QUESTION 1 for YOU - IF YOU BELIEVE JESUS is GOD

[Purity]

Sin entered into the world by man, and not by the serpent.

Rom. 5:12.—By one man, sin entered into the world.

No mention in all of Romans about any Supernatural being...why is that?

I will say that again NOT ONE word about a evil supernatural being in the entire book written to the Romans.

Why is that Floyd?

 

[Floyd]

Sin entered into the world by man, and not by the serpent.

Rom. 5:12.—By one man, sin entered into the world.

No mention in all of Romans about any Supernatural being...why is that?

I will say that again NOT ONE word about a evil supernatural being in the entire book written to the Romans.

Why is that Floyd?

Your refusal to answer my points (on your teaching); disqualifies you from discussion with me; as you always demand people answer you!
You cannot, on this or any other proper forum, dictate your own rules!
I will post my points again to you (although you don't deserve it), to give you one last chance.
I hope all the others watching your pathetic behaviour take note, and don't treat you as their equal in discussion!
Floyd.


Purity, on 24 May 2014 - 01:04 AM, said:

If only you had 39 books to support your notions but you haven't one.

I only need one; The Bible!

It states clearly that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; which is where your apostasy is!
Watching your weasel words is like reading Gen..and Satan's words to Eve; "surely thou shalt not die"!
Ahh. but of course; you don't believe in Satan do you?
That means he never tempted Eve!
That means in your "theology" God introduced temptation and evil!???
That of course would not hold water! So where now your theology?

You say you "praise God regularly"; that means (if you tell the truth), that you "worship in spirit and in truth ( Jhn.4:23-24), unless the "one" you worship, is one of those that Jesus warned would be evident (false Christ's).
You said in an earlier post that you treat the Holy Spirit in the same way as Christ Jesus; ie deny their Deity!
In that case; you cannot "worship in spirit and in truth"; as "God is Spirit"!???
Floyd.

 

[Purity]

You have a lot going on there Floyd - its time for you to rest a while and take a breather - feel free to join me here if you want but only if you are willing to discuss the Word.
P.

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/20206-serpents-sentence/

 

[Floyd]

You have a lot going on there Floyd - its time for you to rest a while and take a breather - feel free to join me here if you want but only if you are willing to discuss the Word.
P.

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/20206-serpents-sentence/

I remind you and the watchers, that it is you who will not answer the points; typical Satan move!


Great Floyd - and you can believe whatever you want but the Scripture only ever attributes the serpent to be an animal:
Thank you for your permission to "believe what I want"; gracious of you!
Regarding Gen. statement re "the serpent"; Dr. Ginsburg gives clear understanding (as the world's foremost Hebrew Scholar of his day); that the Hebrew word "nachash" is interchangeable with "serpent"; and is so in many parts of Scripture! Satan had/has the ability to "transform" himself into an "angel of light",
and did so in Eden; to the awe of Eve!
So; your "teaching" is in gross error, re Satan's abilities (and freedoms of action), which he exercised in Eden. If you challenge this; you challenge Scholars who are accepted world wide!
Over to you on this one!



2 Cor 11:3 But I(Paul) am afraid that just as the serpent deceived Eve by his treachery, your minds may be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

Explained above.
Your mind Floyd has been carried away and deceived with notions of devils.

No Purity; your's is by Satan!
Paul mentions nothing of this creature here but attributes the suggestive thoughts introduce to Eve were from an animal with voice.

Explained above.

Cunning - "Panourgia" (lit, "all working"; crafty, clever, always thinking about how to "trick" someone else) has its roots in Eden.

No; its roots are in Satan and his rebellion against God (you have been given these refs.)

And it is appropriate to men who are the seed of the serpent.

There are not any "seed of the serpent"; in the physical sense; but there are in the metaphoric; which is why you are in danger; unless you repent; accept the Deity of Christ; and beg forgiveness!

