Eternal Security

[justbyfaith]

I do believe however that the sin of teaching false doctrine is worthy of damnation; because the person teaching it is leading others down a path to destruction and is not only responsible for his own fate. Thus what is written in James 3:1.

 

[justbyfaith]

Hummm and I wonder why you don't like that..

....View attachment 4006

Same reason you don't like it...oh wait..you were responding to someone else, my bad.

 

[gadar perets]

What the article failed to mention was that the Pharisees said that the reason why they picked up stones to stone Jesus was for blasphemy: and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God (John 10:31-33, esp. v.33).

The article was not about John 10, but about John 8:58. Nice try at deflection.

And concerning Jesus' pre-existence, it should be clear from the statement of John the Baptist in John 1:15 and John 1:30 that Jesus pre-existed, at least the life of John the Baptist. A simple look at Luke chapters 1 and 2 will bear out in your thinking that John the Baptist was physically born first.

Yes, John was born first. As for John 1:15, 30, they certainly suggest a pre-existence as it appears in the KJV; "John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me." First, the idea of "preference" is not found in the Greek. The word translated "preferred" is the Greek "ginomai". Of the 678 times it was used in the New Testament, it was translated "preferred" three times, once here and in verses 27 & 30 where the same verse is repeated. The word should have been translated "come to be"; "He that cometh after me has come to be before me." As for the latter part of the verse, the word "before" is from the Greek "protos". Of the 105 times this word was used, it was never translated "before". The most common rendering is "first," however, based on the context, it should be translated as the Emphatic Diaglott has it, "for he is my Superior." "Protos" was also translated "chief" nine times in the New Testament. King James' trinitarian translators added their bias into the translation.

Also, in Jesus' trial they were looking for solid evidence that Jesus had committed the sin that they deemed to be worthy of death (which turned out to be blasphemy). Now, the prosecutors could not bear witness at the trial; but they were seeking to evoke a response from the Lord; which they succeeded at doing when Jesus said what He said in Mark 14:61-64. That scripture bears out that He answered in the affirmative when they pointedly asked Him if He was the Son of God (in light of what it says in Isaiah 9:6). It turns out in that scripture that the very reason the scribes and Pharisees put Him on the Cross was for the sin of blasphemy. However, it was not truly blasphemy if Jesus was who He claimed to be. And since the scripture testifies that Jesus never sinned, He also was not guilty of the sin of blasphemy; and this indicates that His claim to be the Son of God (and thus the Mighty God and the Everlasting Father, Isaiah 9:6) was not truly a blasphemous statement because He is who He said He is.

Correct. It was not blasphemy to declare himself "the Son of God". That has nothing to do with John 8:58.

You have failed to refute the article, but instead, try to change the subject.

 

[gadar perets]

Hummm and I wonder why you don't like that..

....View attachment 4006

Why wonder? I don't like it because Scripture in the original languages does NOT teach it. Now, if Rollo said, "Yeshua is elohim", then I would wholeheartedly agree.

 

[justbyfaith]

The article was not about John 10, but about John 8:58. Nice try at deflection.

The point of my "deflection" was that when Jesus asked the scribes and Pharisees what good work they were stoning Him for (which was now the second time they did this); they responded with the reason, which I testified to in a post above (see also John 10:33).

Now obviously the scribes and Pharisees believed that Jesus was claiming to be God in His statements. What makes you think that the second time they picked up stones to stone Him (in John 10:31-33), they had a different reason for doing so (than the first time in John 8:59)?

Scripture interprets scripture (1 Corinthians 2:13).

Correct. It was not blasphemy to declare himself "the Son of God". That has nothing to do with John 8:58.

You have failed to refute the article, but instead, try to change the subject.

In light of Isaiah 9:6, it would indeed be blasphemy to claim to be the Son of God if in fact He was not who He claimed to be. But since He was/is indeed the Son of God (and therefore the Mighty God, even the everlasting Father, Isaiah 9:6); therefore for that reason alone, it was not blasphemy.

 

[gadar perets]

The point of my "deflection' was that when Jesus asked the scribes and Pharisees what good work they were stoning Him for (which was now the second time they did this); they responded with the reason, which I testified to in a post above (see also John 10:33).

Now obviously the scribes and Pharisees believed that Jesus was claiming to be God in His statements. What makes you think that the second time they picked up stones to stone Him, they had a different reason for doing so?

Yes, they erroneously thought Yeshua was claiming to be God. Yeshua corrected them and said he was claiming to be the "Son of God" (verse 36). If they were correct, Yeshua would not need to correct them. In John 8:58, you ASSUME they were stoning him for blasphemy. If you would stop assuming and stop reading your own thoughts into the text, you would understand truth better.

In light of Isaiah 9:6, it would indeed be blasphemy to claim to be the Son of God if in fact He was not who He claimed to be. But since He was indeed the Son of God (and therefore the Moighty God, even the everlasting Father, Isaiah 9:6); therefore for that reason alone, it was not blasphemy.

Listen to yourself. out of one side of your mouth you claim he was the Son of God, but out of the other side of your mouth you claim he is God Himself, even our Heavenly Father.

 

[justbyfaith]

Why wonder? I don't like it because Scripture in the original languages does NOT teach it. Now, if Rollo said, "Yeshua is elohim", then I would wholeheartedly agree.

The original autographs have been lost to us is what I have heard. Therefore our acceptance of the word of God is not based on the original languages, but on the understanding that God in His sovereignty, Omnipitence, and love, preserved the unadulterated message of the gospel/the whole counsel of God in our language as it is presented to us (I believe, in the kjv as it pertains to our English language).

