Jesus' formula for forgiveness: Mat 6; 18; & much more

[sojourner]

But God gives the condition, you must repent: See Ezek 18; Jer 7; Isaiah 55
Jesus says you must forgive others to be forgiven: See Mat 6:14-15, etc etc

OT and NT concepts of our relationship to God are quite different in their dynamic. It's not always a good idea to try and mush the two.

because that's what Ezek 18; Jer 7; and Isaiah 55 says it is.
I don't believe we 'earn' it, per se, but if our Father says if we do X, then we'll get Y, why not do as He asks?

What about the NT? the Incarnation completely changed the dynamic of the relationship between God and humanity -- and that's where grace becomes the state in which humanity dwells. Grace is free and unconditional, or it's no gift at all (and quite a poor example of God's love, to boot).

Was Jesus telling the truth when he said we'll be forgiven if we forgive others and we won't be forgiven if we don't forgive others?

That would depend, partly, upon whether it can be proven that the statement in question is authentic. In any case, the statement bears weighing against the many, many others, where Jesus shows extravagant hospitality and offers good news to the downtrodden and "undeserving."

 

[ATAT]

Was Jesus telling the truth when he said we'll be forgiven if we forgive others and we won't be forgiven if we don't forgive others?

That would depend, partly, upon whether it can be proven that the statement in question is authentic. In any case, the statement bears weighing against the many, many others, where Jesus shows extravagant hospitality and offers good news to the downtrodden and "undeserving."

It was my understanding that when Jesus was praising the downtrodden, that he was doing so because they had repented, turned back to God (Jesus was a man of God) and, by their actions, forgiven others.

The woman below is very 'undeserving', her cancelled debt is the highest debt, therefore she loves the most, therefore she is forgiven the most. (Loving others being equal or greater to forgiving them)

Luke 7:
39When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner."
40Jesus answered him, "Simon, I have something to tell you."
"Tell me, teacher," he said.
41"Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii,[d] and the other fifty. 42Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?"

43Simon replied, "I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled."
"You have judged correctly," Jesus said.
44Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. 46You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. 47Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."
48Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."
49The other guests began to say among themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?" 50Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."


It's all spelled out:
She was the lowest, 'owed' the most, had it cancelled, hence loved others the most (example, she loved Jesus via her actions), and because she loved the most, she was forgiven the most.

her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much.

Do you follow?

The men carrying the paralytic obviously loved the paralytic, Jesus 'saw' their faith, knew right away they were forgiven. What did he 'see'? He saw they were carrying the paralytic to him, a man of God, they must have loved the paralytic. Forgiveness is tied to loving others / forgiving others, according to Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

It was my understanding that when Jesus was praising the downtrodden, that he was doing so because they had repented, turned back to God (Jesus was a man of God) and, by their actions, forgiven others.

Not so. The downtrodden and outcast (especially according to Matthew) are especially endearing to God, whether they've repented or not.

Do you follow?

No. In the passage it says that she was forgiven because she loved much. Then, you say:

her cancelled debt is the highest debt, therefore she loves the most,

But that's not what the story says, is it. Her debt wasn't "cancelled" until after she showed great love. Additionally, since you seem to be picayune about language and syntax, she never repented. She loved. But she never repented. Jesus simply forgave her because she loved.

However, I think you've hit the nail on the head, if a little indirectly. Love is basic. Love is the key -- not forgiveness or repentance. That formula is smoke and mirrors for Jesus -- and us.

 

[ATAT]

But that's not what the story says, is it. Her debt wasn't "cancelled" until after she showed great love.

That would mean she's forgiven because she forgave/ loved.


She did all those nice things for Jesus, a man of God, isn’t that repenting?
I don't see her sinning any more, she's not out prostituting any more, she's here honoring Jesus in a loving and purely spiritual way.

A picayune was a Spanish coin, worth half a real. Its name derives from the French picaillon, which is itself from the Provençal picaioun, meaning "small coin." By extension, picayune can mean "trivial" or "of little value."

In any exchange of ideas, this is a normal feeling of both parties when there is not agreement on the meanings.

But I try to resist this feeling, I force myself to assume the other person is speaking sincerely and with their best abilities, because, I think that is the proper way to go, under the rules of the Principle of Charity.

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available.

- Wikipedia

 

[sojourner]

That would mean she's forgiven because she forgave/ loved.

Oh, so apparently, now "forgiveness" and "love" are the same thing as "repentance."

