I and the father are one.

[Soapy]

First please answer question about translation otherwise everything you say is truly in serious question especially since you bring up translation in response to what you think it should be. Thanks.

Read Ephesians 4:9-10.

‘He descended … then ascended’

Check this: At no time did Jesus or scriptures say he was ‘going back’ to where he was.

He nor scriptures ever says that he is ‘going Back to the Father [who sent him]’.

Jesus only says:

1. ‘I was sent by the Father’
2. ‘I came from the Father’ (which is the same as (1)
3. ‘I came into the world [because the Father sent me!]

The ‘sending’ was after Jesus was baptised by God with the spirit of God at the river Jordan.

It was therefore AT THIS TIME that Jesus was made subject to ‘The World’ (a euphemism for Adversity, unrighteousness, wickedness).

Notice that after Jesus conquered ‘the world’ he told the disciples: ‘I am no longer IN THE WORLD…’ (John 17:11)

Clearly, Jesus was ‘on earth’ when he said this so ‘the world’ did not mean ‘on earth’.

The dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus further illustrates the point I am making. Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be ‘reborn’ if he is to see Heaven: He must first DESCEND before he can ASCEND.

Are you understanding yet? I am showing you that the claim that Jesus ‘Descended FROM HEAVEN’ is false. Jesus never claim this himself, it is the writer, John, who wrote it so or translators or added it. Either way it makes no sense in context of all else that has been said.

And notice that it also makes no sense that it is written of Jesus saying TO the Father,

• “I came DOWN FROM HEAVEN to do, not my Will, but yours’

How, then, is Jesus EQUAL to the Father, if:

• The Father sent him… (no equal sends another equal…!!)
• Jesus is doing the Will of the Father… not his OWN Will… (which if they were equal would be the SAME Will…!)
• Jesus is TAUGHT by the Father ….
• Jesus is ‘Finishing the work of the Father…’ and when he accomplishes it he, Jesus, is REWARDED with glory from the Father!

Extracting the truth from the lie is not a simple task. My answer cannot be simple and it also requires you to SEE what I’m saying…. What the scriptures truly say… not what trinitarian ideology wants you to believe.

Point of fact: why, if a belief is true, does the belief use so many false references and clearly incorrect claims in order to substantiate itself??

 

[YoursTrue]

You obvious didn’t read what I stated to you. You didn’t see the part about error-correction and validation from other sources.

I did state that you might not understand this.

I must have missed the part where you said which translation you prefer. Out of respect, can you please repeat that part? In other words, which translation do you like to use moreso than others? Thanks again.

 

[Cosmos-intérieur]

it signifies that human identity is that of an incarnate god or elohim.
the gods are interpenetrated into each other like oil and egg into mayonnaise.

it is a union of two principles and not the affirmation of a single principle.

Jesus is God insofar as he is exalted, omniscient, becoming what Mormons call an exalted being.
without being Mormons I quite agree with them on the doctrine of the plurality of gods.

 

[YoursTrue]

it signifies that human identity is that of an incarnate god or elohim.
the gods are interpenetrated into each other like oil and egg into mayonnaise.

it is a union of two principles and not the affirmation of a single principle.

Jesus is God insofar as he is exalted, omniscient, becoming what Mormons call an exalted being.
without being Mormons I quite agree with them on the doctrine of the plurality of gods.

Jesus was given special attributes when he was on the earth. Resurrections, healings, miracles--but now he is given all authority.
"And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth." (Matthew 28:18.)

 

[Soapy]

I must have missed the part where you said which translation you prefer. Out of respect, can you please repeat that part? In other words, which translation do you like to use moreso than others? Thanks again.

I do not use any particular translation. The truth is not in a specific translation as I pointed out to you: each translation has a personal agenda.

I told you that the truth is in the meaning of each event being looked at. I cannot understand how this has escaped you.

If a particular belief decides that they want Jesus to ‘be a God’ then they will translate as a verse here of there to try to make it seem that that is the right translation.