Floyd




Purity, on 24 May 2014 - 01:04 AM, said:
Purity, on 24 May 2014 - 01:04 AM, said:

If only you had 39 books to support your notions but you haven't one.

I only need one; The Bible!

It states clearly that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; which is where your apostasy is!
Watching your weasel words is like reading Gen..and Satan's words to Eve; "surely thou shalt not die"!
Ahh. but of course; you don't believe in Satan do you?
That means he never tempted Eve!
That means in your "theology" God introduced temptation and evil!???
That of course would not hold water! So where now your theology?

You say you "praise God regularly"; that means (if you tell the truth), that you "worship in spirit and in truth ( Jhn.4:23-24), unless the "one" you worship, is one of those that Jesus warned would be evident (false Christ's).
You said in an earlier post that you treat the Holy Spirit in the same way as Christ Jesus; ie deny their Deity!
In that case; you cannot "worship in spirit and in truth"; as "God is Spirit"!???
Floyd.

 

[Madad21]

oh wait a minute, hang on...........

 

[Floyd]

oh wait a minute, hang on...........

Hi Madad; all ok?
Floyd.

 

[nothead]

The violent response of the Jews to Jesus’ “I AM” statement indicates they clearly understood what He was declaring—that He was the eternal God incarnate. Jesus was equating Himself with the "I AM" title God gave Himself in Exodus 3:14.

That is entirely correct and in absolute harmony and agreement with true Bible believing, respected, commentators throughout our ages who were/are well aware of the statement that Jesus made. To place any other construct upon it is to pervert the true nature of the passage.

[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, I AM Theology could just be a centuries old urban myth...

...since God's name is HE WILL BE technically in Hebrew, being YHWH third person declension...NOT I AM...

..since the Septuagint translation is THE BEING ONE, NOT I am, both of these translations IMPERFECT as the Exodus passage is...HO OWN, not 'ego eimi' at all,
HO OWN translates THE BEING or THE BEING ONE. HO OWN being the common translation known by Jews who USED the Septuagint in their hometown synagogue...

...and since EGO EIMI on the other end of the language issue, in the Koine means I AM [he] NOT "I am," The HE being implied in all other four I think cases John uses 'ego eimi' without the complement in John.

Now, it is common ideology to interpret this passage thusly, and I know I am going against the grain here, although Purity and KJW must also refute the common convention...

...but and yet even James White has BACKED OFF the trad convo reg (arding). He correlates Jn 8:58 to ISAIAH verses and unduly so, since they HAVE a complement, and he has to cut off the verses after "I am" in order to make his case.

Hi Madad; all ok?
Floyd.

He was typing in his sleep...common for young people today.

They type in the car, shower and on the john. They type on their phones, computer and menus in the cafe.

You say you "praise God regularly"; that means (if you tell the truth), that you "worship in spirit and in truth ( Jhn.4:23-24), unless the "one" you worship, is one of those that Jesus warned would be evident (false Christ's).
You said in an earlier post that you treat the Holy Spirit in the same way as Christ Jesus; ie deny their Deity!
In that case; you cannot "worship in spirit and in truth"; as "God is Spirit"!???
Floyd.

The Holy Spirit is not to be worshiped directly, as "Please Mr. Holy Spirit forgive my sins, give me justice, give Mr. X healing, or bless my way..."

Show me Floyd where this ever was in the Bible. One time, please. "Holy Spirit" is NOT a name at all, and a misnomer being a designated noun of YHWH Elohim, derivative of HIM not it's own self God.

 

[Madad21]

Hi Madad; all ok?
Floyd.