She did all those nice things for Jesus, a man of God, isn’t that repenting?

Not necessarily, no. I do nice things for people with whom I'm at odds, but that doesn't constitute forgiveness on my part.

I don't see her sinning any more, she's not out prostituting any more, she's here honoring Jesus in a loving and purely spiritual way.

She's not? The pericope doesn't specify that she is a "former" prostitute.

 

[ATAT]

44Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. 46You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet.

Me: verses 44 to 46 = Her actions of repentance.

47Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."
48Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."

Me: Verses 44 (starting from 44) to 48 = how she was forgiven, the nature of her actions (= repentance) were of love (=forgiving others and more).

All according to Jesus' formula, which he derived from the Jewish scriptures, Jer 7, Isaiah 55, Ezek 18.

 

[sojourner]

44Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. 46You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet.

Me: verses 44 to 46 = Her actions of repentance.

47Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."
48Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."

Me: Verses 44 (starting from 44) to 48 = how she was forgiven, the nature of her actions (= repentance) were of love (=forgiving others and more).

All according to Jesus' formula, which he derived from the Jewish scriptures, Jer 7, Isaiah 55, Ezek 18.

No they don't. Not one time did she ask for forgiveness. The host was certainly not expecting forgiveness-by-a-kiss. The kiss had nothing to do with forgiveness, at least by the criterion you have already set.

 

[ATAT]

Would you at least agree that the word, 'forgiven', means she was forgiven at that point or before, this moment was before the cross, and therefore the cross was not required for her to be forgiven, however that state of being 'forgiven' (in contrast to 'will be forgiven') was accomplished?

 

[sojourner]

Well, of course! I've never claimed that the cross did anything other than kill Jesus. I don't hold with Substitutionary Atonement.

 

[Blackdog22]

ATAT I declare you the winner. Making things up by "interpretation" just because it sounds nice to you doesn't make it so. I interpret that the Bible wants everyone to go to Heaven and Hell doesn't exist... Just because I can and its my deeper understanding despite what the text clearly says. Oh and Harry Potter is clearly about the holocaust. It is just the majorities interpretation is WAY OFF, and I have a deeper understanding.

Don't the religious know how.. Ahhh forget it.

 

[ATAT]

What did I make up?

I was quoting Jesus.

He said,
Matthew 6:14-15

14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
15 But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

This idea of Jesus (not mine) is fully explained, in context:

Mat 18:
21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
22 Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
23 "Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants.
24 As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him.
25 Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
26 "The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.'
27 The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
28 "But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii.[h] He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.
29 "His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'
30 "But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.
32 "Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to.
33 Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?'
34 In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
35 "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."

= in context, clear, on point, directly stated, with examples.
Jesus clearly says here, and many other places, clearly, that if you forgive others, you will be forgiven. Jesus said people were 'forgiven' = past tense, before the cross, so it can't depend on God being captured and tortured to death on the cross, as if that should make God happy with mankind. Could anything be worse? I wouldn't want my children to do that to gain my favor, why would God want that?

 

[sojourner]

You're preaching to the choir about the cross.

 

[ATAT]

If you don't believe in the cross, what are you doing in the choir?

(just kidding)

 

[Benoni]

The letter killeth, that is why God’s Word tells us to seek, ask and knock.


Let us look a little closer at this awesome verse especially the Strong’s Concordances reference <9999 >, it is worse then 666.

(KJV) John 3 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:15 That whosoever believeth in him should (not perish,) should be omitted), but have eternal life.16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that (whosoever, should be "all") (believeth, should be that "all believing") in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

The following are a direct quote from Strong’s Concordance.

John 3:15
<9999 > should
<9999 > not
<9999 > perish,
<9999 > but

NT:9999

9999 inserted word (x);

This word was added by the translators for better readability in the English. There is no actual word in the Hebrew/Greek text. The word may be displayed in italics, or in parentheses or other brackets, to indicate that it is not in the original text.


Now we will look at a passage in the New Testament; viz., that precious declaration in John 3:16,

"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son," etc. We will take into consideration verses 14-17 inclusive; first I will clear up several points of obscurity and error and then give the rendering as it should be.

In verse 15 the words "not perish but" should be omitted; according to the best authorities they have been interpolated, probably from the following verse; they are left out from the New Version.

Strong's Whosoever 3956 pas (pas);including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: KJV-- all (manner of, means), alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

The word "whosoever" in the l5th and l6th verses should be rendered "all";in the original it is the word usually rendered all throughout the New Testament; it occurs hundreds of times, and it is rendered
"all" in over nine hundred instances, and whosoever in only about forty; the rendering all then is plainly the usual one.

