Spirit is wholly.

 

[Wrangler]

To say """there was no incarnation"""" is to deny the Virgin Birth of Jesus The Christ.
Are you sure you want to do that on a "Christian" forum?
Think about it more, before you proceed.

The words I just quoted in 1 Peter 1:3 mean nothing to you. God alone is the Father alone.

The tie in to the virgin birth is a distraction and irrelevant to 1 Peter 1:3.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

.....Angel incarnation. Now we have seen it all.

Philippians 2:5-9 tells us that the Only Begotten Son of God existed in heaven in God form but then took a slaves form and became human.

 

[Wrangler]

And who raised Jesus up in verse 9?

 

[Renniks]

Nope. For admitting being the Messiah, the Son, not incarnation. See Mark 14:61-62

"For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." John 5:18

“I and the Father are one.” 31The Jews took up stones again to stone Him.32Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God,” (John 10:30-33)

again: John 8:58-59, “Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” 59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that John 8:58 should be translated as ” . . . before Abraham was, I have been,” not “I am.” But what is it about saying, “I have been” that would motivate the Jews to want to kill Jesus?

It isn’t blasphemy to state that you have pre-existed. It is, however, blasphemy to claim to be God; after all, that is what the Jews accused Jesus of claiming for Himself in John 10:31 when they again picked up stones to kill Him.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Throughout the Old Testament. Throughout the whole of scripture. The High Priest who made the final yearly atonement for Israel was the representative of the messiah, Christ, the Son of God. No-one else had the authority to enter the Most Holy Place to present the blood before the Ark containing the law of God. No-one but the Son, who gave the law at Sinai, has the authority to redeem those who rebelled against it.
The law of God is as sacred as God Himself, as it is a written reflection of the character of the Lawgiver. Thus only one as sacred as the law could atone for its transgression.

There were no Jews when Adam rebelled against God's Commandment.

I'm simply saying man is in need of a sin covering, or atonement, due to inherited sin (King 8:46; Psalm 51:5; Ecclesiastes 7:20; Roman 3:23), responsibility for which rests, not with God, but with man himself. (Deuteronomy 32:4,5) Adam, who lost everlasting life in human perfection, bequeathed sin and death to his offspring (Roman 5:12) and Adam’s descendants therefore came under condemnation to death. If humankind was to regain the opportunity to enjoy everlasting life, then, in harmony with a legal principle that Jehovah later included in the Mosaic Law, namely, that like must go for like, exact atonement would be required for what had been lost by Adam. Deuteronomy 19:21
Again Adam wasn't a God-Man so if the Only Begotten Son of God was a God-Man then he wasn't like Adam, he was more than Adam not like him.

.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

You did not answer my question.

To whom will God buy back?

Tong
R2358

I answered that question.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

1. Some of those are very obscure manuscripts.
2. Jesus is called God in john 1:1 and John 1:18 yet you reject calling HIm God.
3. God is with us is the exact meaning of emmanuel- Jesus was Emmanuel- or God with us. Isaiah was prophesying about Jesus There was no Emmanuel before Jesus. NO written history of anyone called by that name. Jesus fulfilled those prophecies. The name Emmanuel appears only three times 2X times in Isaiah and once in Matthew and all three refer to jesus.

Yes Hebrews used God in names (like Michael) but never gave the name Emmanuel to anyone- that would have been blasphemy in Israel if not true of the person!

Yes Isaiah called Jesus the mighty god. JOhn called HIm almighty God!

And though your quote from watchtower material is slick and well written, it is a lie! Jesus represented HIs Father as God the Son! Not merely an angel who was or is god-like and a god(only one true god so I guess jesus is a false god like the others). And BTW "with us is god" is an improper translation of the passage. It is a transliteration but is incorrect grammatically. God is with us is the correct translation grammatically. But tehn again the Watchtower has never been keen on following rules of grammar.

I didn't think you would agree with them you will speak out against anyone or anything that goes against what you believe is the truth, which is your right. Just remember I don't agree with you either which is my right.

 

[Wrangler]

"For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." John 5:18

Really? You take this verse as supporting your position and sweeping the one I provided away?

John is talking about equality NOT the Pharisees.

 

[Renniks]

Really? You take this verse as supporting your position and sweeping the one I provided away?

John is talking about equality NOT the Pharisees.

33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but wfor blasphemy, because you, being a man, xmake yourself God.”