Incarnation

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Something is really bothering me. Maybe I’ve here far to long(on the board). You asked me before where I come up with such stupid ideas. Above you said, Christ was the Last Adam and second Man? Why is that never related to:

Isaiah 48:11-12
[11] For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it : for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another. [12] Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

Isaiah 41:4
[4] Who hath wrought and done it , calling the generations from the beginning? I the Lord , the first, and with the last; I am he.

Isaiah 44:6
[6] Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

1 Corinthians 15:45-46
[45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. [46] Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

Revelation 2:8
[8] And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

Revelation 22:13
[13] I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

God doesn’t have a beginning and an end, except in our time??

“Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.”

Sorry for using the word 'stupid'. I argue and debate believers and atheists and these sometimes get pretty heated and words like this are tossed around frequently. Then when moving to another post, sometimes I forget to turn down the tone. My apologies.

Understand I did not say Christ was the Last Adam and Second Man. Scripture says it. (1 Cor. 15:45-47).

The verses you give are not the same subject matter as (1 Cor. 15:45-47). And in these verses Christ is never the 'first'. He is the Last and Second.

The questions here that should be asked is what does it mean that Christ is the Last Adam and Second Man. I am pretty sure I started a thread devoted to that, but far be it from me to know where it is. It was quite a while back.

Stranger
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

BARNEY BRIGHT

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,032
1,119
113
67
Thomaston Georgia
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In St. John's letters (1 John 4, 2 John 1), he tells us that the spirit of the Antichrist denies the Incarnation (the Son of God becoming man) and thereby also the Trinity (the Father and the Spirit, too). This is the spirit of the Antichrist. We got your number. Don't call us, we'll call you.

The Angels that God would send to his people with a message and those Angels would appear to God's people looking like they were men. Well see that's an incarnation. The Angels may appeared like they were men but they were not actual 100% perfect human. However when God used his Holy Spirit to transfer his only begotten Son who was a spiritual person into the womb of Mary when God only begotten Son was born he was a 100% perfect human baby who grew up to be a 100% perfect huan man. Not an incarnation of a man, but a 100% perfect flesh and blood human man. Incarnations are what Angels do.

With that being said, at 1John 4:2,3 it tells you how you will know if a statement is inspired by God. If that statement says or acknowledge Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh it orginates with God.

And at 1John 4:9 it tells you you are from God and in his love if you agree that God sent his only begotten Son into the world. That it was the only begotten Son who became a 100% perfect human person. Anyone who denies this is listening to the Antichrist.

At 2John 1:7 it tells us that there many deceivers in the world who deny Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. Again the scriptures tell us that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. It is the only begotten Son who came in the flesh. Those who believe in the incarnation are the ones who are saying that it's not the only begotten Son who became flesh,but God who became flesh therefore such people are the ones who deny that it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh.
 

VictoryinJesus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,633
7,901
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Sorry for using the word 'stupid'. I argue and debate believers and atheists and these sometimes get pretty heated and words like this are tossed around frequently. Then when moving to another post, sometimes I forget to turn down the tone. My apologies.

Understand I did not say Christ was the Last Adam and Second Man. Scripture says it. (1 Cor. 15:45-47).

The verses you give are not the same subject matter as (1 Cor. 15:45-47). And in these verses Christ is never the 'first'. He is the Last and Second.

The questions here that should be asked is what does it mean that Christ is the Last Adam and Second Man. I am pretty sure I started a thread devoted to that, but far be it from me to know where it is. It was quite a while back.

Stranger

It’s okay. I took no offense but was only bringing it up to warn you another one of those ideas might follow. “The questions here that should be asked is what does it mean that Christ is the Last Adam and Second Man” You said the verses are not the same subject matter: Isaiah 44:6
[6] Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

But is that true?
1 Corinthians 15:45-49
[45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. [46] Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. [47] The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. [48] As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. [49] And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

‘As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.”

Is it not about bearing an image?Genesis 1:26-27 [26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Didn’t Adam bear God’s image first in paradise(heaven) before sin entered and man fell, separated from God.

Genesis 5:3
[3] And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Genesis 9:6-7
[6] Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. [7] And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

John 3:30-31
[30] He must increase, but I must decrease. [31] He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

Does not a thread run through the word of: that which comes last (the Spiritual) becomes the first? And the first(natural), becomes last. We see this in Job and in:

Revelation 2:19
[19] I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.

It has everything to do with bearing an image. Either that which is false, or that image which is true. By no means am I suggesting God as being first in the image of fallen man but first in that Adam(the first) originally bore an image of truth until a lie entered in. Second man, Last Adam also bears the image of truth(the expressed image of God).
Revelation 22:13-14
[13] I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. [14] Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
 
Last edited:

BARNEY BRIGHT

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,032
1,119
113
67
Thomaston Georgia
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Barney

You can believe what you want. But Scripture disagrees with you. (1 Cor. 15:45-47). Christ is not the second Adam. If you want to change the Scripture, then your theology is flawed. Which of course you are a shining example of.

