The Angel of the LORD

[terraricca]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 24 2012,21:20)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 24 2012,05:12) Gene is acknowledging the correct past tense “he EXISTED before Abraham DID“. Mike……..I believe Jesus preexisted before Abraham not as a Sentential Being, But preexisted in the Plan and will of God as written in scriptures. Jesus was a Prophesied Son of Man to come into existence by a  human Berth process just as all Mankind did with the exception of Adam and Eve. IMO Again Mike,  Jesus did not preexist his berth on this earth as any kind of being in the past. IMO peace and love to you and yours………………………………..gene

G

only men dreams God almighty does not need to dream he just do things as he pleases,

and you never answered the questions that was put before you in the PREEXISTANCE OF CHRIST and so keep repeating over and over one single statement what his your opinion .

and your opinion his not scriptural ,right yes

[kerwin]

Mike,

Quote

But Kerwin's future tense theory simply doesn't match the context of the passage: John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” The bolded words above were also written in the aorist tense, yet it is clear from the context that, as usual, they should be rendered as a simple English past tense.  (Perhaps Kerwin would like to see these words in the future tense?    ) John 8:57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” Uh-oh Kerwin.  The bolded words in this verse were written in the PERFECT tense.  That means you can't buck the system and pretend that “have seen Abraham” could be the future tense “will see Abraham” – not to mention that, once again, the CONTEXT would not allow for such a translation.  In other words, there is no loophole for you to exploit in 8:57, right?

I have not looked into the Ancient Greek behind these words beyond scanning for the verb types, as being non-controversial they do not create such interest in me.  Abraham did see Jesus, the Seed God promised him, by whom he would by become the father of many nations.    Being a prophet of Jehovah he saw it through prophecy as well.  

If Abraham, from his own conception, already saw Jesus’ day, then why would he rejoice “at the thought of seeing” it?

The Jews did not understand Jesus because of their lack of knowledge.

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 25 2012,01:38)

Mike, Quote But Kerwin's future tense theory simply doesn't match the context of the passage: John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” The bolded words above were also written in the aorist tense, yet it is clear from the context that, as usual, they should be rendered as a simple English past tense.  (Perhaps Kerwin would like to see these words in the future tense?    ) John 8:57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” Uh-oh Kerwin.  The bolded words in this verse were written in the PERFECT tense.  That means you can't buck the system and pretend that “have seen Abraham” could be the future tense “will see Abraham” – not to mention that, once again, the CONTEXT would not allow for such a translation.  In other words, there is no loophole for you to exploit in 8:57, right? I have not looked into the Ancient Greek behind these words beyond scanning for the verb types as being non-controversial they do not create such interest in me.  Abraham did see Jesus, the Seed God promised him, by whom he would by become the father of many nations.    Being a prophet of Jehovah he saw it through prophecy as well.   If Abraham, from his own conception, already saw Jesus’ day, then why would he rejoice “at the thought of seeing” it? The Jews did not understand Jesus because of their lack of knowledge.

k

Quote

The Jews did not understand Jesus because of their lack of knowledge.

this does not mean the knowledge was not available but they were not interested in that knowledge,and understanding,

nothing different today ;the knowledge is there for the once to whom it is a premium to know,like the true disciples were waiting for him to arrive ,

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 25 2012,02:44)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 24 2012,21:20) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 24 2012,05:12) Gene is acknowledging the correct past tense “he EXISTED before Abraham DID“. Mike……..I believe Jesus preexisted before Abraham not as a Sentential Being, But preexisted in the Plan and will of God as written in scriptures. Jesus was a Prophesied Son of Man to come into existence by a  human Berth process just as all Mankind did with the exception of Adam and Eve. IMO Again Mike,  Jesus did not preexist his berth on this earth as any kind of being in the past. IMO peace and love to you and yours………………………………..gene G only men dreams God almighty does not need to dream he just do things as he pleases, and you never answered the questions that was put before you in the PREEXISTANCE OF CHRIST  and so keep repeating over and over one single statement what his your opinion . and your opinion his not scriptural ,right yes

Terricca……….Where do you see the word “DREAM” in what i wrote, Please try to try to commit on exactly what i say instead of adding your twisted meanings to it.