Yeah sorry bud, I was gonna post but I didnt want to make my earlier mistakes of not reading your guys posts properly, I work nights so im half asleep most the time. Thanks for asking though bro


In reply to the 50 years of age conundrum

"No inference can be drawn from this as to the age of our Lord at the time as man. Fifty years was with the Jews the completion of manhood"
JFB commentary http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/Jhn/Jhn_008.cfm?a=1005057

Old age is reckoned to begin at fifty (Num. 4:47), so that they meant no more than this, "Thou art not to be reckoned an old man; many of us are much thy seniors, and yet pretend not to have seen Abraham.' http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/mhc/Jhn/Jhn_008.cfm?a=1005057 Matthew Henry

Num 4:47
from thirty years old and above, even to fifty years old, everyone who came to do the work of service and the work of bearing burdens in the tabernacle of meeting—


In Matthew Henrys commentary he brings up a good point concerning the posturing attitude of the older Jews, saying that 40 years would have been old enough to try and discredit Jesus, but they went further and 50 being far enough away from 32 to make Jesus seem ridiculous, especially in light of his verbal confession that he was around before Abraham. Many of the Jews that come up against Jesus in this sham trial would have in all likelihood been well over 50 showing Jesus to be nothing more then a babe.

I feel this explains the situation suitably?

 

[nothead]

Yeah sorry bud, I was gonna post but I didnt want to make my earlier mistakes of not reading your guys posts properly, I work nights so im half asleep most the time. Thanks for asking though bro


In reply to the 50 years of age conundrum

"No inference can be drawn from this as to the age of our Lord at the time as man. Fifty years was with the Jews the completion of manhood"
JFB commentary http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/Jhn/Jhn_008.cfm?a=1005057

Old age is reckoned to begin at fifty (Num. 4:47), so that they meant no more than this, "Thou art not to be reckoned an old man; many of us are much thy seniors, and yet pretend not to have seen Abraham.' http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/mhc/Jhn/Jhn_008.cfm?a=1005057 Matthew Henry

Num 4:47
from thirty years old and above, even to fifty years old, everyone who came to do the work of service and the work of bearing burdens in the tabernacle of meeting—


In Matthew Henrys commentary he brings up a good point concerning the posturing attitude of the older Jews, saying that 40 years would have been old enough to try and discredit Jesus, but they went further and 50 being far enough away from 32 to make Jesus seem ridiculous, especially in light of his verbal confession that he was around before Abraham. Many of the Jews that come up against Jesus in this sham trial would have in all likelihood been well over 50 showing Jesus to be nothing more then a babe.

I feel this explains the situation suitably?

You give concreteness to the intuition of nothead. Thanks for the specific details. I knew I was onlne for a reason.

And I don't think you 50 yet, but even old dogs can learn new tricks, dog. Thanks. ARCHIVED.

 

[Madad21]

I also found it somewhat peculiar that in the scripture you reference wherein they say unto that thou art not fifty years old when referring unto a person in their early 30's . Sure, he wasn't yet 50 years old according to the testament, yet in John 6:41-42 there is another peculiar reference, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

Some say that there are things in the scriptures that are irrelevant, yet in the scriptures everything means something. Jesus also said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God yet
there is no new truth revealed in NT that wasn't already said and revealed in the OT such Deuteronomy 8:3 "that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live."

I think the relevance of age is in relation to his being persecuted and despised this was foretold in Scriptures like Isaiah 50:6, 53:7 and Psalm 68:5.
in relation to the mum and dad comment it falls along side the same rejections and into the well known prophet without honour categories.

he was really rejected in every way, he has suffered in every way we have. i can think of occasions where I have been discredited or ignored because I was younger then another person or because I dont make the same money or look the right way. Rejection comes in many forms and to say things like "How can he be this, I know where he came from." and "He doesnt know what he talking about hes just a lower level human being." is indicative of all the same rejections we still face today. They discredit Jesus here for his age I feel this is foretold and very applicable.

I like you do not believe in off the cuff comments and observation made in scripture.

He was typing in his sleep...common for young people today.

They type in the car, shower and on the john. They type on their phones, computer and menus in the cafe.

LOL I like this, good call.

Im two years off 40, so they could charge me with being under 50 Im in no rush!!