Stranger

Yes I will continue to believe that when the 1st 100% perfect human sinned who's name was Adam God decided to send his only begotten Son to earth at the appointed time, so that means that when God only begotten Son was on earth he was the second 100% perfect human man to ever be on this Earth, he was the second or last Adam.
 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Barney

You can believe what you want. But Scripture disagrees with you. (1 Cor. 15:45-47). Christ is not the second Adam. If you want to change the Scripture, then your theology is flawed. Which of course you are a shining example of.

Stranger
I think NEW ADAM and NEW EVE is scripturally and theologically sound. It fulfills the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 as the beginning of developmented covenants. A family, a tribe, a nation, prophetic realities shifting to earthly realities (Ark) to human realities (Jesus and His mother) to heavenly realities (Rev.11:19 12:1, 12:17) This is a very incomplete summary.
+++...
In most editions of the Douay-Rheims Bible, Genesis 3:15, in which God is addressing the serpent, reads like this:

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

In the New American Bible, as in all other modern Bibles, it reads like this:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

The essential difference between these two renderings -- or at least the one people always ask about -- concerning who will crush the serpent's head and who the serpent is trying to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns -- she and her -- implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse. All modern translations use masculine pronouns -- he and his -- implying that the seed of the woman is the of that part of the verse.

The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.

People notice this variant today because the expression found in the Douay-Rheims has been the basis of some popular Catholic art, showing a serene Mary standing over a crushed serpent.

images

This is because Christians have recognized (all the way back to the first century) that the woman and her seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15 do not simply stand for Eve and one of her righteous sons (either Abel or Seth). They prophetically foreshadow Mary and Jesus. Thus, just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew.

This does not mean that the idea cannot be validly applied to Mary as well. Through her cooperation in the incarnation of Christ, so that the Son of God (who, from the cross, directly crushed the head of the serpent) became her seed, Mary did crush the head of the serpent. In the same way, the serpent struck at Christ on the cross, and indirectly struck at Mary's heart as well, who had to witness the death of her own Son (cf. John 19:25-27). As the holy priest Simeon had told her years before:

"Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against -- and a sword will pierce through your own soul also -- that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed" (Luke 2:34b-35).
(who are the "many"?)

Thus Jesus crushed the serpent directly and was directly struck by the serpent; Mary, through her cooperation in the incarnation and her witnessing the sufferings and death of her Son, indirectly crushed the serpent and was indirectly struck by the serpent.

This has long been recognized by Catholics. The footnotes provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner in his revision of the Douay state, "The sense [of these two readings] is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head."

IQB: Genesis 3:15 and Mary

I'm still waiting for anyone to offer a verse that condemns Scripture in art form.
 
Last edited:

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It’s okay. I took no offense but was only bringing it up to warn you another one of those ideas might follow. “The questions here that should be asked is what does it mean that Christ is the Last Adam and Second Man” You said the verses are not the same subject matter: Isaiah 44:6
[6] Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

But is that true?
1 Corinthians 15:45-49
[45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. [46] Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. [47] The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. [48] As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. [49] And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

‘As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.”

Is it not about bearing an image?Genesis 1:26-27 [26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Didn’t Adam bear God’s image first in paradise(heaven) before sin entered and man fell, separated from God.

Genesis 5:3
[3] And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Genesis 9:6-7
[6] Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. [7] And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

John 3:30-31
[30] He must increase, but I must decrease. [31] He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

Does not a thread run through the word of: that which comes last (the Spiritual) becomes the first? And the first(natural), becomes last. We see this in Job and in:

Revelation 2:19
[19] I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.

It has everything to do with bearing an image. Either that which is false, or that image which is true. By no means am I suggesting God as being first in the image of fallen man but first in that Adam(the first) originally bore an image of truth until a lie entered in. Second man, Last Adam also bears the image of truth(the expressed image of God).
Revelation 22:13-14
[13] I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. [14] Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Yes, it is true that Jesus Christ is the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. This speaks to the eternality of Jesus Christ. But I do not believe it is addressing the two Adam's.

The first Adam and first man was created in the image of God and thus all born to him, though fallen, still bear that image. The Last Adam and Second Man, Jesus Christ, is not just created in the image of God, but he is the image of God, in every way. God in the flesh. Adam was not God in the flesh. Adam was created in the image of God because God knew the Son would be given a body, and that body must be after the image of the Father. Though Jesus Christ was given a given a human body, which is in the image of God, He is disconnected from the first Adam. He has to be else He will be born a sinner. This is why He is another Adam, and He is the Last Adam in that there will be no more.

Yes, I believe there is a first and last, earthly and spiritual thread running through Scripture.

Stranger
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

VictoryinJesus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,633
7,901
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
thus all born to him, though fallen, still bear that image.

Did Cain bear His image?