God having a Plan and purpose for his creation does not mean he had a “Dream” as you ignorantly suppose. IMO

peace and love to you and yours…………………………………..gene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 24 2012,09:20)

Mike……..I believe Jesus preexisted before Abraham not as a Sentential Being, But preexisted in the Plan and will of God………

Well Gene,

At least you are understanding “Before Abraham EXISTED” correctly.  Kerwin is trying to nonsensically change that obvious meaning to “Before Abraham IS TO BECOME”.  

But “IS TO BECOME” doesn't come close to matching the question the Jews asked Jesus in verse 57.

In this case, you, I, every scholar who ever made a translation of John 8:58, are correct in understanding “Before Abraham WAS”.  Kerwin, on the other hand, is searching hard for a loophole – completely ignoring the fact that his loophole doesn't align with the words of verse 57.

These “personal loopholes” are obvious to people without a pre-conceived notion to protect.  That being said, let me show you where your pre-conceived notion goes awry:

John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

In reality, this is Jesus saying HE came DOWN FROM HEAVEN to do the will of his Father.  

In YOUR LOOPHOLE, this is Jesus saying THE PLAN OF HIMSELF came down from heaven to do the will of his Father.

See the difference?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 24 2012,13:38)

If Abraham, from his own conception, already saw Jesus’ day, then why would he rejoice “at the thought of seeing” it?

The same way John might rejoice at the thought of someday actually seeing, with his own eyes, the things he was shown via prophecy in Revelation.  If you were shown some wonderful, future event through prophecy, would you not rejoice at the thought of that day actually happening for real?

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 24 2012,13:38)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64) But Kerwin's future tense theory simply doesn't match the context of the passage: John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” The bolded words above were also written in the aorist tense, yet it is clear from the context that, as usual, they should be rendered as a simple English past tense.  (Perhaps Kerwin would like to see these words in the future tense?    ) John 8:57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” Uh-oh Kerwin.  The bolded words in this verse were written in the PERFECT tense.  That means you can't buck the system and pretend that “have seen Abraham” could be the future tense “will see Abraham” – not to mention that, once again, the CONTEXT would not allow for such a translation.  In other words, there is no loophole for you to exploit in 8:57, right? I have not looked into the Ancient Greek behind these words………..

Well, look into it when you get the time.  “Have seen” in verse 57 is definitely written in the perfect tense.  And “Before Abraham came into being (became)” is written in the second aorist tense, which USUALLY is translated as a simple English past tense.

So, not only does your “Abraham IS TO BECOME” buck against the USUAL translation of the Greek aorist tense, but it doesn't come close to matching the perfect tense of “have seen” in verse 57.

The Jews were implying that, because he was not yet 50 years old, there was no way that Jesus could HAVE SEEN (perfect tense) Abraham.  Jesus was CORRECTING them, Kerwin.  He was, in effect, saying, “Oh yes I have, because BEFORE Abraham even came into existence, I was already in existence.”

Like Pierre and I have already agreed, the fact that you don't want to believe these things will never make them any less true.

[terraricca]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 25 2012,21:25)

Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 25 2012,02:44) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 24 2012,21:20) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 24 2012,05:12) Gene is acknowledging the correct past tense “he EXISTED before Abraham DID“. Mike……..I believe Jesus preexisted before Abraham not as a Sentential Being, But preexisted in the Plan and will of God as written in scriptures. Jesus was a Prophesied Son of Man to come into existence by a  human Berth process just as all Mankind did with the exception of Adam and Eve. IMO Again Mike,  Jesus did not preexist his berth on this earth as any kind of being in the past. IMO peace and love to you and yours………………………………..gene G only men dreams God almighty does not need to dream he just do things as he pleases, and you never answered the questions that was put before you in the PREEXISTANCE OF CHRIST  and so keep repeating over and over one single statement what his your opinion . and your opinion his not scriptural ,right yes Terricca……….Where do you see the word “DREAM” in what i wrote, Please try to try to commit on exactly what i say instead of adding your twisted meanings to it. God having a Plan and purpose for his creation does not mean he had a “Dream” as you ignorantly suppose.  IMO peace and love to you and yours…………………………………..gene

g

God plans are aready in fulfillement and so the are actions not something in the future ,God says and it his done ,

so the dream is not believing that Christ was and his the son of God that was send on earth for the purpose to save men from the sin and curse of Adam ,

it is your unbelieve that his your dream

[kerwin]

Mike,

Abraham believed Jehovah that through his seed he would become the father of many nations. That promise was of his seed through the faith that brings righteousness and not of his seed through the Law,
Romans 4:11-14. Jesus knew this and spoke of it first in John 8:39. He then followed up in verses 56 and 58.