 

[StanJ]

I do know he was trin. Through and through. I say his SLUG analogy has no merit and is a heretical blaspheme. But we as gomers read him and go, "Em...well yeah, okadokay...."
...without THINKING that this is the most Godawfullest STOOPITest ever thing to say about God. If THIS is support for the INCARNATION, then who would ever BELIEVE in it? HUH?
Okay then. Make his slug analogy real to us, sir. Explain WHAT IT IS WHICH EDIFIES GOD OR MAN here sir. I dare you. Look it up. Google it and make your book report.
And I will stand down. Don't be sassy. Be specific. REFUTE.
I know for instance God tells Moses His definitive NAME for all generations, a memorial forever. Which means even now God has ONE NAME. Not "Jesus" not "Son," not "Holy Spirit," and not nothing else. More definitive than "el shaddai" the name He gives Abraham. The One True God's name and this is the third person declension of "he will be" or "aeie." The exact pronunciation of no one knows. YHWH.
Not "I am." Not ego eimi.

The ONLY heresy I have encountered in this thread are those that refuse to recognize Christ for who he is and deliberately equivocate about analogies to deflect from their own fallacious views. Logical fallacies are not worth my time.

If you don't know the true God then obviously you can't really comment of those who do.

Acts 4:12; In no one else can salvation be found. For in all the world no other name has been given to men but this, and it is by this name that we must be saved!”

Exodus 3:14; God said to Moses, “I am that I am.” And he said, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

You don't understand anything about THE real Triune GOD. ἐγώ εἰμί means exactly what it is translated as from Greek to English.
There are NO credentialed scholars that think otherwise, only those who espouse false doctrines, as you have amply shown.
I'd have a battle of wits with you, but I don't fight unarmed people.

 

[Madad21]

How does it relate to Abraham seeing Christ afar off?
“I Am” – 1 Pet 1:20 Grk: “proginosko” = “know beforehand” cp John 1:30

Im sorry but I don’t see how "I am he" does anything to credit Jhn8:56 with the sheer outrage they experience in Jhn8:57. It seems to do very little in clarifying his divinity, the question would still come "He who?" I fail to see why the questioning would stop there in outrage.
It would prompt the Jews to ask him to clarify his statement.
And then they tear their clothes and pick up stones.

"I am" is a direct and deliberate identification and is very obviously a direct referral to the “I am” of exodus and cause for them to call him out for blasphemy instantly, after all that’s what he was killed for. They were trying to pin something on him, but some magician calling them names and calling himself the coming Messiah would not be enough.

"I am he" Is a flimsy statement and holds little confirmation, if it were "I am he" then Jesus's true identity would soon be called in to question and more so today.
It would only serve to irritate them if anything at all.
As for calling them children of the devil and so on being the fuel to the fire, he was not the first to do it and live.
John the Baptist had no problem calling them out.
(Matthew 3:7) But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?”
Remember it wasn’t the Pharisees who had his head cut off.

During the entirety of Jesus's ministry he refers to himself as being one with the Father, he performs great miracles right in front of them and calls them out on all their shenanigans, and all the while they plot to kill him, they just need the one statement from him to put him away for good and it certainly will need to be something condemning, and what more condemning then the direct referral to himself in the oneness he has been talking about since the day he began preaching.

Moses was told to go and set Gods people free, and when Moses asks who shall I say sends me God says tell them “I am who I am.” Tell them that “I am” sends you.
It will be the great “I am” who will set the people free.
Jesus here is on the verge of setting his people free, and when the “Pharaohs” of the Old law badger him as to his Authority, comes the echo from past, Jesus stands before them and exclaims “I am.”

This is a direct slap in the face, it is purposeful = purposely referring to the "I am" of Scripture, historical Scripture they know better than any man and they know the story of Moses back to front and inside out and they understand the impact of this most sacred of names.
It is confronting = They are face to face with a man referring to himself as not just a divinity but God himself, the one they profess as their God.
Convicting = They are the ones God is setting his people free from, out with the old and in with the new. their ways have been judged and they have been found wanting.