Adam was created in the image of God because God knew the Son would be given a body, and that body must be after the image of the Father. Though Jesus Christ was given a given a human body, which is in the image of God,

Created and given a body. Yes. First body without sin, then a lie entered and man was told he was naked. Jesus(Christ) restored the image of God unto the body of Adam that was in originally in the image of God. Those of Christ bear the image of God. Those of the natural man that is passing away, sold into the bondage sin, the reign of death, do not bear the image of God. Yes? No?

Revelation 2:8
[8] And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

Psalm 119:133
[133] Order my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me.

John 3:3
[3] Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

The natural had dominion until it was corrupted, now that which was(is) corrupt must (submit)to God and put on the incorruptible(Spirit). Again:
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
[45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. [46] Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. [47] The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Man restored to heaven(paradise) not by the natural but by that which is Spirit(God). Remember though when God created the heavens and earth and said is was good. Adam originally had dominion over that which was good.

It is comforting Revelation tells us:[27] And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. No ‘maketh a lie’
 
Last edited:

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
9,073
9,827
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think NEW ADAM and NEW EVE is scripturally and theologically sound. It fulfills the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 as the beginning of developmented covenants. A family, a tribe, a nation, prophetic realities shifting to earthly realities (Ark) to human realities (Jesus and His mother) to heavenly realities (Rev.11:19 12:1, 12:17) This is a very incomplete summary.
+++...
In most editions of the Douay-Rheims Bible, Genesis 3:15, in which God is addressing the serpent, reads like this:

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

In the New American Bible, as in all other modern Bibles, it reads like this:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

The essential difference between these two renderings -- or at least the one people always ask about -- concerning who will crush the serpent's head and who the serpent is trying to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns -- she and her -- implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse. All modern translations use masculine pronouns -- he and his -- implying that the seed of the woman is the of that part of the verse.

The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.

People notice this variant today because the expression found in the Douay-Rheims has been the basis of some popular Catholic art, showing a serene Mary standing over a crushed serpent.

images

This is because Christians have recognized (all the way back to the first century) that the woman and her seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15 do not simply stand for Eve and one of her righteous sons (either Abel or Seth). They prophetically foreshadow Mary and Jesus. Thus, just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew.

This does not mean that the idea cannot be validly applied to Mary as well. Through her cooperation in the incarnation of Christ, so that the Son of God (who, from the cross, directly crushed the head of the serpent) became her seed, Mary did crush the head of the serpent. In the same way, the serpent struck at Christ on the cross, and indirectly struck at Mary's heart as well, who had to witness the death of her own Son (cf. John 19:25-27). As the holy priest Simeon had told her years before:

"Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against -- and a sword will pierce through your own soul also -- that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed" (Luke 2:34b-35).
(who are the "many"?)

Thus Jesus crushed the serpent directly and was directly struck by the serpent; Mary, through her cooperation in the incarnation and her witnessing the sufferings and death of her Son, indirectly crushed the serpent and was indirectly struck by the serpent.

This has long been recognized by Catholics. The footnotes provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner in his revision of the Douay state, "The sense [of these two readings] is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head."

IQB: Genesis 3:15 and Mary

I'm still waiting for anyone to offer a verse that condemns Scripture in art form.

Epostle, I do not agree with your conclusions. The New Adam and New Eve do NOT EQUAL to Jesus and Mary as a NEW family etc. This is wishful religious thinking.

The New Adam and New Eve, EQUALS the marriage of Jesus and his new believers. This is the NEW family since the day of Pentecost.

Yes, Genesis 3:15 is the foreshadowing of Jesus and Mary’s actions at the appropriate time. Jesus was born by Mary with the intervention of the spirit of God at the appropriate time in the future.

Jesus was 100 percent human as it stated the ‘seed’ of Mary NOT God Almighty (divine). Mary’s seed/offspring was human. Gods’ seed/offspring is always divine.

Jesus struck and permanently killed evil and sin ‘in its head’ by his death on the cross, while evil struck the heel of Jesus – a temporary condition that he recovered from. Mary was the vessel for Jesus’ birth. She did not do anything for my salvation as her son Jesus did. The art or statue you pose is inconsistent with scripture.

The ‘many’ in Luke 2:34 are the two classed of people. Those condemned by Jesus as the saviour of death because of their rejection of Jesus and his works, and the other ‘many’ are those that became the believers, believing their savior of life.


Bless you,


APAK
 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The Angels that God would send to his people with a message and those Angels would appear to God's people looking like they were men. Well see that's an incarnation. The Angels may appeared like they were men but they were not actual 100% perfect human. However when God used his Holy Spirit to transfer his only begotten Son who was a spiritual person into the womb of Mary when God only begotten Son was born he was a 100% perfect human baby who grew up to be a 100% perfect huan man. Not an incarnation of a man, but a 100% perfect flesh and blood human man. Incarnations are what Angels do.

With that being said, at 1John 4:2,3 it tells you how you will know if a statement is inspired by God. If that statement says or acknowledge Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh it orginates with God.

And at 1John 4:9 it tells you you are from God and in his love if you agree that God sent his only begotten Son into the world. That it was the only begotten Son who became a 100% perfect human person. Anyone who denies this is listening to the Antichrist.

At 2John 1:7 it tells us that there many deceivers in the world who deny Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. Again the scriptures tell us that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. It is the only begotten Son who came in the flesh. Those who believe in the incarnation are the ones who are saying that it's not the only begotten Son who became flesh,but God who became flesh therefore such people are the ones who deny that it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh.
The Incarnation is the spirit of God fusing with physical human flesh. God become man. What you have is a lame excuse for denying the divinity and pre-existence of Christ. The Incarnation is a mystery, it transcends reason but does not go against it either. You cannot proof text a mystery.

The seedling of your blasphemous doctrine can, in part, be traced back the heresiarch Arius, whose lies were refuted at the Council of Nicae in 325 AD. The Church Fathers proved the church was always trinitarian, and Arianism lost because the tradition of Arianism did not exist. That's why you reject the Nicene Creed.

The Council of Ephesus 431 AD was convened to resolve another crisis: Nestorianism. A heresy that split the identity of Christ into two. Subtle traces of Nestorianism are built into your doctrines. The Nicene Creed was affirmed, To refute Nestorianism, Mary was declared (not invented) Theotokos.(God bearer) to preserve the identity of Christ from contamination. It was an ongoing development from Apostolic teaching. Mary's name is rarely mentioned in this council. So you mock Marian devotion with straw man fallacies.

The Council of Chalcedon 451 AD was a more advanced development of trinitarian theology and clarified WHAT WAS ALWAYS BELIEVED. Again, this council was convened in response to challenging heretics.Their authoritive verdicts are accepted by Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics. Pretending Chalcedon was invalid allows sabbatarian cults to follow the whims of their founder, and invent made-in-America traditions. As a defense, your cult is forced to demonize the very Church that preserved, compiled, proclaimed he Bible, and is the custodian of it.. Your position is illogical and self-defeating.

Your claim to follow the scriptures is a joke. You follow the scriptures based on the opinions of Ellen White, and cannot trace your novel doctrines before 1844. The doctrines of the Catholic Church flow from revealed truth, and can be traced to the Apostles in seedling form. SDA's are forced to demonize the historic Church to justify it's late arrival.
 
Last edited:

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Epostle, I do not agree with your conclusions. The New Adam and New Eve do NOT EQUAL to Jesus and Mary as a NEW family etc. This is wishful religious thinking.
I never said that. Scripture reading 101: What is hidden in the OT is revealed in the NT.

The New Adam and New Eve, EQUALS the marriage of Jesus and his new believers. This is the NEW family since the day of Pentecost.
God established the Sacrament of Matrimony in Genesis, complete with instructions. not at Pentecost. Jesus didn't marry His mother.

The historic Church teaches, through Scripture and Tradition, that the husband is the head of his family and has God-given authority over his wife and children. This gift of authority does not give a husband any greater dignity than his wife. Both are equal members of the marital covenant, as is reflected by God creating woman from the side of man (as opposed to his head or feet). Instead, this order of authority reflects the divine order between God, Christ and man. God blessed the marital covenant with this order to maintain peace and harmony in the family, the “domestic church.” Just as Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church (the family of God), so the father is the head of his domestic church (his family).
"New Eve" is a personification for Mother of the Church. There are numerous metaphors for this. My favorite is Revelation 12:17. A singular woman with a multitude of offspring. "Eve" means "mother of all the living". It's explicit in Genesis 3:20. Unless you want to argue that the offspring of the woman in 12:17 are not living.

Eph. 5:32- Paul calls the Church a “mystery.” This means that the significance of the Church as the kingdom of God in our midst cannot be understood by reason alone. Understanding the Church also requires faith. “Church” does not mean a building of believers. That is not a mystery. Non-Catholics often view church as mere community, but not the supernatural mystery of Christ physically present among us.
Yes, Genesis 3:15 is the foreshadowing of Jesus and Mary’s actions at the appropriate time. Jesus was born by Mary with the intervention of the spirit of God at the appropriate time in the future.
Then Gen. 3:15 is not a foreshadow. Foreshadow is never an equal reality, but a hidden reality. Adam and Eve were real, physical people, they were not spirits. The Ark of the Old Covenant foreshadows the Ark of the New Covenant. A box foreshadows a human. The CONTENTS of the Ark foreshadow Christ, the Ark itself does not foreshadow Christ, but Mary has all the fulfilled contents in her womb. A living Ark.
Jesus was 100 percent human as it stated the ‘seed’ of Mary NOT God Almighty (divine).
Nobody said that. It's a standard Protestant straw man fallacy.
Mary’s seed/offspring was human. Gods’ seed/offspring is always divine.
What does that make the God/man Jesus? Some kind of Oreo cookie? God didn't have "seed".
Jesus struck and permanently killed evil and sin ‘in its head’ by his death on the cross, while evil struck the heel of Jesus – a temporary condition that he recovered from. Mary was the vessel for Jesus’ birth. She did not do anything for my salvation as her son Jesus did. The art or statue you pose is inconsistent with scripture.
No, it's inconsistent with your opinion. Mary INDIRECTLY crushed the serpents head watching the death of her Son she gave birth to. Why is this so hard to understand? The sword that pierced her soul is meaningless filler??? Her suffering is mere happenstance? Mary was nothing more than an incubator??? Mary had a significant, though subordinate, role to play in God's plan of salvation. This is something you reuse to accept. "Either/or" thinking is quite evident in your post, and not "both/and".
The ‘many’ in Luke 2:34 are the two classed of people. Those condemned by Jesus as the saviour of death because of their rejection of Jesus and his works, and the other ‘many’ are those that became the believers, believing their savior of life.
You are imposing a belief into the text that isn't there. (eisegesis). There is no dichotomy in this verse. Redemption is not salvation, although they are related.
 