For instance, one translation claims a verse says: ‘GOD came in the flesh’. But it can easily be shown that the translation does not mention anything to do with God. Why did the translators PURPOSELY decide to mislead the reader? Should I say that that Bible is my ‘favourite’? Then I would be criticised for using a known scripture translation that was errored!

Should I confirm to JW translation? No, because that too is flawed…!

Even the King James version is flawed and has been shown to be so since James wanted HIS OWN PERSONAL Bible (and got it!!)

SDA have their own (I believe) so they can uphold what they feel is supporting their belief.

Douay-Rheims… Amplified, American Standard…. More…?

No! Any Bible would do IF AND ONLY IF the embedded errors are mentally corrected as the scriptures are read. But nonetheless, the gospel of John is highly suspicious in terms of wrongful scriptures but since it supports the trinitarian view of Jesus as ‘God’ most bibles will translate the gospel of John with the intent to show a trinity bias since the mass majority of churches are trinitarian.

Pressing me to ‘pick a favourite’ is not a question that will be answer with an ‘this one’ or a ‘that one’.

The version I have is the King James Version …. Simply because it is an easier read - not because of any leaning on belief (Baptist, Pentecostal, JW, SDA, Mormon, Anglican, Methodist, ……)

 

[Soapy]

Jesus was given special attributes when he was on the earth. Resurrections, healings, miracles--but now he is given all authority.
"And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth." (Matthew 28:18.)

I think you will find that Jesus was given access to the power of God (the spirit of God) and this allowed him to perform the many miracles that were performed.

The ‘All Powers and Authority’ you are referring to is AFTER he was executed and rose again.

Do you notice that the disciples, in particular the seventy, were amazed that they too could perform many miracles but failed in certain areas of such? Jesus explained to them that this was because the adversary was particularly strong in that area: ‘This type can only be removed through prayer!’, Jesus told them.

Truth is easier to be obtained if the correct timeline and theme is kept to.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Read Ephesians 4:9-10.

‘He descended … then ascended’

Check this: At no time did Jesus or scriptures say he was ‘going back’ to where he was.

He nor scriptures ever says that he is ‘going Back to the Father [who sent him]’.

Jesus only says:

1. ‘I was sent by the Father’
2. ‘I came from the Father’ (which is the same as (1)
3. ‘I came into the world [because the Father sent me!]

The ‘sending’ was after Jesus was baptised by God with the spirit of God at the river Jordan.

It was therefore AT THIS TIME that Jesus was made subject to ‘The World’ (a euphemism for Adversity, unrighteousness, wickedness).

Notice that after Jesus conquered ‘the world’ he told the disciples: ‘I am no longer IN THE WORLD…’ (John 17:11)

Clearly, Jesus was ‘on earth’ when he said this so ‘the world’ did not mean ‘on earth’.

The dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus further illustrates the point I am making. Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be ‘reborn’ if he is to see Heaven: He must first DESCEND before he can ASCEND.

Are you understanding yet? I am showing you that the claim that Jesus ‘Descended FROM HEAVEN’ is false. Jesus never claim this himself, it is the writer, John, who wrote it so or translators or added it. Either way it makes no sense in context of all else that has been said.

And notice that it also makes no sense that it is written of Jesus saying TO the Father,

• “I came DOWN FROM HEAVEN to do, not my Will, but yours’

How, then, is Jesus EQUAL to the Father, if:

• The Father sent him… (no equal sends another equal…!!)
• Jesus is doing the Will of the Father… not his OWN Will… (which if they were equal would be the SAME Will…!)
• Jesus is TAUGHT by the Father ….
• Jesus is ‘Finishing the work of the Father…’ and when he accomplishes it he, Jesus, is REWARDED with glory from the Father!

Extracting the truth from the lie is not a simple task. My answer cannot be simple and it also requires you to SEE what I’m saying…. What the scriptures truly say… not what trinitarian ideology wants you to believe.

Point of fact: why, if a belief is true, does the belief use so many false references and clearly incorrect claims in order to substantiate itself??

Soapy, are you aware that @YoursTrue is not a trinitarian?

She is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, like I am.

Jesus worshipped his Father. As followers of Jesus, ie., Christian, so do we.