The word rendered "believeth," in the original is a participle, "believing"; the clause should read, "that all, believing in him should not," etc. The words, "believing in him," are explanatory, telling us how "all" are to be saved, viz, by believing in him. In the common version it will be noticed that the participle is, without authority, rendered by the verb "believeth," and the words, "whosoever believeth in him" are thereby made to have a conditional force, as though it read, if they believe in him, implying that some will not believe in him, and hence will perish, and be lost eternally.

But this is not a correct rendering of the original, as I have shown above; the clause is not conditional, but is thrown in, as a participial form, as explanatory of the manner of the world's salvation, by believing in him; this view is fully confirmed by the l9th verse; "for God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved."

Might be saved: Stong's 4982 sozo (sode'-zo); from a primary sos (contraction for obsolete saoz, "safe"); to save, i.e. deliver or protect (literally or figuratively): KJV-- heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be
(make) whole. The word “might” was added by the translator

Now I will give the whole passage as it ought to be.

"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifted up, that all,
believing in him. might have æonial life. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son,
that all, believing in him, might not perish, but have æonial life. For God sent not his Son into the world
to condemn the world but that the world through him be saved."

Thus truthfully translated this passage is one of the grandest and most sweeping declarations of the final universal triumph of God's grace in the salvation of the world, contained in the Bible. It is positive and direct, and mighty enough, could they only appreciate it, to utterly silence all those narrow, shortsighted souls who think that God will only gain a partial victory over the devil, that he will not save the world, but only a portion of it, a vast number being eternally lost. It is very plain why the translators of the common version handled this passage as they did. Their creed would not allow them to accept it just as it reads; it required only a slight change to make it conform to their own idea. They insert the unusual rendering "whosoever," change believing to "believeth," and then, punctuating it accordingly, the passage is "tinkered" so as to harmonize with the creed. Thank God for deliverance from man made creeds!

"Let God be true, though every man be false" (Rom. 3:4).

Young’s Literal John 3:14 `And as Moses did lift up the serpent in the wilderness, so it behoveth the Son of Man to be lifted up, 15 that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during, 16 for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during. 17 For God did not send His Son to the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him;

 

[Benoni]

Just because Jesus came in a earthy human form did not mean that all of God left high and exalted state and, what the Bible declares is God was manifested in the flesh. (God has the power and ability to do what ever He wants to, when ever He wants to; especially when it was His purpose to accomplish to defeat death and sin. We are talking about God here a Devine being who can do anything He desires or purpose to do. I already told you I do not believe in the trinity, God is one.



1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.



1 Timothy 3:16 (Amp) 16And great and important and weighty, we confess, is the hidden truth (the mystic secret) of godliness. He [God] was made visible in human flesh, justified and vindicated in the [Holy] Spirit, was seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, [and] taken up in glory.

Jesus was God when He walked this earth, but more important He was totally human; but He was not yet glorified because in all things there was a reason for His earthiness, His flesh.

 

[ATAT]

1. What was your point regarding John 3:16? Does John 3:16 require that we do what Jesus teaches, at a minimum?

2. Why do you then proceed to skip every single word of Jesus in the Gospels and quote Timothy?
As for 'manifest in the flesh', this could mean Jesus was living the life of God and teaching God.

If I were claim to embody Gandhi and "manifest him in the flesh", this NORMALLY would mean that I'm not claiming to be Gandhi. I'm being like Gandhi, I'm doing the work of Gandhi, I'm continuing his ideals, I'm living his life. If I wanted to state I am actually Gandhi, there's a much more direct way for me to say this: "I am Gandhi, I am actually Gandhi, not a messenger, not a teacher of Gandhi, I am Gandhi."

I wouldn't say, "I am Gandhi's son." nor "I am SENT by Gandhi.
Jesus says the latter over and over, never the former.

Why go by a vague Timothy when we can drink from the river and read Jesus himself?

I didn't mean literally drink from a river of water, sorry, I hope I didn't confuse you, rather, I meant 'river' as a symbolic idea, understand?

Obviously you understood me at first, I didn't need to clarify, you understood what I meant without me having to say it was symbolic.

As for Jesus being God visible in the human flesh, again, that's symbolic.

Compare:
1 John 4:
12No man has ever seen God. But God lives in us if we love one another. And in loving one another, his love is made perfect.
13He has given us of his own Spirit. That is how we know that we are in him and he is in us.