Last edited:

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
9,073
9,827
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@epostle... I agree on two counts: Jesus never married his Mother. I was illustrating or highlighting what you seem to suggest..the foreshadowing the the marriage of Christ and his believers since Pentecost and in the future.

And secondly I agree redemption is not salvation although leads to salvation for many....

I don't agree with your Gen 3:15 'living Ark. subject and that foreshadowing is a hidden reality, as it does eventually become revealed as a reality in more that one way, at times in the future...a prefiguring if you will..

Bless you,

APAK
 

BARNEY BRIGHT

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,032
1,119
113
67
Thomaston Georgia
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Incarnation is the spirit of God fusing with physical human flesh. God become man. What you have is a lame excuse for denying the divinity and pre-existence of Christ. The Incarnation is a mystery, it transcends reason but does not go against it either. You cannot proof text a mystery.

The seedling of your blasphemous doctrine can, in part, be traced back the heresiarch Arius, whose lies were refuted at the Council of Nicae in 325 AD. The Church Fathers proved the church was always trinitarian, and Arianism lost because the tradition of Arianism did not exist. That's why you reject the Nicene Creed.

The Council of Ephesus 431 AD was convened to resolve another crisis: Nestorianism. A heresy that split the identity of Christ into two. Subtle traces of Nestorianism are built into your doctrines. The Nicene Creed was affirmed, To refute Nestorianism, Mary was declared (not invented) Theotokos.(God bearer) to preserve the identity of Christ from contamination. It was an ongoing development from Apostolic teaching. Mary's name is rarely mentioned in this council. So you mock Marian devotion with straw man fallacies.

The Council of Chalcedon 451 AD was a more advanced development of trinitarian theology and clarified WHAT WAS ALWAYS BELIEVED. Again, this council was convened in response to challenging heretics.Their authoritive verdicts are accepted by Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics. Pretending Chalcedon was invalid allows sabbatarian cults to follow the whims of their founder, and invent made-in-America traditions. As a defense, your cult is forced to demonize the very Church that preserved, compiled, proclaimed he Bible, and is the custodian of it.. Your position is illogical and self-defeating.

Your claim to follow the scriptures is a joke. You follow the scriptures based on the opinions of Ellen White, and cannot trace your novel doctrines before 1844. The doctrines of the Catholic Church flow from revealed truth, and can be traced to the Apostles in seedling form. SDA's are forced to demonize the historic Church to justify it's late arrival.

The only reason and always be a reason I don't agree with you and others that agree with you is that you have no problem denying it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh and came to this world. I will always disagree with such people who try to influence people to deny that it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh and came to the world and died for me and God resurrected him three days after his death. If people exercise faith in this loving act of Love from God and his only begotten Son they will be saved.

I have always told people I believe it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh and came to the world because I honestly believe that. I don't insult people because they disagree with me as you and others do. When the Bible has written down in black and white "only begotten Son" that's what I believe not someone (an imperfect person or group of imperfect people) interpretation of "only begotten Son". The people I call my spiritual brothers and sisters believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. I really saw how the Protestant churches we're growing up in them. They don't want me to believe Jesus to be the only begotten Son of God either even though that is what is written in the scriptures. .
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I will always disagree with such people who try to influence people to deny that it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh and came to the world and died for me and God resurrected him three days after his death.
ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD = SON OF GOD = SON OF MAN = GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH = THE MIGHTY GOD, = ETC ...

And we could list all the others names and titles of Christ.

So do you believe that the only begotten Son of God is indeed GOD (THEOS)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Did Cain bear His image?



Created and given a body. Yes. First body without sin, then a lie entered and man was told he was naked. Jesus(Christ) restored the image of God unto the body of Adam that was in originally in the image of God. Those of Christ bear the image of God. Those of the natural man that is passing away, sold into the bondage sin, the reign of death, do not bear the image of God. Yes? No?

Revelation 2:8
[8] And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

Psalm 119:133
[133] Order my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me.

