For free will believers out there

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Renniks said:
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?[/Quote\]

The thing is you and others try to take the scripture John 8:58 out of context. Too many people are trying to say that Jesus was talking about his identity but he was talking about his age, "saying he existed before Abraham was born."
Many modern Bible translators, as the following quotations will prove translate John 8:58 not with the words, "I AM." Moffatt says: “I have existed before Abraham was born.” Schonfield and An American Translation says: “I existed before Abraham was born.” Stage (German): “Before Abraham came to be, I was.” Pfaefflin (German): “Before there was an Abraham, I was already there!” George M. Lamsa, translating from the Syriac Peshitta, says: “Before Abraham was born, I was.” Dr. James Murdock, also translating from the Syriac Peshitto Version, says: “Before Abraham existed, I was.” The Brazilian Sacred Bible published by the Catholic Bible Center of São Paulo says: “Before Abraham existed, I was existing.”
For anyone to try to make out only the Jehovah Witnesses have a different translation at John 8:58 is ludicrous. Such people show they don't do much research.
Also something that people don't want to acknowledge is that those who translates Egoeimi as, "I AM," fail to tell people that at John 8:24,28 where the word Egoeimi is, in those scriptures Egoeimi is translated, I am he." So why in the scriptures of John 8:24,28 the word Egoeimi there is translated, "I am he," but not translated like that at, John 8:58?
It seems to me that they are trying to say that John 8:58 is referring back to Exodus 3:14. However in the Greek Septuagint version of the scriptures the greek word, "Egoeimi," isn't there alone by itself, what's there is the greek words, " Egoeimi hoOn," which means, I am The Being," or, "I amThe One who is." Also in Exodus 3:14 it doesn't say, "Egoeimi,"has sent me to you but instead says, "hoOn," has sent me to you.
The greek word there at John 8:58 should be translated, "I have been."

 

[Brakelite]

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.

.