Ah, I get it, if we embody (oops, didn't mean to confuse you, I didn't mean we would literally become God, sorry) If we live the life, teach the ideas, do the good deeds, then you can 'see' God in us.

I didn't mean we would literally become God, and everyone reading this knew that without me having to say this. Why does Jesus' words get chopped, sliced, diced, and when it comes to how to be forgiven, completely ignored in favor of a symbolic letter written decades after Jesus was gone?

John 17:11
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name&#8212;the name you gave me&#8212;so that they may be one as we are one.

John 17:21
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.


Bottom line:

Jesus said you'd be ... let me just quote him directly, why not??

Mat 6:
11Give us today our daily bread.
12Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.[a]' 14For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Jesus never once said, never, "You must believe I am God, your sin atonement sacrifice, to be forgiven."

13 words. 33 years

Not once. Not vaguely, not by story, never.

He did say you have to forgive others to be forgiven, in context, frequently, in each Gospel, with examples, with details, with parables and directly.

He died to teach us this, and we turn around and change it.

We refuse to believe Jesus.

 

[ATAT]

Jesus was God when He walked this earth, but more important He was totally human; but He was not yet glorified because in all things there was a reason for His earthiness, His flesh.

I just wanted to mention that's a strange picture of God, walking along, human, visible, but not 'glorified'.

Tell me, when where the close followers of Jesus first made aware of his being God?

When Jesus was born?

Or only after Jesus was about to be captured by the Romans?

If only very late in the life of Jesus on earth, then nothing Jesus said prior can be understood to be a clear claim to be God, correct?


Which is it?

Christians constantly use quotes from early in the 3 year ministry as public proclamations of being God, yet Jesus' own followers seemingly had no idea.

If my room-mate was God for three years, you'd think he could clue me in.

Shouldn't Jesus have been more clear if I'm going to hell for getting it wrong?

What, he was afraid he might be killed, so he wouldn't tell anybody?

If he did say so early in his ministry, then why not be crystal clear, clear as a bell, don't claim to be a 'Son of Man' 'sent' by God every chance you get, rather, just come right out and say it, clearly, spell it out. I'm going to hell if I get it wrong, he's going to die to make it work, so just say it clearly, why not??

He didn't because he never meant it.

Thank you for your replies, time and attention.

 

[Benoni]

AT

What was your point regarding John 3:16? Does John 3:16 require that we do what Jesus teaches, at a minimum?

My point of John 3:16 is it is not a verse of condemnation, but a verse about salvation.

Why do you then proceed to skip every single word of Jesus in the Gospels and quote Timothy?

As for 'manifest in the flesh', this could mean Jesus was living the life of God and teaching God.

It is not a matter of skipping verses it is a matter of getting down to a truth; Jesus was “God” manifested in the flesh. No it means he was God manifested in the flesh; God made flesh.

If I were claim to embody Gandhi and "manifest him in the flesh", this NORMALLY would mean that I'm not claiming to be Gandhi. I'm being like Gandhi, I'm doing the work of Gandhi, I'm continuing his ideals, I'm living his life. If I wanted to state I am actually Gandhi, there's a much more direct way for me to say this: "I am Gandhi, I am actually Gandhi, not a messenger, not a teacher of Gandhi, I am Gandhi."

I wouldn't say, "I am Gandhi's son." nor "I am SENT by Gandhi.
Jesus says the latter over and over, never the former.

Jesus is not Gandhi; Jesus is the Lamb of God who took away the sins of the world; He is the second Adam who reversed the curse of the first Adam. Gandhi is not in the scriptures Jesus is. I do not care what you claim I care what God’s Word declares which you seem to to for you quoted a lot of verses from scripture.

Why go by a vague Timothy when we can drink from the river and read Jesus himself?

True; but God’s Word also declares “God” was manifested in the “flesh”.
There was nothing vague about Timothy.

I didn't mean literally drink from a river of water, sorry, I hope I didn't confuse you, rather, I meant 'river' as a symbolic idea, understand?

There are a lot of things symbolic but not in this case.

Obviously you understood me at first, I didn't need to clarify, you understood what I meant without me having to say it was symbolic.

As for Jesus being God visible in the human flesh, again, that's symbolic.

No way. He was God manifested in the flesh.

 

[ATAT]

But notice 1 Timothy in context:

Chapter 2:
5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

So, whoever wrote 1 Timothy believed that Jesus was not God. Instead, he was a man mediator between man and God.