At John 17:6, Jesus prayed, “....Father, glorify me with the glory I had alongside You before the world was.”

He existed before the world was created. There was only the Heavens, before the Earth was created.

Accepting that, does not mean one has to accept the trinity. Since Jesus is “the beginning of God’s creation, (Revelation 3:14)” he had to come before the Earth — the universe, even.

Take care, my cousin.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What about Mary?

 

[Soapy]

One reason I am asking you about what translation you use or like above others is because you make statements about translation without substantiation.

Give me an example and I will explain. The explanation will show you how to identify false verses or translations.

 

[Soapy]

Soapy, are you aware that @YoursTrue is not a trinitarian?

She is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, like I am.

Jesus worshipped his Father. As followers of Jesus, ie., Christian, so do we.

At John 17:6, Jesus prayed, “....Father, glorify me with the glory I had alongside You before the world was.”

He existed before the world was created. There was only the Heavens, before the Earth was created.

Accepting that, does not mean one has to accept the trinity. Since Jesus is “the beginning of God’s creation, (Revelation 3:14)” he had to come before the Earth — the universe, even.

Take care, my cousin.

Ok, sorry (to her) I didn’t know.

The verse you quoted is a corrupted verse. I know it sounds great in respect of the ideology that claims that Jesus pre-existed but that is the point I’m making to her: It is false!

Is there another qualifier for the ideology that Jesus ‘had glory with the Father from before the world was’?

No, There isn’t even a single one. Valid verse are backed up by others in order to overcome corruption - that’s what I’m saying and that’s what is. God knows that man would try to corrupt the scriptures and so He had put in place error-checking and error-correcting methodologies in His word to man so the astute and discernible ones will not be misled.

Jesus asked God to give him the glory THAT WAS THERE FROM THE BEGINNING… even before the creation….

Before God created the world and all that is in it, He proposed that it should be ruled over by a human Son in his image: a physical ruler in a physical kingdom just as He is a spirit ruler in a spirit world.

The glory of being a ruler in the physical world … You know that Jesus asked for ‘the glory’ AFTER he had conquered ‘the world’. Jesus did not ask for God to ‘give him BACK the glory’: give him something he has before - and how did he lose it… in fact, what was that glory? No verse states any such claim. If there were such a claim then it would have been repeated at least twice more. True claims are repeated throughout the scriptures.

The Revelation 1:18 has Jesus staying:

• “…I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever!…”

If Jesus was a pre-existent entity, he would speak of that pre-existence but there isn’t any such presentation of a Heavenly existence. He could not DIE … let alone only now claim to be ‘Alive forever more’….. The JW/TRINITARIAN claim is always that Jesus is an ETERNAL BEING: Jesus here shows that he WAS NOT BUT ONLY NOW IS.

Remember that Jesus warns that corruption would come about, and that there is an eternal punishment for whomever carries out such corruptions - yeah, even those who knowingly inculcate the corruption.

Speaking of corrupt translation: the other verse yoh gave, Rev 3:14, what does the Greek word ‘Arché’ mean? Along with ‘Archangel’ the meaning is:

• “746 arxḗ – properly, from the beginning(temporal sense), i.e. "the initial (starting) point"; (figuratively) what comes first and therefore is chief (foremost), i.e. has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent").”

Jesus is not a ‘CREATION’ in terms of the world. He is a creation though in terms of Humanity since he was not procreated (a Human sexual reproduction). And, along with the first verse you quoted, Jesus is PRE-EMINENT over the creation of God… because GOD GRANTED HIM this position of GLORY AFTER HE HAD CONQUERED SIN AND CORRUPTION. Jesus is the first RAISED FROM THE DEAD…

The mis-translations should be leaping out at you by now!! And, you see how the trinitarian claims CANNOT BE TRUE in light of the truth I showed you. In Christianity the pre-eminent (the ‘Arché’), the chief, the RULING ideology is trinity - and JW can see the error of the trinity claims. And trinity shows up the errors of JW ideology: these two ideologies are what Jesus said: ‘Satan fighting Satan’. Many people will claim to believe in one or the other based on the fallacies unearthed by the one or the other. The basis of this wrongful thinking is that if the error is shown in one then THE OTHER MUST BE TRUE!!! Uh no!! BOTH CAN BE WRONG!!!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The verse you quoted is a corrupted verse.