The words of the Jews, no matter their verb type, are irrelevant as they did not understand Jesus' words; which had no place in them, v37.

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 26 2012,03:07)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 24 2012,09:20) Mike……..I believe Jesus preexisted before Abraham not as a Sentential Being, But preexisted in the Plan and will of God……… Well Gene, At least you are understanding “Before Abraham EXISTED” correctly.  Kerwin is trying to nonsensically change that obvious meaning to “Before Abraham IS TO BECOME”.   But “IS TO BECOME” doesn't come close to matching the question the Jews asked Jesus in verse 57. In this case, you, I, every scholar who ever made a translation of John 8:58, are correct in understanding “Before Abraham WAS”.  Kerwin, on the other hand, is searching hard for a loophole – completely ignoring the fact that his loophole doesn't align with the words of verse 57. These “personal loopholes” are obvious to people without a pre-conceived notion to protect.  That being said, let me show you where your pre-conceived notion goes awry: John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. In reality, this is Jesus saying HE came DOWN FROM HEAVEN to do the will of his Father.   In YOUR LOOPHOLE, this is Jesus saying THE PLAN OF HIMSELF came down from heaven to do the will of his Father. See the difference?

Mike…….What do you mean by saying ” at least ” are you talking down to me again Mike? .  

As far a Jesus being from above that is true he was, just as Adam and Eve were also, not to mention John the Baptist, and King Cryus. Where these not also prophecided to come about in their time. So were they from below or from above Mike?   It is interesting how you peexistences apply the prophecy concerning Jesus different then these others who were also from above Just as Jesus was from above to, meaning God had a prexistent plan for Jesus, just as he had for the others also, and all of the were from above to. They all came down from heaven from where God is. But each in his own time came into existence on this earth. Just that simple brother.

The bad thing about you Trinitarians and Prexistences is the evil work of “SEPERATION” of Jesus' identity, with all mankind, which you all will have to give an account of someday. If only you could see that and repent of it while there is time.

It will be a sad thing to hear Jesus say “depart from me because you did not except me as your human brother ” and worse, you worked to “SEPERATE” me from my human brothers and sisters.

My advice to you and others brother is to give this a very serious consideration while there is time.    

Peace and love to you and your Mike ……………………………………….gene

[terraricca]

G

Quote

It will be a sad thing to hear Jesus say “depart from me because you did not except me as your human brother ” and worse, you worked to “SEPERATE” me from my human brothers and sisters. My advice to you and others brother is to give this a very serious consideration while there is time.

YOUR ADVISE IS FOR YOUR OWN LIVE TO SAVE,MIKE AND T8 AND ME ,HAVE PROVED TO YOU THAT THE TRUTH DOES NOT LAY WITH YOU ;YOUR VERSION IS A RECONSTRUCTED VERSION OF SCRIPTUTRES WHILE OURS HIS AS THE SCRIPTURES SAYS IT ,

SO PLEASE TAKE YOUR ADVISE SERIOUSLY YOUR LIVE IN THE FUTURE DEPEND ON IT

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 26 2012,10:25)

Mike…….What do you mean by saying ” at least ” are you talking down to me again Mike?

No Gene, I'm not talking down to you.  What I meant by “at least” was that I was happy you can at least see this one scripture for the way it should be translated.

I am used to Trinitarians and non-preexisters only seeing things the way they want to see them, despite the clear wording and context of the scripture.

For example, look at the lengths to which Kerwin is going right now, just to PRETEND that the first part of 8:58 says “Before Abraham IS TO BECOME……….”.  You and I both know that interpretation of those words in that context is absurd.  Anyone in their right mind knows it is absurd.  Deep down, even Kerwin knows it is absurd, but he MUST cling to it because he doesn't WANT the scripture to be teaching what it really is teaching.

And I said “at least” because there are MANY times you do the same exact thing that he's doing with this verse.  For example, you read, “the glory I had alongside you before the world began”, and have to immediately start backpedaling and PRETENDING it means, “the glory THE THOUGHT OF ME IN YOUR HEAD had alongside you before the world began”.

So, of all the things you PRETEND the scriptures don't say because you don't WANT them to say it, I was happy that AT LEAST you were able to understand Jesus' words in John 8:58 – without going into “PRETEND LAND” along with Kerwin.