As a 'mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus' manifest God to men. How so? By being God? Not according to Timothy in context. By being a 'man', a 'mediator' between God and men, and in case we might make a mistake and think Jesus is God, Timothy clarifies it, in advance, that Jesus was not the one God, rather, 1 Timothy thinks that Jesus was a 'mediator' a 'man' between God and men.

The word, 'manifest' specifically means to have the essense of. Jesus was not a 'manifestation', that's a different word, like if a Ghost solidifies and becomes a 'manifestation' of the ghost.

In context of the NT, Jesus taught the word of God, embodied it, manifested it in his teachings.

I cut and pasted two definitions below, but notice specifically:

cut and paste:
Definition: 1. transitive verb show something clearly: to make something evident by showing or demonstrating it very clearly

end cut and paste

That means to say that something manifest something else, it's a DEMONSTRATION of it very clearly.


////
adj. Clearly apparent to the sight or understanding; obvious. See Synonyms at apparent.

tr.v. man·i·fest·ed, man·i·fest·ing, man·i·fests 1. To show or demonstrate plainly; reveal: "Mercedes . . . manifested the chaotic abandonment of hysteria" (Jack London).
2. To be evidence of; prove.
3. a. To record in a ship's manifest.
b. To display or present a manifest of (cargo).


n. 1. A list of cargo or passengers carried on a ship or plane.
2. An invoice of goods carried on a truck or train.
3. A list of railroad cars according to owner and location.



man·i·fest

adjective Definition: obvious: clear to see or understand



verb (past and past participle man·i·fest·ed, present participle man·i·fest·ing, 3rd person present singular man·i·fests)Definition: 1. transitive verb show something clearly: to make something evident by showing or demonstrating it very clearly

2. intransitive verb appear: to appear or be revealed

3. transitive verb include something in cargo list: to include something in a ship's cargo list



noun (plural man·i·fests)Definition: 1. ship's cargo list: a list giving details of a ship's cargo, its destination, and other particulars for customs purposes

2. plane or train cargo list: a list of cargo or passengers on a plane or train

[14th century. Directly or via French< Latin manifestus "apprehensible" < manus "hand" + festus "seizable"]

man·i·fest·a·ble adjective

man·i·fest·ly adverb

Did Jesus ever claim to be God?

(ref John 1; 8; 10)


(King James Version)
Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

 

[Benoni]

Jesus was &#8220;God&#8221; manifested in the flesh when he was on earth, that part of God was man; for God ordained himself to die so he needed to become flesh.

God's love for humanity was so great that first of all God caused man to fall; but long before the fall he choose himself to be slain to reversed the curse.

No human sacrifice or death could atone for the sin of Adam; because it was God&#8217;s plan; so it was God who sacrificed himself.


1 Peter 1:19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you 21who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

1 Corinthians 15:22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.​

(order) Gk Strong&#8217;s NT:5001 tagma (tag'-mah); from NT:5021; something orderly in arrangement (a troop), i.e. (figuratively) a series or succession:


When Jesus walked the earth "he was human flesh" He was the second Adam; the lamb fresh for slaughter.


There are many names for God in scripture elohim is very relavamt to who we are and wh Jesus is. If we are not children (sons) of God; then what are we?

Who are the morning stars; note plural. Jesus was called the Bright and morning star. (not the Book of Mormon); that would be my answer Job 38:6-8 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? I understand this does not fit a lot of old wine skins; but there is something here.

Son&#8217;s of God mentioned eleven times in the Bible without hardly digging past all the bad interpretations. You would have to do a pretty deep and lengthy study on the word Elohim; which I admit would be deep and fascinating. Sons of Elohim; son&#8217;s of God; yes that is what the scripture is saying; note Job 1:6.

Look a little deeper at Ps. 82 and notice how the word Elohim was used with both a capital G and lower case; same word same meaning both Strong&#8217;s 430 and this has happen all thought out the KJV and who know what other translation.

Ps 82:6-8 6 "I said, 'You are "gods"; (Elohim) you are all sons of the Most High.' 7 But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler." 8 Rise up, O God (Elohim) , judge the earth, for all the nations are your inheritance.

Job1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God (Sons of Elohim) came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.



Son: Heb. OT:1121 ben (bane); from OT:1129; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., [like OT:1, OT:251, etc.]):

God: OT:430 elohiym (el-o-heem'); plural of OT:433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: