For free will believers out there

[Tong2020]

I have found that I do not always prefer the same translation. Depending on the verse, different translations speak more to me than others.

Because different versions seemingly does not say the same thing or rather translates the verse differently, that I always go to the Greek text and check it out for myself. If there many senses of the Greek word and could mean different things, I next go to context, immediate and then to the other and broader context.

Tong
R2452

 

[Cooper]

I have found that I do not always prefer the same translation. Depending on the verse, different translations speak more to me than others.

You have a good signature. "There is no other beside him." Singular.
.

 

[Cooper]

At John 1:1 it tells us in part that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God. So since at John 1:14 it says the Word was made flesh it can't be God who was made flesh since the 1st part of John 1:1 says not that the Word is God but that the Word was with God. The last part of John 1:1 doesn't contradict the first part.

At John 1:1 the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. The King James Version says, “The Word was with God.” Someone who is “with” another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean “the” God, this “would then contradict the preceding clause,” which says that the Word was with God.
So Jesus wasn't God in the flesh.
Jesus is exactly who the scriptures say he is which say Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God. John 3:16 says that God sent his Only Begotten Son to the World of mankind it doesn't say that God sent himself. Even Jesus said he was the Son of God, he never said he was God. In fact at John 20:17 Jesus tells us that he has a Father and God who is our Father and God.

John 1:1 confirms Jesus is God when it says, “the Word (Jesus) was God.”

See below:-

In the beginning was Harry Webb, and Harry Webb was with Cliff Richards and Harry Webb was Cliff Richards.
.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

John 1:1 confirms Jesus is God when it says, “the Word (Jesus) was God.”

See below:-

In the beginning was Harry Webb, and Harry Webb was with Cliff Richards and Harry Webb was Cliff Richards.
.

What you said about Harry and Cliff doesn't prove that Harry and Cliff are the same person so Cliff and Harry both are not the Word. What it's saying is Harry is the Word and the Word who is Harry is with Cliff.

 

[Cooper]

What it's saying is "Harry is the Word and the Word who is Harry is with Cliff (Jesus)."

For you to say "The Word is with Jesus" is to admit the preexistence of Jesus, and if the Word is with Cliff (Jesus) as you said, then you have confirmed the Trinity. You got that right without intending to. It pays not to mess, twist or otherwise pervert Scripture. Jesus is in fact the Word. One Deity.

Harry Webb is Cliff Richards. ONE PERSON with two names. You should know people have different names while being one person.

The angel told Mary, "you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.” Matthew 1:21

Three titles, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but better still ONE omnipresent God. Creator, Heavenly Father and Saviour. The triune God whose titles have been merged into the name of Jesus Christ who is the divine head in whom dwells ALL the fullness of divinity bodily. Colossians 2:8-10

Jesus is King. He reigns over us eternally, from beginning to end. He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. Do not deny him. Rather bow down and worship him.
.

 

[Cooper]

The Godhead

Acts of the Apostles 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Romans 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:

(Colossians 2:8-10) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
.

 

[Truther]

The scriptures tell us that God gave us His only begotten Son. It isn't human reasoning that we should understand this as plain language. It isn't metaphorical or some spiritual analogy. If God tells us He gave us His Son, we must accept that He had a Son to give. We could reason that this is not literal. We could reason about all manner of obtuse and illogical contrivances in order to suit our ideas. But God gave us language. The Father/Son paradigm is as old as creation. There is no good sound or logical reason to believe that in contrary to the scriptures, there are three Co-equal Co-eternal Co-substantial perfect distinct beings each one having self sustaining life in themselves. This is a description of three gods. Not one God.
The scriptures you commended me for posting reveal one God... The Father... And His Son who is the express image of His Father. Being the only begotten Son is all the credential He needs to be called God. He has all the same attributes as the Father. But they were given... They were His inheritance. But it doesn't make the Son any less God.
There is no need to question or second guess the above. The Bible doesn't tell us how the Father beget a Son... Or when. There are many things the Bible doesn't explain. There is no need to deny what the Bible does reveal on account of our not understanding what the Bible doesn't reveal.

That is like saying my son is me by default.

The only reason Jesus is called God is because God entered Jesus' body(per Col 2:9) after he resurrected him from the dead.

 

[Truther]

You can say that. However, the question is, in that transcendent experience of God, what do you say regarding Jesus?

Tong
R2449

God knew and loved the man Jesus, His only begotten son via Mary, before the founding of the world.

He actually said "let US(God and His son together), make man in OUR image"... (Jesus' image was body, soul and human spirit).

Even notice much of the O.T. crucifixion as per Psalm 22:1-18 is in the present tense.

 

[Truther]

I am sola scriptura. And words make up scriptures. The gospel concerning Jesus Christ was written in scriptures by the inspired writers using not English words, but using Greek words. So, at least for those who do not know Greek words like me, a translation is necessary, at least to English words, so that the scriptures would be intelligible to me. There are many English translations. And KJV is but one of them. But which of them better translates a particular verse?

Tong
R2450

Since you, nor anyone else alive can accurately translate ancient Greek, you need to go back to the KJV for your sola scriptura method.

It was already translated in ancient times by the KJV translators before the true meanings were lost.

There was a 300 year pause, them modernists tried to "improve" on it to make money.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
You can say that. However, the question is, in that transcendent experience of God, what do you say regarding Jesus?

God knew and loved the man Jesus, His only begotten son via Mary, before the founding of the world.

He actually said "let US(God and His son together), make man in OUR image"... (Jesus' image was body, soul and human spirit).

Even notice much of the O.T. crucifixion as per Psalm 22:1-18 is in the present tense.

So Jesus was existing in that transcendence experience of God and Jesus too actually experience that?

Tong
R2455

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
I am sola scriptura. And words make up scriptures. The gospel concerning Jesus Christ was written in scriptures by the inspired writers using not English words, but using Greek words. So, at least for those who do not know Greek words like me, a translation is necessary, at least to English words, so that the scriptures would be intelligible to me. There are many English translations. And KJV is but one of them. But which of them better translates a particular verse?

Since you, nor anyone else alive can accurately translate ancient Greek, you need to go back to the KJV for your sola scriptura method.

It was already translated in ancient times by the KJV translators before the true meanings were lost.

There was a 300 year pause, them modernists tried to "improve" on it to make money.

And who says the true meanings were lost? They are there in the copies of the originals written in Greek.

<<<It was already translated in ancient times by the KJV translators before the true meanings were lost.>>>

There were English bibles even before the KJV.

<<<There was a 300 year pause, them modernists tried to "improve" on it to make money.>>>

And yet again an unproven self serving accusation.

Tong
R2456

 

[Cooper]

That is like saying my son is me by default.

The only reason Jesus is called God is because God entered Jesus' body(per Col 2:9) after he resurrected him from the dead.

God is Spirit. The flesh is a vessel. God IN Christ.
.

 

[Brakelite]

That is like saying my son is me by default

Not by default. Like begets like. Each after it's own kind. It's a law of nature. With man and animals however our children, while similar, are not perfect reproductions. With God however, everything He does is perfect. The Son...His Son... Is a perfect reproduction of Himself, the Son having the exact same attributes as the Father... Divine attributes. The only difference being that everything Jesus is He received from the Father. This there is only one difference between the Father and the Son... Rank.

Here are some quotes from biblical scholars who can explain the above with far greater erudition than I.

According to this, (quoting John 1:14,18 and John 3:16) Jesus Christ is begotten of God in a sense that no other being is; else he could not be his only begotten Son. Angels are called sons of God, and so also are righteous men; but Christ is his Son in a higher sense, in a closer relation, than either of these. God made men and angels out of materials already created. He is the author of their existence, their Creator, hence their Father. But Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father's own substance. He was not created out of material as the angels and other creatures were. He is truly and emphatically the "Son of God," the same as I am the son of my father.”

The same gentleman concluded by quoting Hebrews 1:1-8, and commented...
By this we see that a very plain and great distinction is made between the Son and all the angels. They are all commanded to worship him. No created being can ever be worthy of worship, however high he may be, neither would it be right nor just for God to bid one order of his creatures to worship another. Divinity alone is worthy of worship, and to worship anything else would be idolatry.”

Here's another...

The Word was “in the beginning”. The mind of man cannot grasp the ages that are spanned in this phrase. It is not given to men to know when or how the Son was begotten; but we know that He was the Divine Word, not simply before He came to this earth to die, but even before the world was created.... We know that Christ “proceeded forth and come from God” (John 8:42) but it was so far back in the ages of eternity as to be far beyond the grasp of the mind of man”
“The Scriptures declare that Christ is "the only begotten son of God." He is begotten, not created. As to when He was begotten, it is not for us to inquire, nor could our minds grasp it if we were told. The prophet Micah tells us all that we can know about it in these words, "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity." Micah 5:2, margin. There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father (John 8:42; 1:18), but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning. But the point is that Christ is a begotten Son and not a created subject.”

Either Christ is truly the Son of the living God as Peter declared, or He isn't.

 

[Truther]

So Jesus was existing in that transcendence experience of God and Jesus too actually experience that?

Tong
R2455

Yes, this is why Rev 13:8 says Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world.