This is what sends them in to a frenzy, this is what gets Jesus nailed to a cross.

Dress up "I am he" all you like, compared to relevance of "I am" especially at this particular moment of extreme pivotal importance is insulting and demeaning.

 

[kjw47]

Only in your mind, which seems very incohesive based on your responses. In the entirety of Lewis' works, he FULLY supports the Triune nature of God. That you do not know this confirms you don't know Lewis at all, but use words out of context to try and further your fallacious views.

I know Lewis, he has earned my respect as a man of God and my admiration to a certain degree. I don't know you and have no reason at all to accept ANYTHING you have to say as true. You simply support my current POV that all Arians are basically apostate.

You also obviously know nothing about what God said to Moses in Exodus 3:14 in order to tell the people who God was. This just confirms you have NO idea who God is other than in your own small deluded non inspired imagination. God makes who He is real to those who accept what His word says He is. You sir have nothing but incohesive babble to put forth.


This assertions shows just how little you understand the words of Christ.

The violent response of the Jews to Jesus’ “I AM” statement indicates they clearly understood what He was declaring—that He was the eternal God incarnate. Jesus was equating Himself with the "I AM" title God gave Himself in Exodus 3:14.

It doesn't say that in the bible. They hated Jesus--he tried to correct their bad teachings. he made miracles--many were starting to follow him--- they didn't even accept him as the Messiah, let alone think he was God. Jesus was telling them he lived before Abraham, he was the messiah---they were already confused on that matter.

 

[StanJ]

It doesn't say that in the bible. They hated Jesus--he tried to correct their bad teachings. he made miracles--many were starting to follow him--- they didn't even accept him as the Messiah, let alone think he was God. Jesus was telling them he lived before Abraham, he was the messiah---they were already confused on that matter.

It doesn't say WHAT in the Bible?
John 8:58
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!”
In the Greek, the words are "ego eimi." Literally, this is "I am." "Ego eimi" is the present active indicative first person singular (I am) and not the perfect active indicative first person singular (I have been).
As you cannot go against Exodus 3:14 you equivocate on this same statement by Jesus. The both meant the same thing. The Jews knew exactly what He meant by this. The following are examples that use the same rendering.

1. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am," (ASV).
2. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am," (KJV).
3. "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am," (NASB).
4. "I tell you the truth, Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!" (NIV).
5. "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM," (NKJV).
6. "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am," (RSV).
7. "Truly, truly, before Abraham was, I am," (NLT).
8. "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am," (RSV)
9. "Verily, verily I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am!" (KJ21).
10. "Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming--I am,' (YLT).
11. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am," (Darby).
12. "Antes que Abraham fuese, yo soy," (Spanish) - uses "yo soy" which is "I am."
13. "En vï'ritï', en vï'ritï', je vous le dis, avant qu'Abraham fï't, je suis," (French) "je suis" which is "I am."

As you have not proved you are credentialed in Greek, provide ONE English translation that supports your flawed assertion.

 

[Purity]

This is a direct slap in the face, it is purposeful = purposely referring to the "I am" of Scripture, historical Scripture they know better than any man and they know the story of Moses back to front and inside out and they understand the impact of this most sacred of names.
It is confronting = They are face to face with a man referring to himself as not just a divinity but God himself, the one they profess as their God.
Convicting = They are the ones God is setting his people free from, out with the old and in with the new. their ways have been judged and they have been found wanting.

This is what sends them in to a frenzy, this is what gets Jesus nailed to a cross.

Dress up "I am he" all you like, compared to relevance of "I am" especially at this particular moment of extreme pivotal importance is insulting and demeaning.

Could you see how its conceivable for the Master to say "I am" without actually being God?

I am not asking you if you believe it rather could it be conceived possible?

P.

 

[StanJ]

Could you see how its conceivable for the Master to say "I am" without actually being God?