Which? John or Revelation?

Really, that seems too convenient to say…. If you don’t agree with it, you can just say, “well that’s been corrupted.”

Actually, to me you are saying, “God can’t control what’s in His Own book.”

Well, He does allow people to mess with particular verses, but other versions exist that present an accurate meaning, discovered by reasoning on which wordings agree with the context.

I know….John 1:1 is messed up, in most Bibles, but not all. And again, by reading the context, we can come to an accurate determination.

IMO, if you’re going to question some of it, then where does it (the questioning) end? Only accept what it says when you agree with it?

it needs to be the other way around: we have to align our thinking to agree with its entire context.

Have a good day, my cousin.

 

[Soapy]

Which? John or Revelation?

Really, that seems too convenient to say…. If you don’t agree with it, you can just say, “well that’s been corrupted.”

Actually, to me you are saying, “God can’t control what’s in His Own book.”

Well, He does allow people to mess with particular verses, but other versions exist that present an accurate meaning, discovered by reasoning on which wordings agree with the context.

I know….John 1:1 is messed up, in most Bibles, but not all. And again, by reading the context, we can come to an accurate determination.

IMO, if you’re going to question some of it, then where does it (the questioning) end? Only accept what it says when you agree with it?

it needs to be the other way around: we have to align our thinking to agree with its entire context.

Have a good day, my cousin.

No! I profoundly disagree. As for ‘God can’t control what is in his book’… I think you’ve jumped off the cliff without a parachute with that thought.

First off, I said that God DOES CONTROL His book. I said that God put in place ERROR-CORRECTION algorithms inHis book so that, as He knew would happen, purposely designed errors crept into it. Now if that isn’t controlling what is his, I don’t know what will suffice for you…. If you think God is going to STOP man corrupting His book in small parts that can bloom into larger errors then you obviously do not understand the greatness of God: it would mean you think God is AFRAID …

I know you think badly of what I just said, and that is because you will have seen the error of what you said and it hurts to know you erred badly… even if you only implied that I might have said it….. no! It was in fact completely against what I said or you thought I might have implied - in effect, if smacks of a typical trinitarian response to being shown truth…. As I said, trinity and JW are cousins-in-scriptural-minds.

Answer: God allows wrongdoing so the Sheep will be shown up against the Wolves. The true sheep will not be misled but the wolves will devour the fallacy as if it is relish.

Questioning - where does it stop: IT DOES NOT STOP!! We are warned to question all things!

I see in mathematics where PROOF is requested for a conjecture or theorem. It is no good replying that, ‘That’s what it looks like… so there is the proof!’. Why do we think we should not request precise proof about scriptures employing what mathematicians call ‘Lemma’s (known prior accepted proofs). What I showed you was that there is no ‘Lemma’ for many of the thing trinity (mainly, and JW to a lesser extent) is supposed to have said, which means any ‘proof’ coming from such is INVALID, but there will be a ‘Lemma’ that proves the case that IS VALID.

For instance, there is no ‘Lemma’ for the claim that Jesus pre-existed. You are completely correct that John 1:1-3 is UNDERSTOOD falsely, and I’m not just talking about ‘God vs A God’ nonsense… nonsense, since John 1:1-3 is NOT EVEN speaking about Jesus!!

What is a person’s word (do not use capital letters - that the start of the fallacy!). If you say you are going to do something in a future time and you do it, isn’t that ‘Putting Flesh on the bones of your word’?? didnt your word ‘come _true] in the flesh’?

God’s word was that he would send a saviour: and His word put on flesh in the form of a child born sinless and holy, and given the name, ‘Joshua’.

Ask me for proof? Do you wonder about some innocuous story in the scriptures?? Why was it spoken of John the Baptist being six months older than Jesus? Don’t know…???! Hmmm… what do they teach you JW college! And what the story about Zacharias not wanting to name his son the name the Angel commanded him to name him… do you wonder what the significance of that is??? No? Perhaos you should, it’s the LEMMA required - the qualifier for what happened with Mary’s event.