John 3:3
[3] Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

The natural had dominion until it was corrupted, now that which was(is) corrupt must (submit)to God and put on the incorruptible(Spirit). Again:
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
[45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. [46] Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. [47] The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Man restored to heaven(paradise) not by the natural but by that which is Spirit(God). Remember though when God created the heavens and earth and said is was good. Adam originally had dominion over that which was good.

It is comforting Revelation tells us:[27] And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. No ‘maketh a lie’

Of course Cain bore God's image as all men are created in the image of God. (Gen. 9:6) "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

The natural man is created in the image of God because God made man in the image of God. See statement above.

I don't really see the connection you are trying to make.

Stranger
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

BARNEY BRIGHT

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,032
1,119
113
67
Thomaston Georgia
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD = SON OF GOD = SON OF MAN = GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH = THE MIGHTY GOD, = ETC ...

And we could list all the others names and titles of Christ.

So do you believe that the only begotten Son of God is indeed GOD (THEOS)?

I believe as I told you, in the scriptures, For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Nowhere in this passage, nor in the rest of the scriptures is it written down anywhere that Jesus is a God-Man. God-Man is an interpretation of scripture, I don't care about any imperfect person or group of imperfect persons interpretations. People can argue and insult me all they want, I believe Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, not that he is God. I believe since the scriptures tell us the Word was with God, I believe The only begotten Son of God to be the word and since the scriptures tell us that the word became flesh I believe that it was the only begotten Son of God that became flesh sent to this world died for us and God resurrected him three days after his death and if we exercise faith in this loving act by Jehovah God and his only begotten Son we will get eternal life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harvest 1874

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
9,073
9,827
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD = SON OF GOD = SON OF MAN = GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH = THE MIGHTY GOD, = ETC ...

And we could list all the others names and titles of Christ.

So do you believe that the only begotten Son of God is indeed GOD (THEOS)?
Enoch: Read these verse well.

“Whosoever shall CONFESS THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.” 1 John 4:15

“He that believeth on the Son of God has the witness in himself: he that believeth not God has made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that has the Son has life; and he that has not the Son of God has not life.” 1 John 5:10-12

You confess that Jesus is God because you have not God (his spirit) of the Father. God has called you a liar.

You believe in a false Jesus Christ and God according to my Bible. I have not seen a Trinity Bible before. Maybe you can share who inspired it. I already know the answer to that question of course.

I hope you find the single one and only YWHW and the single one and only Jesus the Christ, the son of YWHW in your life.

Bless you,

APAK
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harvest 1874

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
ANTI-CATHOLIC MYTHS AND LIES
13 Logical Problems with the Constantine Founder Myth:
  1. If Constantine started the Catholic Church, then it would, therefore, seem to follow that Constantine himself was a Catholic Christian. This was not the case. Constantine (possibly) was not be baptized into the faith until he was on his deathbed on May 22, 337 A.D. (SEE ALSO: Was Constantine Baptized an Arian).
  2. For Christianity to become the official religion of the Roman Empire, would require an Edict. The Edict of Milan, which was issued by Constantine and Licinius (as noted above) only put Christians on equal footing with all the other recognized religions in the Roman Empire; granting the same religious freedom that was already being extended to the pagans and Jews. It would not be until 392 A.D. when Emperor Theodosius removed government support from the old Roman pagan religions and established the Christian Faith (Catholicism) as the sole religion of the empire.
3. If by virtue of Constantine calling a general council of all the bishops of the Church to meet with him at Nicaea (a resort town in the hills of Asia Minor just south of Constantinople), a Church was created, it then, therefore, follows that:
(a) the Church that existed prior to the Council from which all the bishops were called merged themselves into the new church of Constantine;
(b) we should see no continuity between the preexisting church and the new Church;
(c) we should see no continuity between the pre-Nicaea Church and modern day Catholic Church. I’ll dismiss these non-sequitur arguments below.

4. If by virtue of Constantine issuing an edict of religious freedom for Christians and calling together the First Council of Nicaea means that he started the Catholic Church, it would, therefore, mean that anytime a Roman Emperor granted religious freedom to any religion or stepped into resolve their controversies that they had become the founder of that pagan or Jewish religion. We don’t see such a claim by Protestants about the Emperor of Rome in any other circumstance than with the Catholic Church. In addition, this assumption also fails to recognize that the Roman Emperor thought himself to be in charge of all things in his empire. Therefore, it would have been natural and welcomed for the Emperor to extend his leverage and protection to assemble together all of the Catholic bishops of the Roman Empire.

5. The reason why Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea was to resolve the controversy over Arius’ teaching that Christ Jesus was not consubstantial with God the Father. Therefore, it then follows that for there to have been a heresy or even an counter belief to create a controversy, there must have been prior to Arianism a well-established belief about the nature Jesus Christ in a Church community that all agreed with this understanding. Otherwise, the teachings of Arius would not have caused such a controversy.