I am not asking you if you believe it rather could it be conceived possible?

P.

The context of the scripture shows it isn't, so why conceive what isn't? Maybe you should just listen to what IS said.

 

[Purity]

The context of the scripture shows it isn't, so why conceive what isn't? Maybe you should just listen to what IS said.

Ok, seeing you raised the context lets take a look shall we?

Jesus replied,"If I (Jesus) glorify (manifest) myself, my glory is worthless. The one (Yahweh) who glorifies me is my Father, about whom you people say, 'He is our God.' (John 8:54)

Couple of things going on here isn't there Stan?

1. Its possible for Jesus to glorify himself!
2. If he did, his glory would be worthless
3. Jesus references a single source of Glory which he claims no ownership. This makes Trinitarian context implausible.
4. Any glory in the Son is viewed here as manifesting GOD, which again is given from the Father and to the Father.

Do you have another take on the context?

The question you need to consider here is how Jesus was placed into a situation whereby an "honest" answer would reveal a truth - now Jesus here is in total control of the dialogue as he always is so what eventuates is the desired outcome. Nevertheless an honest answer is given “If I Honour Myself” – Grk: “glorify” He must truthfully answer - Jesus is greater, but not of human comparison, but of the Father’s work in him.

Here is another issue, if Jesus were God why not honour himself? Has God not honour? If indeed you believe Jesus is wholly very God then why not say so?

Rather what happens?

“My Father Honoureth Me” Grk: “glorify” cp John 5:30-31

“Ye Say That He Is Your God” – so they lay claim to the “God of Israel” as if He were theirs Isa 63:17-19

“Ye Have Not Known Him” – Grk (Roth): “and yet ye have not come to know him, but I do know him”

“A Liar Like Unto You” – to hide the truth is no less falsehood, which would make him a child of the “father of liars” – like them

And then where does Jesus take the audience?

“Your Father Abraham desired to see my day ” – Jesus said this ironically!

So here is your challenge Stan - how does the context of John 8:56 relate to John 8:58?

Enjoy

P.

 

[Madad21]

Could you see how its conceivable for the Master to say "I am" without actually being God?

I am not asking you if you believe it rather could it be conceived possible?

P.

In order for me to have come up with my conclusions, of course I had to wonder if it was conceivable, im not mindless bud.
But look at just about anything Christ said and then try and imagine that he meant something slightly different, is it conceivable?
Of course, the translation can be played with and manipulated to say or imply any number of ideas, its all subjective.

 

[StanJ]

Ok, seeing you raised the context lets take a look shall we?
Jesus replied,"If I (Jesus) glorify (manifest) myself, my glory is worthless. The one (Yahweh) who glorifies me is my Father, about whom you people say, 'He is our God.' (John 8:54)
Couple of things going on here isn't there Stan?
1. Its possible for Jesus to glorify himself!
2. If he did, his glory would be worthless
3. Jesus references a single source of Glory which he claims no ownership. This makes Trinitarian context implausible.
4. Any glory in the Son is viewed here as manifesting GOD, which again is given from the Father and to the Father.
Do you have another take on the context?
The question you need to consider here is how Jesus was placed into a situation whereby an "honest" answer would reveal a truth - now Jesus here is in total control of the dialogue as he always is so what eventuates is the desired outcome. Nevertheless an honest answer is given “If I Honour Myself” – Grk: “glorify” He must truthfully answer - Jesus is greater, but not of human comparison, but of the Father’s work in him.
Here is another issue, if Jesus were God why not honour himself? Has God not honour? If indeed you believe Jesus is wholly very God then why not say so?
Rather what happens?
“My Father Honoureth Me” Grk: “glorify” cp John 5:30-31
“Ye Say That He Is Your God” – so they lay claim to the “God of Israel” as if He were theirs Isa 63:17-19
“Ye Have Not Known Him” – Grk (Roth): “and yet ye have not come to know him, but I do know him”
“A Liar Like Unto You” – to hide the truth is no less falsehood, which would make him a child of the “father of liars” – like them
And then where does Jesus take the audience?
“Your Father Abraham desired to see my day ” – Jesus said this ironically!
So here is your challenge Stan - how does the context of John 8:56 relate to John 8:58?