More, much more. Please keep asking. (P.s. I haven’t explained the above just in case you don’t want to know - which would show that you aren’t interested in truth - just following what your religious teachers teach you in the same way trinitarian teachers teach much fallacy against the person they call their Lord And their God.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Ok, sorry (to her) I didn’t know.

The verse you quoted is a corrupted verse. I know it sounds great in respect of the ideology that claims that Jesus pre-existed but that is the point I’m making to her: It is false!

Is there another qualifier for the ideology that Jesus ‘had glory with the Father from before the world was’?

No, There isn’t even a single one. Valid verse are backed up by others in order to overcome corruption - that’s what I’m saying and that’s what is. God knows that man would try to corrupt the scriptures and so He had put in place error-checking and error-correcting methodologies in His word to man so the astute and discernible ones will not be misled.

Jesus asked God to give him the glory THAT WAS THERE FROM THE BEGINNING… even before the creation….

Before God created the world and all that is in it, He proposed that it should be ruled over by a human Son in his image: a physical ruler in a physical kingdom just as He is a spirit ruler in a spirit world.

The glory of being a ruler in the physical world … You know that Jesus asked for ‘the glory’ AFTER he had conquered ‘the world’. Jesus did not ask for God to ‘give him BACK the glory’: give him something he has before - and how did he lose it… in fact, what was that glory? No verse states any such claim. If there were such a claim then it would have been repeated at least twice more. True claims are repeated throughout the scriptures.

The Revelation 1:18 has Jesus staying:

• “…I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever!…”

If Jesus was a pre-existent entity, he would speak of that pre-existence but there isn’t any such presentation of a Heavenly existence. He could not DIE … let alone only now claim to be ‘Alive forever more’….. The JW/TRINITARIAN claim is always that Jesus is an ETERNAL BEING: Jesus here shows that he WAS NOT BUT ONLY NOW IS.

Remember that Jesus warns that corruption would come about, and that there is an eternal punishment for whomever carries out such corruptions - yeah, even those who knowingly inculcate the corruption.

Speaking of corrupt translation: the other verse yoh gave, Rev 3:14, what does the Greek word ‘Arché’ mean? Along with ‘Archangel’ the meaning is:

• “746 arxḗ – properly, from the beginning(temporal sense), i.e. "the initial (starting) point"; (figuratively) what comes first and therefore is chief (foremost), i.e. has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent").”

Jesus is not a ‘CREATION’ in terms of the world. He is a creation though in terms of Humanity since he was not procreated (a Human sexual reproduction). And, along with the first verse you quoted, Jesus is PRE-EMINENT over the creation of God… because GOD GRANTED HIM this position of GLORY AFTER HE HAD CONQUERED SIN AND CORRUPTION. Jesus is the first RAISED FROM THE DEAD…

The mis-translations should be leaping out at you by now!! And, you see how the trinitarian claims CANNOT BE TRUE in light of the truth I showed you. In Christianity the pre-eminent (the ‘Arché’), the chief, the RULING ideology is trinity - and JW can see the error of the trinity claims. And trinity shows up the errors of JW ideology: these two ideologies are what Jesus said: ‘Satan fighting Satan’. Many people will claim to believe in one or the other based on the fallacies unearthed by the one or the other. The basis of this wrongful thinking is that if the error is shown in one then THE OTHER MUST BE TRUE!!! Uh no!! BOTH CAN BE WRONG!!!

You keep talking about corruption. How do you KNOW it's been corrupted? You're not providing proof. I'm not saying all translations are correct, but where are you getting your assumption from? All you do is say it's corrupted. But no proof, should I take your word for it? If you can't produce the verse and BACK IT UP with factual material such as Greek or Hebrew plus explanations from the Greek and Hebrew by scholars, what good is it? So unless you can produce which text you're using, there's nothing but your ranting. Which has been from the beginning of your posts, I notice.
Thanks anyway. hopefully in the future you'll produce more than your word about texts. Please don't expect me or others to believe anything you have to say unless you can back it up with serious explanations using texts, translations, and explanations of the Greek, Hebrew, and transmission. Thanks again.