The mind of God is reality.

God knew our conversation today before the world was even made.

That is a brief description of God transcending time.

 

[Truther]

And who says the true meanings were lost? They are there in the copies of the originals written in Greek.

<<<It was already translated in ancient times by the KJV translators before the true meanings were lost.>>>

There were English bibles even before the KJV.

<<<There was a 300 year pause, them modernists tried to "improve" on it to make money.>>>

And yet again an unproven self serving accusation.

Tong
R2456

The evidence that the true meanings are lost today are the hundreds of modern translations that all say something different.

These were created by modern redefinitionists.

They are still making new ones too.

 

[Truther]

God is Spirit. The flesh is a vessel. God IN Christ.
.

God INSIDE Christ is the theme of the N.T.

Not God IS Christ, or God ALONGSIDE Christ as incarnationists think.

 

[Truther]

Not by default. Like begets like. Each after it's own kind. It's a law of nature. With man and animals however our children, while similar, are not perfect reproductions. With God however, everything He does is perfect. The Son...His Son... Is a perfect reproduction of Himself, the Son having the exact same attributes as the Father... Divine attributes. The only difference being that everything Jesus is He received from the Father. This there is only one difference between the Father and the Son... Rank.

Here are some quotes from biblical scholars who can explain the above with far greater erudition than I.

According to this, (quoting John 1:14,18 and John 3:16) Jesus Christ is begotten of God in a sense that no other being is; else he could not be his only begotten Son. Angels are called sons of God, and so also are righteous men; but Christ is his Son in a higher sense, in a closer relation, than either of these. God made men and angels out of materials already created. He is the author of their existence, their Creator, hence their Father. But Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father's own substance. He was not created out of material as the angels and other creatures were. He is truly and emphatically the "Son of God," the same as I am the son of my father.”

The same gentleman concluded by quoting Hebrews 1:1-8, and commented...
By this we see that a very plain and great distinction is made between the Son and all the angels. They are all commanded to worship him. No created being can ever be worthy of worship, however high he may be, neither would it be right nor just for God to bid one order of his creatures to worship another. Divinity alone is worthy of worship, and to worship anything else would be idolatry.”

Here's another...

The Word was “in the beginning”. The mind of man cannot grasp the ages that are spanned in this phrase. It is not given to men to know when or how the Son was begotten; but we know that He was the Divine Word, not simply before He came to this earth to die, but even before the world was created.... We know that Christ “proceeded forth and come from God” (John 8:42) but it was so far back in the ages of eternity as to be far beyond the grasp of the mind of man”
“The Scriptures declare that Christ is "the only begotten son of God." He is begotten, not created. As to when He was begotten, it is not for us to inquire, nor could our minds grasp it if we were told. The prophet Micah tells us all that we can know about it in these words, "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity." Micah 5:2, margin. There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father (John 8:42; 1:18), but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning. But the point is that Christ is a begotten Son and not a created subject.”

Either Christ is truly the Son of the living God as Peter declared, or He isn't.

Do you need a "scholar" to read your Bible to you?

Is that book that tough?

Will you ever get it's verbatim meanings without assistance?

I simply agree with it in those first few years and it was perfectly understandable.

Maybe your mind is too cluttered by "scholars" to understand it for yourself?

This 1st century book is a cinch to understand if you just simply kick the "scholars" out of your presuppositional head.

 

[Cooper]

God INSIDE Christ is the theme of the N.T.

Not God IS Christ, or God ALONGSIDE Christ as incarnationists think.

I have never heard of them, but anyway as long as we remember the first 14 verses of John chapter 1, we will be doing alright.
.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
So Jesus was existing in that transcendence experience of God and Jesus too actually experience that?

Yes, this is why Rev 13:8 says Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world.

The mind of God is reality.

God knew our conversation today before the world was even made.

That is a brief description of God transcending time.

And so by you are saying that Jesus pre-existed. By your line of reasoning that would have all else who were in the mind of God as having pre-existed as well, which of course that is not true.

Tong
R2457

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
And who says the true meanings were lost? They are there in the copies of the originals written in Greek.

<<<It was already translated in ancient times by the KJV translators before the true meanings were lost.>>>

There were English bibles even before the KJV.

<<<There was a 300 year pause, them modernists tried to "improve" on it to make money.>>>

And yet again an unproven self serving accusation.

The evidence that the true meanings are lost today are the hundreds of modern translations that all say something different.

These were created by modern redefinitionists.

They are still making new ones too.

That isn’t proof or evidence of lost of meaning. It’s only what you take it to be.

So, why KJV and not the translations prior to it?

Tong
R2458