6. That Constantine assembled together all of the bishops of the Roman Empire proves that there were well-organized dioceses and churches prior the First Council of Nicaea who were in agreement with each other. Further research into this area will demonstrate the precise areas in which they agreed, such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, about many of the books which were thought to be inspired Scripture, and the Bishop of Rome being the successor of Peter and the head of the universal Church.

7. 218 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Ignatius, 4th Bishop of Antioch, appointed by Saint Peter, wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans in which he used the word ‘Catholic’ to denote the Church established by Jesus Christ:

  • “Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people also be: as Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
8. In that same letter Saint Ignatius gave a teaching about the Holy Eucharist that continues to be taught only by the Catholic Church today:

  • “They abstain from the Eucharist and from the public offices; because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ; which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness, raised again from the dead. And for this cause contradicting the gift of God, they die in their disputes: but much better would it be for them to receive it, that they might one day rise through it.”
9. 170 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Justin Martyr wrote in First Apology (a letter to pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161 A.D.) explaining what Christians did at Mass):

    • “On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.
10. 136 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, and a disciple of Saint Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John, proclaimed that all churches must be in unity with the Church of Rome, which was established by Peter and Paul:

  • “But since it would be long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether, through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assembled other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.”
11. If Emperor Constantine started the Catholic Church, then there should be no way to trace the continuity of every Bishop of Rome, from Peter to Francis today.

12. Prior to the Council of Nicaea there had been many local councils where local bishops, priests, and deacons gathered to issue canons to the faithful; such as the Councils of Carthage, where Saint Cyprian presided at the Seventh Council in 256 A.D. where a canon was issued stating, “. . . heretics, who are called antichrists and adversaries of Christ, when they come to the Church, must be baptized with the one Baptism of the Church, so that friends may be made of adversaries, and Christians of antichrists.”

Another example is the Council of Elvira, Spain in 300 A.D. where 19 bishops and 26 priests and deacons gathered together to issue 81 canons. Canon 16 stated, “Heretics, if they do not which to come over to the Catholic Church, are not to be given Catholic girls in marriage.” Therefore, how could Constantine have started the Catholic Church in 325 A.D. if it already existed in Spain in 300 A.D.???

13 The Romans were aficionados when it came to documenting the legal affairs and history of the Empire. If it had been the case that Constantine established his own state religion or established a new state Church, we would have been able to find it documented somewhere in history that such an event happened, but when we examine the history and legal documents from ancient Rome, we find no traces that the myth that Constantine founded the Catholic Church is true.Moreover, if Constantine did found the Catholic Church at the First Council of Nicaea then we should be able to find at least some once reference to the Roman Emperor in the creed and canons of the Council, but in the Creed of Nicaea and in its Twenty Canons nothing was mentioned about the Roman Emperor. Nothing at all.

Conclusion of the Emperor Constantine Founder Myth

Those who posit that Constantine founded the Catholic Church or introduced incarnation theology either with the Edict of Milan or by calling together the First Council of Nicaea are unable prove their claim. There is no documentation from that time, either explicit or implicit by historian or theologian that even hints that such an event transpired or was the intention of Constantine or the bishops of the Catholic Church to transpire.

This story, most famously told by Jehovah Witnesses and some Fundamentalist Protestants, came out of their necessity to support their lie that there was an apostasy in the early Church. It is their way to explain how their reform and late arrival is justifiable. The myth is that because the Church of the Apostles fell in to apostasy, a remnant of the true and orthodox believers of Jesus remained hidden from and often persecuted by the Catholic Church until THEY brought the reform and true faith back. Prior the rise of Protestantism, no one ever dared to tell this lie. Only in the space of the unintelligent, uncurious, and hostile can such a myth and lie bear fruit.

http://www.pagadiandiocese.org/2017...eror-constantine-founded-the-catholic-church/
 
Last edited:

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I believe as I told you, in the scriptures,...
No, Barney, the opinions of the Watchtower Society of a bastardized bible translated by fake scholars is not scripture.

The New World Translation (NWT) is produced by the Watch Tower Society, the parent organization of the Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs). The New Testament (or "Christian Greek Scriptures," as they call it) was first produced in 1950, followed by the Old Testament ("Hebrew Scriptures"), produced progressively in five volumes from 1953-1960. Modern versions of the NWT contain the entire Bible in one volume.

The NWT is a travesty of the Scriptures for two main reasons:

First, of the five men who comprised the translation committee--Nathan Knorr, Fred Franz, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel--Franz is the only one who had any knowledge at all of the biblical languages. Franz studied Greek for only two years (not biblical Greek, though), and he was allegedly self-taught in Hebrew. The other four men completely lack any credentials that would qualify them as competent biblical scholars.

Second, the text of the NWT is distorted and twisted in a manner to suit the erroneous beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Numerous examples could be cited. For instance, John 1:1, in the NWT, reads that the Word was " a god" (rather than "God") because JWs deny the divinity of Christ. Similarly, in Colossians 1:15-20, the NWT inserts the word "other" into the text four times because JWs believe that Christ was created. Also, in Matthew 26:26, the NWT reads "this means my body" (rather than "this is my body") because JWs deny the Real Presence.