 

[YoursTrue]

to @Soapy
In math, 2 apples + 2 apples equal 4 apples.
In your posts, your statements do not ADD UP, my dear. Work on that, maybe you'll begin to make sense. Have a good one.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No! I profoundly disagree. As for ‘God can’t control what is in his book’… I think you’ve jumped off the cliff without a parachute with that thought.

First off, I said that God DOES CONTROL His book. I said that God put in place ERROR-CORRECTION algorithms inHis book so that, as He knew would happen, purposely designed errors crept into it. Now if that isn’t controlling what is his, I don’t know what will suffice for you…. If you think God is going to STOP man corrupting His book in small parts that can bloom into larger errors then you obviously do not understand the greatness of God: it would mean you think God is AFRAID …

I know you think badly of what I just said, and that is because you will have seen the error of what you said and it hurts to know you erred badly… even if you only implied that I might have said it….. no! It was in fact completely against what I said or you thought I might have implied - in effect, if smacks of a typical trinitarian response to being shown truth…. As I said, trinity and JW are cousins-in-scriptural-minds.

Answer: God allows wrongdoing so the Sheep will be shown up against the Wolves. The true sheep will not be misled but the wolves will devour the fallacy as if it is relish.

Questioning - where does it stop: IT DOES NOT STOP!! We are warned to question all things!

I see in mathematics where PROOF is requested for a conjecture or theorem. It is no good replying that, ‘That’s what it looks like… so there is the proof!’. Why do we think we should not request precise proof about scriptures employing what mathematicians call ‘Lemma’s (known prior accepted proofs). What I showed you was that there is no ‘Lemma’ for many of the thing trinity (mainly, and JW to a lesser extent) is supposed to have said, which means any ‘proof’ coming from such is INVALID, but there will be a ‘Lemma’ that proves the case that IS VALID.

For instance, there is no ‘Lemma’ for the claim that Jesus pre-existed. You are completely correct that John 1:1-3 is UNDERSTOOD falsely, and I’m not just talking about ‘God vs A God’ nonsense… nonsense, since John 1:1-3 is NOT EVEN speaking about Jesus!!

What is a person’s word (do not use capital letters - that the start of the fallacy!). If you say you are going to do something in a future time and you do it, isn’t that ‘Putting Flesh on the bones of your word’?? didnt your word ‘come _true] in the flesh’?

God’s word was that he would send a saviour: and His word put on flesh in the form of a child born sinless and holy, and given the name, ‘Joshua’.

Ask me for proof? Do you wonder about some innocuous story in the scriptures?? Why was it spoken of John the Baptist being six months older than Jesus? Don’t know…???! Hmmm… what do they teach you JW college! And what the story about Zacharias not wanting to name his son the name the Angel commanded him to name him… do you wonder what the significance of that is??? No? Perhaos you should, it’s the LEMMA required - the qualifier for what happened with Mary’s event.

More, much more. Please keep asking. (P.s. I haven’t explained the above just in case you don’t want to know - which would show that you aren’t interested in truth - just following what your religious teachers teach you in the same way trinitarian teachers teach much fallacy against the person they call their Lord And their God.)

Maybe it’s my fault, but I’m not grasping the importance of those questions that you are asking; John the Baptist being 6 mos. older, because Elizabeth got pregnant 6 mos. earlier than Mary, simple enough. And Zachariah had no issue with naming his son John.

I must say though, you come across as very caustic…

My cousin, I’m very interested in truth; and I’ve found it as Jesus said: among those who do “the will of [his] Father.” (Matthew 7:21-23)

Just a few rhetorical questions, if you don’t mind:

Referencing Matthew 7:21, do you know what His Will is? The Bible tells us.

Also, in Matthew 25:31-45, Jesus speaks of “goats”, “sheep”, and his “brethren / brothers.” Can you explain who these groups represent? Why are the aforementioned sheep, not Jesus’ brothers? What’s the difference?