Until you recognise the divinity of the Son of God, any discussion on the efficacy of the atonement vis a vis God/man/both is pointless.
In the beginning John opened his gospel by writing “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1
Interesting is the way the New English Bible renders this verse. It says “When all things began, the word already was. The word dwelt with God and what God was, the word was.” John 1:1 New English Bible
What needs to be noted is that one literal rendering of this verse could be ‘In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God [Gr. ton qeon], and the Word was God [Gr. qeov]’. I believe you may have referred to this previously.
In this particular instance, in using these words this way, John was conveying the thought that in the sense of divine personages, ‘the God’ was separate from ‘the Word’ yet the Word ‘was God’. By his usage of words, John is saying that the Word was God essentially (the Word was everything that God is) but He is not God in personality (in personage). Here ‘the God’ is the Father. Look at it this way. If John had said that ‘the Word’ was with ‘ton qeon’ (the God), and the Word was ‘ton qeon’ (the God)’, this would not make any sense. It would be saying that both ‘the Word’ and ‘the God’ are the same individual personages - which they are not. Here he is saying that the Word is fully and completely God yet at the same time differentiating Him from the ‘one God’, meaning the infinite God, the Father (see John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6). This was his purpose in writing this way. He wanted to say that both were God – also that God (which must mean the Father) and the Word were two separate personages. This does not make ‘the Word’ (the Son of God) any less divine than ‘the God’ (the Father) because as we may repeatedly see, the Scriptures clearly reveal that Christ is God Himself in the person of the Son. It is just that the Son is not ‘the God’ in individual personage. The latter is the Father. John’s purpose was to identify the personage of the Son (see John 20:31). In an article called ‘Trinitarian trickery’ I found an interesting statement. It said (this was referring to John 1:1)
“A point of contention concerning this passage has been the signficance of the absence of the definite article ho ("the") with the second occurrence of the word theos. John says "the word was with the theos and the word was theos" but he does not say "the word was the theos." In Koine Greek it was conventional to precede a person's name or title with the definite article when referring to that person. So in Koine Greek it was conventional to refer to "God" as "the god," unlike our English convention.” (Trinitarian trickery, A complete exposé of the false doctrines of the Trinity, www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinitarian-trickery-John-1-1.html)
That the Son of God (the Word) is as much ‘God’ as is God the Father is not in question. As Paul wrote to the Colossians “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” Colossians 2:9
Other translations render this verse this way “For it is in Christ that the fulness of God's nature dwells embodied, and in Him you are made complete.” Colossians 2:9 Weymouth New Testament
“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” Colossians 2:9 New International Version
“For in Him the entire fullness of God's nature dwells bodily” Colossians 2:9 Holman Christian Standard Bible
“For in him all the wealth of God's being has a living form” Colossians 2:9 The Bible in Basic English
“For in him, bodily, lives the fullness of all that God is” Colossians 2:9 The Complete Jewish Bible
God was indwelling in Christ in reality meaning bodily (corporeal). There was no pretence involved. Christ is God in flesh. There are also other texts of Scripture which tell us that Christ is God essentially. These are such as Hebrews 1:8 which says “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” Hebrews 1:8 Here we can see God talking to the Son yet He (God) is calling Him (the Son) God. This is a citation from Psalm 45:6. Another text to consider is Philippians 2:6. This one says concerning Christ “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:” Philippians 2:6
Apart from being told that in His pre-existence Christ was “equal with God”, we are also told that He was once “in the form of God”. As we reason this through, we need to remember that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the apostle Paul wrote “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” 1 Timothy 3:16.
Jesus Christ was essentially God, but laid aside all His Divine attributes in order to live and function as a fully 100% human... Of the seed of Abraham... Fallen man.
Upon His resurrection those Divine attributes were restored.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Until you recognise the divinity of the Son of God, any discussion on the efficacy of the atonement vis a vis God/man/both is pointless.
In the beginning John opened his gospel by writing “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1
Interesting is the way the New English Bible renders this verse. It says “When all things began, the word already was. The word dwelt with God and what God was, the word was.” John 1:1 New English Bible
What needs to be noted is that one literal rendering of this verse could be ‘In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God [Gr. ton qeon], and the Word was God [Gr. qeov]’. I believe you may have referred to this previously.
In this particular instance, in using these words this way, John was conveying the thought that in the sense of divine personages, ‘the God’ was separate from ‘the Word’ yet the Word ‘was God’. By his usage of words, John is saying that the Word was God essentially (the Word was everything that God is) but He is not God in personality (in personage). Here ‘the God’ is the Father. Look at it this way. If John had said that ‘the Word’ was with ‘ton qeon’ (the God), and the Word was ‘ton qeon’ (the God)’, this would not make any sense. It would be saying that both ‘the Word’ and ‘the God’ are the same individual personages - which they are not. Here he is saying that the Word is fully and completely God yet at the same time differentiating Him from the ‘one God’, meaning the infinite God, the Father (see John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6). This was his purpose in writing this way. He wanted to say that both were God – also that God (which must mean the Father) and the Word were two separate personages. This does not make ‘the Word’ (the Son of God) any less divine than ‘the God’ (the Father) because as we may repeatedly see, the Scriptures clearly reveal that Christ is God Himself in the person of the Son. It is just that the Son is not ‘the God’ in individual personage. The latter is the Father. John’s purpose was to identify the personage of the Son (see John 20:31). In an article called ‘Trinitarian trickery’ I found an interesting statement. It said (this was referring to John 1:1)
“A point of contention concerning this passage has been the signficance of the absence of the definite article ho ("the") with the second occurrence of the word theos. John says "the word was with the theos and the word was theos" but he does not say "the word was the theos." In Koine Greek it was conventional to precede a person's name or title with the definite article when referring to that person. So in Koine Greek it was conventional to refer to "God" as "the god," unlike our English convention.” (Trinitarian trickery, A complete exposé of the false doctrines of the Trinity, www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinitarian-trickery-John-1-1.html)
That the Son of God (the Word) is as much ‘God’ as is God the Father is not in question. As Paul wrote to the Colossians “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” Colossians 2:9
Other translations render this verse this way “For it is in Christ that the fulness of God's nature dwells embodied, and in Him you are made complete.” Colossians 2:9 Weymouth New Testament
“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” Colossians 2:9 New International Version
“For in Him the entire fullness of God's nature dwells bodily” Colossians 2:9 Holman Christian Standard Bible
“For in him all the wealth of God's being has a living form” Colossians 2:9 The Bible in Basic English
“For in him, bodily, lives the fullness of all that God is” Colossians 2:9 The Complete Jewish Bible
God was indwelling in Christ in reality meaning bodily (corporeal). There was no pretence involved. Christ is God in flesh. There are also other texts of Scripture which tell us that Christ is God essentially. These are such as Hebrews 1:8 which says “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” Hebrews 1:8 Here we can see God talking to the Son yet He (God) is calling Him (the Son) God. This is a citation from Psalm 45:6. Another text to consider is Philippians 2:6. This one says concerning Christ “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:” Philippians 2:6
Apart from being told that in His pre-existence Christ was “equal with God”, we are also told that He was once “in the form of God”. As we reason this through, we need to remember that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the apostle Paul wrote “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” 1 Timothy 3:16.
Jesus Christ was essentially God, but laid aside all His Divine attributes in order to live and function as a fully 100% human... Of the seed of Abraham... Fallen man.
Upon His resurrection those Divine attributes were restored.