Reputable Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars alike reject the NWT as being biased, unreliable, and unscholarly. People who open their doors to the JWs ought to be warned that
the NWT is not a safe or reliable translation of God's Word.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-can-you-tell-me-about-the-new-world-translation

Franz and Gretel
junior-and-lala.jpg

"But Gretel, you have to learn ancient 1950's Greek!"​
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Enoch: Read these verse well.
“Whosoever shall CONFESS THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.” 1 John 4:15
You should also read these verses to understand what the above means: I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins...Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am... And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (John 8:24,58; Exod 3:14)

You still have not figured out that the Son of God is I AM = God. But it is right there before the whole world. And those who will not believe this shall die in their sins.
 

BARNEY BRIGHT

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,032
1,119
113
67
Thomaston Georgia
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You should also read these verses to understand what the above means: I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins...Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am... And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (John 8:24,58; Exod 3:14)

You still have not figured out that the Son of God is I AM = God. But it is right there before the whole world. And those who will not believe this shall die in their sins.


At John 8:58 several famous scholars translated this scripture into Hebrew as follows:
Dr. Franz Delitzsch: “Before Abraham was, I have been." Isaac Salkinson and David Ginsburg: “I have been when there had as yet been no Abraham." In both of these Hebrew translations the translators use for the expression “I have been” two Hebrew words, both a pronoun and a verb, namely, aní hayíthi; they do not use the one Hebrew word: Ehyéh which is used at Exodus 3:14 So they do not make out that in John 8:58Jesus was trying to imitate Jehovah God and give us the impression that he himself was Jehovah, the I AM.


In what language did John write his life account of Jesus Christ? In the Greek language, not in Hebrew; and in the Greek text the controversial expression is Egó eimí. Just by itself, without any introductory material ahead of it, Egó eimí means “I am.” Now this expression Egó eimí occurs also in John 8:24,28; and in those verses the Authorized or King James Version and the Douay Version and others render the expression into English as “I am he,” the pronoun he being put in italics to indicate that the pronoun he is added or inserted. (AV; AS; Yg) But here, in John 8:58, those versions do not render this same expression as “I am he,” but only as “I am.” They evidently want to give us the idea that Jesus was not simply referring to his existence but also giving himself a title that belongs to Jehovah God in imitation of Exodus 3:14.

When writing John 8:58, the apostle was not quoting from the Greek Septuagint Version, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made by Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria, Egypt, before the birth of Christ. Let anyone who reads Greek compare John 8:58 in Greek and Exodus 3:14 in the Greek Septuagint, and he will find that the Septuagint reading of Exodus 3:14 does not use the expression Egó eimí for God’s name, when God says to Moses: “I AM hath sent me unto you.” The Greek Septuagint uses the expression ho Ōn, which means “The Being,” or, “The One who is.” This fact is clearly presented to us in Bagster’s translation of the Greek Septuagint, at Exodus 3:14, which reads: “And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING [ho Ōn]; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING [ho Ōn] has sent me to you.” According to Charles Thomson’s translation of the Greek Septuagint, Exodus 3:14 reads: “God spoke to Moses saying, I am The I Am [ho Ōn]. Moreover he said, Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel, The I Am [ho Ōn] hath sent me to you.Thus this comparison of the two Greek texts, that of the Septuagint and that of John 8:58, removes all basis for trinitarians to argue that Jesus, in John 8:58, was trying to fit Exodus 3:14 to himself, as if he was Jehovah God.

O yes, the Greek expression ho Ōn does occur in the apostle John’s writings. It occurs in the Greek text of John 1:18; 3:13 (AV; Yg), John 3:31; 6:40; 8:47; 12:17; 18:37, but not as a title or name. So in four of those verses it applies, not to Jesus, but to other persons. However, in the Revelation or Apocalypse the apostle John does use the expression ho Ōn as a title or designation five times, namely, in Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17; 16:5. But in all five cases the expression ho Ōn is applied to Jehovah God the Almighty, and not to the Lamb of God, the Word of God.

For example, Revelation 1:4, 8 (AV) reads: “John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is [ho ōn], and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne.” “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is [ho ōn], and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” Revelation 4:8 applies ho ōn to the Lord God Almighty on his heavenly throne, and Revelation 5:6, 7 shows that the Lamb of God comes to him later on. Revelation 11:17 applies ho ōn to the Lord God Almighty when he takes power to rule as King. Revelation 16:5 applies ho ōn to the Lord God when he acts as Judge. Hence John 8:58 fails the clergy as proof of there being a “triune God,” for in that verse, as well translated by Dr. James Moffatt, An American Translation, and others, Jesus was saying merely that he had had a prehuman existence in heaven with his Father and that this prehuman existence began before Abraham was born.