Who make up those in the “first resurrection” of the dead (Revelation 20:6)? There is apparently a second resurrection….who are part of that? Why? and where?

And lastly, a simple question but with a very profound answer: Since Jesus said his followers should ‘love their enemy (Matthew 5:44)’… in fact, his followers would actually be identified
by their ‘love among themselves’ (John 13:34-35)…. what position should a Christian take if the country in which they live gets involved in a war?

Best wishes to you.

 

[Soapy]

Maybe it’s my fault, but I’m not grasping the importance of those questions that you are asking; John the Baptist being 6 mos. older, because Elizabeth got pregnant 6 mos. earlier than Mary, simple enough. And Zachariah had no issue with naming his son John.

What an amazing thing that you are unaware of the reason for these storylines - that they are seemingly purposeless to you! What else are you unaware of YET you challenge me and attempt belittlement of what I’m showing you as if you knew better!

Ok, but I’m glad you asked instead of posting gobbledygook as others would have done!!

The aspect of time and a great personage was asked of Jesus by the Jews: ‘Are you greater than our great foreFather Abraham?’. Jesus answered that he was indeed greater than Abraham: ‘Even before Abraham [was born], I am!’. Now, I know what Trinitarians claim the verse is supposed to say for their purpose but it simply means that Jesus’ ‘day’ of glory had been foretold - in fact God glorified Abraham by telling him that this coming son of glory would be from his own loins - an offspring in his lineage - and this pleases Abraham greatly. But in terms of time, Abraham was OLDER than Jesus (quote evidently!). Boom! There it is:

• The younger transcend the older
• The older was great but he who came after was greater
• John the Baptist was a great prophet very much blessed by God, but Jesus, though younger, was even greater than John the Baptist

But you are going to ask me why the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming [he was God].

Ha! That’s Trinitarians for you! Jesus DID NOT CLAIM TO BE GOD. ‘I am’ is NOT the name of God!!

‘Eigo Eimi’ is the same ‘I am’ as the man who was born blind but was now healed and when asked by a stern committee of Jews if he was indeed that man, he replied, ‘Eigo Eimi’. Did the committee suggest stoning him for a blasphemous claim? And what about Jesus in the garden confronted by the crowd the last night. He said also, ‘Eigo Eimi’ when asked if he was the Jesus they were seeking, ‘Yes, I am’, Jesus replied. You will notice that when the translators did not want to sag Jesus was claiming to be God they add: ‘He’ to the response (‘[Yes,] I am he’).

So, you ask, why did that want to stone Jesus? Well, I would think that once you dismiss the crazy suggestion of Trinitarians, you are left with the only plausible (and true) answer: The Jews were ANGRY, aggrieved, indignant, affronted, by this ‘not yet 50 year old young man’ claiming to be greater than their reverted forefather, Abraham (50 years possibly the age of senior authority in jewdom! It’s ridiculous that anyone should think that if Jesus HAD BEEN over fifty years old then he would have qualified to HAVE SEEN Abraham!!)

Going back: It was necessary to show that John was older than Jesus in order for the qualifying statements (bullet pointed above) to be made true. Do you notice that otherwise John had no relationship with Jesus. Even Jesus did not refer to John as a relation nor that he even knew John (though, of course, if God had wanted Jesus to know John in any other way than a great Baptist, God would have made him known to Jesus!)
[QUOTE]I must say though, you come across as very caustic…[/QUOTE] Passion, perhaps?!

But I don’t think God punished John the Baptist for being the same - in fact, didn’t Jesus get extremely uncharacteristically furious at something he didn’t like!!!

My cousin, I’m very interested in truth; and I’ve found it as Jesus said: among those who do “the will of [his] Father.” (Matthew 7:21-23)

That’s excellent. …. Who are they?

Just a few rhetorical questions, if you don’t mind:

Referencing Matthew 7:21, do you know what His Will is? The Bible tells us.

Jesus teaches all of this from the beginning of chapter 5 onwards.