I'm not going to deny that it was the Only Begotten Son of God who came to the world of mankind as a perfect sinless human.

 

[Taken]

For free will believers out there
OP

Concerning QUESTION:
What About the People who have Never Heard the NAME Jesus...or HIS Message?

BACKGROUND:
The Facts are revealed IN Scripture.
*) 2,000+ years ago Jesus' Message was Revealed on this Earth.
*) 6,000+ years ago Gods Message was Revealed on this Earth.
*) FOR 6,000+ years the WORD OF GOD has been heard by men, taught by men, encouraged and spread by men.
*) FOR 6,000+ years MEN;
have HEARD the WORD of GOD,
Rejected what they HEARD,
Made "unseen" mythical creatures gods,
Made "visible" men gods.
Made "visible statues", men have called gods.

Point Being... "god" is a world wide concept in every culture.

God Himself is CLEAR;
* Obviously if a man has NOT heard the NAME JESUS, the man can Neither ACCEPT or REJECT He who bears the name JESUS.

SCRIPTURALLY REVEALED:
* God SEARCHES all mens HEARTS "FOR" their BELIEFS.
* Without having HEARD of JESUS' NAME...
Without having KNOWN the Word of God....;
* ANY MAN, Having BELIEVED IN HIS HEART,
Something Greater THAN A HUMAN MAN;
CREATED and MADE;
The sky, stars, earth, (which he can SEE)...
THAT MAN, SHALL BE SAVED.

Jer 17: (OT)
[10] I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings

Rev 2: (NT)
[23] And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

Rom 1:
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Inanutshell - God searches and knows the thoughts of a mans heart, of a man who believes something greater than man, is the Creator and Maker.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Brakelite]

I'm not going to deny that it was the Only Begotten Son of God who came to the world of mankind as a perfect sinless human.

But the question is, who was He before His incarnation?

 

[Behold]

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.

God is the Father.
Jesus is the Son.

Genesis 1 says...>>"Let us make man in OUR Image".

"OUR" is God the Father, and God the WORD..
Jesus is the WORD made Flesh.
John 1:10, : JESUS was in the world, and the world was MADE BY HIM, and the world knew him not."

Colossians 1:16... tells you that all things were MADE by Jesus, who is the power that holds all things together.

God SPOKE, and creation began and JESUS is the WORD.

 

[Behold]

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.

The virgin birth is the fulfillment of an OT Prophesy, that stated how GOD would come to earth as a person.
Jesus is God, in the flesh., while Father God is "A" Spirit.

 

[Behold]

But the question is, who was He before His incarnation?

The Word.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
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.

Scriptures said, in Adam ALL die, the ALL referring to all of Adam’s seed. All then includes young and old, black or white.

Mark 10:13Then they brought little children to Him, that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14But when Jesus saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to them, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. 15Assuredly, I say to you,whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”16And He took them up in His arms, laid His hands on them, and blessed them.

In v.14, Jesus was referring to little children and said concerning them “of such is the kingdom of God”. I understand by that, that it places the little children to be part of the kingdom of God, not only that Jesus in v.15 speaks to the child like receiving of the kingdom of God. Verse 16 supports this understanding.

Tong2020 said: ↑
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?

<<<First, No where does it say Jesus
preached the gospel.>>>

With reference to 1 Peter 3:19, what do you suggest Christ preached by the Spirit then, considering the context, if not the gospel?

<<<Second Paul specifically declares that the gospel is for damnation to those who reject it.>>>

The gospel is good news. The gospel is of salvation, not damnation. Those who reject it does not alter the gospel of salvation, nor make it a gospel of condemnation to them.

<<<Are you saying that Jesus preached to the worlds inhabitants in the time of Noah and preached His death Burial and REsurrection?>>>

It is becoming apparently clear that what you see and how you take the gospel of salvation is different from what I see and how I take it.

No, I am not saying that.

<<<Are you also saying that all the worlds inhabitants except Noah and his family were in prison?>>>

With regards the phrase “spirits in prison”, who they refer to is told us in 1 Pet.3:20. They are those who were all destroyed in the flood. Peter used the phrase “spirits in prison” to refer to them ~ spirits as they were all already dead at the time of his writing, and in prison as they have all been taken prisoners or captives by the devil.

Tong2020 said: ↑
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.”

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?

As I said above, it is becoming apparently clear that what you see and how you take the gospel is different from what I see and how I take it. Your asking that question tells me so.