The context is about who Jesus is claiming He is, not your queries to setup your false dichotomy.
Jesus' purpose was clear before He was born. The Word knew that and God knew that. Jesus, as the hypostatic amalgam of God and man, knew that. He also knew that those He addressed did not know Him because they did not know God. It is obvious to anyone who doesn't have an agenda what the Jews knew what He was saying, and yet they continued to equivocate, knowing He wasn't a Samaritan nor demon possessed.
Jesus did not return equivocation and prevarication with the same, and even though they knew what He was claiming, they would not acknowledge the truth of who He WAS, and equivocated some more. John 1:10-13 is the synopsis of this scenario.
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

Jesus always knew what to say and how they would react. He knew what His words would be before time began as He knew what the arguments and protestations of those He spoke to would be. He knew would not receive Him. Not because Jesus exited before Abraham, but because the WORD did, and Jesus was the WORD incarnate. As you don't accept what the NT says about Jesus and His hypostatic nature, you will never understand it. As Paul teaches in Rom 10:17; Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.

 

[Purity]

The context is about who Jesus is claiming He is, not your queries to setup your false dichotomy.

In other words you do not understand the context like you first thought - gotcha!

Jesus' purpose was clear before He was born. The Word knew that and God knew that.

Agreed - the Logos (mind) of God always understood the New Creation in Christ Jesus - the Son, like the New creation was by promise - not in existence only in the Mind of God.

Jesus as the hypostatic amalgam of God and man knew that.

Now enters the creed language.

He also knew that those He addressed did not know Him because they did not know God.

Yes - Jesus always did the will of his Father - we know that Stan.

It is obvious to anyone who doesn't have an agenda what the Jews knew He was saying and yet they continued to equivocate, knowing He wasn't a Samaritan nor demon possessed.

Jesus did not return equivocation and prevarication with the same, and even thought they knew what He was claiming they would not acknowledge the truth of who He WAS, and equivocated some more. John 1:10-13 is the synopsis of this fact.

Here is his claim: John 8:36 "Son"

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

So you quote a section which demonstrates Jesus the Son of David coming to his own people Israel as a bother, yes, and as a King, yes, and as their Messiah, yes but not as their God!

Jesus always knew what to say and how they would react. He knew what His words would be before time began as He knew what the arguments and protestations of those He spoke to would be. He knew would not receive Him. Not because Jesus exited before Abraham, but because the WORD did, and Jesus was the WORD incarnate.

More creed language introduced "incarnate"...you keep this up and you will be converting your fellow Trinitarians to Monotheism.

The Word created Jesus Christ (fullstop) John 1:14

As you don't accept what the NT says about Jesus and His hypostatic nature, you will never understand it. As Paul teaches in Rom 10:17; Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.

Wormwood tried that on with me and where is he? His tail is between his legs because he couldn't prove a nature context from Phil 1 and now you come at me with Rom 10:17?

The Word of Christ Stan come from the mind not ones nature - you are not serious about using Rom 10:17 to prove hypostatic nature? surely not!

Note: The Greek term here is ῥῆμα (rhēma), which often (but not exclusively) focuses on the spoken word.

And its true - faith come by hearing and whether you hear that Word from God or His Son its the same Word - I could hear the Word from Paul and know they are from God and the Lord Jesus Christ Acts 16:32-34 - this had absolutely nothing to do with nature.

Context to Roman 10:17

“How timely is the arrival of those who proclaim the good news.” i.e an intelligible message from ones mouth!

Lame Stan - I hope your next post offers some meat.

You have not dealt with the context of Jesus' Words in John 8:54.

Waiting....