Also, in Matthew 25:31-45, Jesus speaks of “goats”, “sheep”, and his “brethren / brothers.” Can you explain who these groups represent? Why are the aforementioned sheep, not Jesus’ brothers? What’s the difference?

Goats, dogs, snakes (vipers / serpents), .. all metaphors for evil people. Sheep are dual identity since sheep are easily led, some towards godliness and some towards sinfulness.

Who make up those in the “first resurrection” of the dead (Revelation 20:6)? There is apparently a second resurrection….who are part of that? Why? and where?

The scriptures are quite clear on these matters. I can’t understand why you are asking this?

But ok, the scriptures says that those in the first resurrection are those whose names gave already been written in the book of life. They are the ELECT OF GOD.

Are you thinking I’m going to say ‘Those who are SAVED’? If you are then I’ll tell you that that phrase is over-used to the point of uselessness.

And lastly, a simple question but with a very profound answer: Since Jesus said his followers should ‘love their enemy (Matthew 5:44)’… in fact, his followers would actually be identified
by their ‘love among themselves’ (John 13:34-35)…. what position should a Christian take if the country in which they live gets involved in a war?

Best wishes to you.

Last question: Be fair… do not mistreat a captured enemy… in fact, treat them VERY WELL. Speak to them of friendship and goodness. Teach them your belief in God while not detracting from their God (you are not condoning their belief, just not belittling them about it!) When they released they can sag only good things about you.

Love you enemy: Well, the above is a huge part of this. Try everything before engaging in a war that will cause hurt, damage and/or death. Give yourself to be hurt before any hurt is placed upon your enemy.
Try to walk away from frivolous contention - you don’t ALWAYS need to win an dispute to prove you are right. Don’t antagonise your enemy : that is brutally bad!!! Taunting is a big no-no!!
A woman slaps a man for no real purpose. The man is stung to the core. She taunts him that he can’t hit her back. He grows ever angrier ….

1. He prays in himself for Holy Spirit … sucks it up, says, ‘I forgive you’, and backs away (don’t turn his back as she will attack him for walking off) She’s taunting him to give a bad react whereupon her male friends or standersby (who won’t care that it was she that attacked him…) will attack him and get him arrested (police won’t care to ask why she hit him, either! Mistaken identity: pat her bottom and tell her to go home - don’t even book her for assault!)
2. Be consumed with evil and mistreat her back… God can hardly be pleased by that reaction

This is the stance we are asked to take but with sin in us it’s likely action we take may not convey our actual standing in the Christian belief.

 

[Soapy]

You keep talking about corruption. How do you KNOW it's been corrupted? You're not providing proof. I'm not saying all translations are correct, but where are you getting your assumption from? All you do is say it's corrupted. But no proof, should I take your word for it? If you can't produce the verse and BACK IT UP with factual material such as Greek or Hebrew plus explanations from the Greek and Hebrew by scholars, what good is it? So unless you can produce which text you're using, there's nothing but your ranting. Which has been from the beginning of your posts, I notice.
Thanks anyway. hopefully in the future you'll produce more than your word about texts. Please don't expect me or others to believe anything you have to say unless you can back it up with serious explanations using texts, translations, and explanations of the Greek, Hebrew, and transmission. Thanks again.

When you see the proof you will say that if is not proof.

The reason is that you do not want to see the truth.

God gives the truth to whom He will. The scriptures tells you so but it seems you don’t believe that either at this time… but how could you unless God draws you to understand it.

BUT IF HE DOES…… do not be disbelieving it!!!!

Who has ears to hear but cannot hear - Who has eyes to see but cannot see?

 

[YoursTrue]

When you see the proof you will say that if is not proof.

The reason is that you do not want to see the truth.

God gives the truth to whom He will. The scriptures tells you so but it seems you don’t believe that either at this time… but how could you unless God draws you to understand it.

BUT IF HE DOES…… do not be disbelieving it!!!!

Who has ears to hear but cannot hear - Who has eyes to see but cannot see?

yeah -- ok -- have a good one.

 

[Soapy]

yeah -- ok -- have a good one.

Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Thank you.

You're welcome. I'll wait so you can consider whether to answer as to what translation you prefer.