As I said in my other reply post to you, 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?

Have you ask yourself those questions there? If so, do you have your answer?

Tong
R2369

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
In your mind perhaps. For truth never can be refuted.

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

What position of yours? And I know not having ignored anything in your post that I reply to.

Tong
R2370

 

[Tong2020]

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

Excuse me. I’d just like to ask.

Do you see that in Mark 14:62 as blasphemy? If so? Why?

Tong
R2371

 

[Truther]

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

Tong
R2359

Greek.

Now, we must refer to the most ancient translators that used the election process(instead of one man) to translate it accurately.

This qualified the KJV translators to the task of getting it right the first time.

 

[Truther]

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

Was Jesus only the son of God or was he also the son of man as he proclaimed?

If you cannot answer who "man" is that Jesus said he was the son of, then you must reset your belief system.

 

[Truther]

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.

It does not say that.

It says the man Jesus was made that way.

No wonder you have a private translation(NWT) for a private interpretation made exclusively for your denomination's taste buds.

The NIV etc are also your modern translation buddies.

 

[Tong2020]

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.

Yes, Adam is not a God-man. He is a man. Jesus, is a man too like Adam, like any of His brethren in the flesh, like any of us for that matter. But He is the Word incarnate, the Word who was God. He came as a man and not as God. But that being the case, it does not mean He ceased to being God.

Tong
R2372

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
You did not answer my question.

To whom will God buy back?

I answered that question.

The question is “To whom will God buy back?”

To be clear then, your answer is?

1- God
2- Satan
3 - ?

Tong
R2373

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
And these copies of John 1:14, are they in English text or Greek text?

Greek.

Now, we must refer to the most ancient translators that used the election process(instead of one man) to translate it accurately.

This qualified the KJV translators to the task of getting it right the first time.

What is the Greek text translated “made” in the KJV?

Tong
R2375

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
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?

Was Jesus only the son of God or was he also the son of man as he proclaimed?

If you cannot answer who "man" is that Jesus said he was the son of, then you must reset your belief system.

You really don’t get it, why I believe that Jesus is the Son of man. I don’t need to know as you seem to need to, to believe that He is whom Jesus say He is, that He is the Son of Man. Scriptures did not say Jesus is “a” Son of Man nor did it say Jesus is the “Son of a Man”, but said He is “the Son of Man”.

Tong
R2376

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

But the question is, who was He before His incarnation?

First of all I've said this plenty of times that the Apostle John at 1John 4:9 called the person who became Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God before he became human. So the person who came to the world of mankind as a human was the Only Begotten Son of God while in heaven with his Father who is God before he came to the world of mankind as Jesus Christ. Jesus was in God's form in heaven before he came to the world of mankind. Stay alert this scripture doesn't say Jesus was God, it says he was in God's form. Philippians 2:5-7
Regardless of what any council or man has said about Jesus’ nature, the only reliable source of religious truth is the Bible. This Word reveals that Jesus is God’s Son and as such he was not and is not God. Jesus himself said: “I am God’s Son.” To Mary the angel Gabriel said: “What is born will be called holy, God’s Son.” Nothing is said of a God-man or a man-God. Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus called a “God-man” or “God incarnate.” Such assumptions are strictly human illusions tainted with paganism. John 10:36; Luke 1:34,35; 2:21
The scriptures show us at Revelation 3:14 that Jesus is referred to as the beginning of the creation by God. I have never believed God to be a part of creation but apart or separate of creation, yet not only is Jesus said to be the beginning of creation at Revelation 3:14 but at Colossians 1:15 he is said to be, "the firstborn of creation." Now why would Jesus be said to be, "the firstborn of creation," when such a phrase when used regarding animals or humans in the scriptures show what is said to be firstborn of, is part of that group. What I mean is when you say something like, "the firstborn of," Egypt, the scriptures are talking about people in that nation called Egypt. When the scriptures say, "the firstborn of," Israel, the scriptures are talking about people in the nation called Israel. So going by how the scriptures use the phrase, "the firstborn of," Jesus is a person who is a part of creation. As I said God isn't a part of creation, but the Only Begotten Son of God is.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

It does not say that.

It says the man Jesus was made that way.

No wonder you have a private translation(NWT) for a private interpretation made exclusively for your denomination's taste buds.

The NIV etc are also your modern translation buddies.

You're the one not going by scripture because Philippians 2:5-8 says that the Only Begotten Son of God existed in heaven before he came to the world of mankind and while in heaven before becoming human he was in God's form. You can deny that all you want but that's what the scriptures say.