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes, they erroneously thought Yeshua was claiming to be God. Yeshua corrected them and said he was claiming to be the "Son of God" (verse 36). If they were correct, Yeshua would not need to correct them. In John 8:58, you ASSUME they were stoning him for blasphemy. If you would stop assuming and stop reading your own thoughts into the text, you would understand truth better.

In claiming to be the Son of God He was claiming to be the Lord God Himself.

Listen to yourself. out of one side of your mouth you claim he was the Son of God, but out of the other side of your mouth you claim he is God Himself, even our Heavenly Father.

Did you even read Isaiah 9:6?

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes, John was born first. As for John 1:15, 30, they certainly suggest a pre-existence as it appears in the KJV; "John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me." First, the idea of "preference" is not found in the Greek. The word translated "preferred" is the Greek "ginomai". Of the 678 times it was used in the New Testament, it was translated "preferred" three times, once here and in verses 27 & 30 where the same verse is repeated. The word should have been translated "come to be"; "He that cometh after me has come to be before me." As for the latter part of the verse, the word "before" is from the Greek "protos". Of the 105 times this word was used, it was never translated "before". The most common rendering is "first," however, based on the context, it should be translated as the Emphatic Diaglott has it, "for he is my Superior." "Protos" was also translated "chief" nine times in the New Testament. King James' trinitarian translators added their bias into the translation.

Your point? All of that, to say, what?

 

[gadar perets]

The original autographs have been lost to us is what I have heard. Therefore our acceptance of the word of God is not based on the original languages, but on the understanding that God in His sovereignty, Omnipitence, and love, preserved the unadulterated message of the gospel/the whole counsel of God in our language as it is presented to us (I believe, in the kjv as it pertains to our English language).

I did not mention the original autographs, but the original languages. As for the KJV, as I showed you before, the KJV is not without error.

Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter (Greek - pascha - Passover - day of his death, not his resurrection) to bring him forth to the people. KJV​

 

[gadar perets]

In claiming to be the Son of God He was claiming to be the Lord God Himself.

Oh really? So if you claim to be the son of your father, that makes you your father????

Did you even read Isaiah 9:6?

Yes, in the Hebrew, not the trinitarian English.

 

[gadar perets]

Your point? All of that, to say, what?

To say that if John 1:15 & 30 were translated honestly, without bias, it would not read, "he was before me", but "he was superior to me" or "he was my chief" or "he was better than me", etc.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

You remind me of a parrot who only knows three words, "Jesus is God, Jesus is God, awwkkk!" I feel sorry for you that you are unable to expound upon Scripture.

John 1:1; In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14; The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

By denying Jesus Christ as God, you have no hope for eternal life.

 

[Episkopos]

By denying Jesus Christ as God, you have no hope for eternal life.

Especially considering that we enter into eternal life now....by entering into Christ.

 

[gadar perets]

By denying Jesus Christ as God, you have no hope for eternal life.

Thus saith Rollo Tamasi. Do you have a verse to go along with that?

However, thus saith Yeshua;

John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God (Yeshua's Father), and Yeshua Messiah, whom thou hast sent.
​

Nothing about having to believe he is God in those verses.

 

[GodsGrace]

I disagree.

(Heb 6:4) For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
​

They were "enlightened" by the receiving the Light of the World into their life. "Tasted" figuratively means to "experience" according to lexicons. These people experienced Yeshua.

(Heb 6:5) who tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
​

They experienced YHWH's words and power.

(Heb 6:6) but then fell away- it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
​

They "fell away" from faith in Yeshua. They once repented of their sins and received Yeshua as Savior. He was crucified for them and they received his death for theirs. Then they fell away from faith in Yeshua and were not permitted to return because that would mean Yeshua needed to be crucified again for them. They brought shame upon Yeshua and will therefore remain in the current state of life without Yeshua.

(Heb 6:7) For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God.
(Heb 6:8) But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is rejected and in danger of being cursed, whose end is to be burned. (NEV)
​

In their return to a fallen state, they do not bear fruit and will be burned.

The above is 100% correct.

 

[gadar perets]

John 1:1; In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14; The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

I didn't say "quote Scripture", but "expound upon Scripture."

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I didn't say "quote Scripture", but "expound upon Scripture."

why bother?
You are here for one reason.
To try and drag down to hell as many Christians as possible, so that you will not feel alone.
You have done nothing to build up the body of Christ.
You only try to prove Jesus is not God.
You are not Christian and if I were a moderator, I would have banned you by now.

 

[justbyfaith]

I did not mention the original autographs, but the original languages. As for the KJV, as I showed you before, the KJV is not without error.

Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter (Greek - pascha - Passover - day of his death, not his resurrection) to bring him forth to the people. KJV​

This is getting into another subject, but okay...First of all, translating it as Easter doesn't create a change in doctrine for the worse but for the better...it is clear to me that the devil himself hates the concept of Easter, because it is the very thing that defeated him (since Easter is a holiday that represents the resurrection of Jesus Christ). So I can see why he wants it changed.

Now the point that I made was that the original autographs were lost to us, and therefore what we find written in the original languages are on the same level as what we have translated to us in English...especially since God in His sovereignty, Omnipotence, and love would not allow the message to be compromised in at least one translation that He has had some of His people contend is the authority in English, over other translations.

Thus saith Rollo Tamasi. Do you have a verse to go along with that?

You have seen many of the verses that "go along with that" and have rejected their testimony. Therefore your problem is not an intellectual one but is a matter of unbelief--of the heart (Hebrews 3:7-8, Hebrews 3:15, Hebrews 4:7)