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 26 2012,10:25)

As far a Jesus being from above that is true he was, just as Adam and Eve were also, not to mention John the Baptist, and King Cryus.

Which one of those said, “I came down from heaven to do the will of Him who sent me”?  

Which of those said, “Glorify me now with the glory I had alongside you before the world began”?  

Through which one of those did God create all things in heaven and earth?

Gene, I hope you are at least able to see what Kerwin is trying to do.  I hope you can recognize how he is PRETENDING the nonsensical makes perfect sense – just so he can stop the scripture from teaching what he doesn't WANT it to teach.

If you are able to recognize his pretending on this one issue, then all you need to do is multiply that by about 100 to know how much pretending people like me, Pierre, and t8 put up with on this site.  Everyone wants the Bible THEIR OWN WAY.  It seems that very few of us give a crap about believing the scriptures as they are written – REGARDLESS of whether that is the way we WANT it to be.

Right now, you WANT Jesus to have been exactly like us, and so you let that WANT rule over the way you understand scriptures.  But I just want to believe the scriptures as they were written, and so I don't have any pre-conceived wants or notions hanging over my head, hindering my understanding of God's written word.

I don't have a WANT for Jesus to be God Almighty, and so I can read the scriptures that say Jesus is the Son of God Almighty without any personal hindrance.

I don't have a WANT for Jesus to have been exactly like us, and so I can read the scriptures that clearly teach of his pre-existence without any personal hindrance.

Perhaps someday, you will also be able to do the same.

peace,
mike

[kerwin]

Mike,

I have read some more of what you wrote about John 14:9 and the perfect tense there. Perhaps it ties into the point you are attempting to make on John:56-58.

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 27 2012,14:37)

Mike, I have read some more of what you wrote about John 14:9 and the perfect tense there.  Perhaps it ties into the point you are attempting to make on John:56-58.

Mike

it seems that you were right again,but this could have been prevented I mean this controverse ,if only people paid more attention ,and believe scriptures ,but they say they do but do not ,

so it turnes to a regular class room like a fourth grader,

[mikeboll64]

If people are actually LEARNING now and then (me included), then all this is a worthwhile thing.

But what I really hope is that some of these people come to realize that the way they used to read certain scriptures is simply a product of their personal DESIRE for the scriptures to teach what they WANT them to teach.

In other words, while it will be a good thing for Kerwin to realize that “Before Abraham IS TO BECOME” doesn't even fit the sentence, let alone the passage, it would be a much better thing for him to realize that the only reason he made such an illogical claim in the first place is because he has been blinded by his own personal desire for the scriptures to teach certain things – whether or not they actually teach those things.

THAT, my friend, would be a victory for God that would be worth all the time and trouble.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 27 2012,02:37)

Mike, I have read some more of what you wrote about John 14:9 and the perfect tense there.  Perhaps it ties into the point you are attempting to make on John:56-58.

Kerwin,

All I want you to realize is that you would have never even given “Before Abraham came into being” a second thought, were it not for your desire to form the scriptures around your own, personal wants and needs.

You WANT Jesus to have not pre-existed, and that WANT often leads you into some murky waters.

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 28 2012,02:32)

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 27 2012,02:37) Mike, I have read some more of what you wrote about John 14:9 and the perfect tense there.  Perhaps it ties into the point you are attempting to make on John:56-58. Kerwin, All I want you to realize is that you would have never even given “Before Abraham came into being” a second thought, were it not for your desire to form the scriptures around your own, personal wants and needs. You WANT Jesus to have not pre-existed, and that WANT often leads you into some murky waters.

Mike,

Scripture does not state “before Abraham became, I was”.  To do that “I am” would need to be an aortic.  “I have been” or “I am” do not get it unless you claim they are historic presents. There is no evidence support that claim except the conclusion of the non-credible Jews that Jesus was claiming to have lived during Abraham's day.

What Jesus was doing is teaching he is continuously greater than Abraham in answer to the question the non-creditable Jews asked in John 8:53.  The ignorant Jews misunderstood him so he corrected them in John 8:58.

I do seek to harmonize my understanding of Scripture as God's Word is harmonized. That is why I plug values from Scripture into the variables therein.

[mikeboll64]

No Kerwin,

You are not seeking SCRIPTURAL harmony, but seeking to FORCE the scriptures to harmonize with your own pre-conceived beliefs.

You say an historical present doesn't make sense?  Here's what Greek expert Jason BeDuhn says:

All the translations except the LB and NWT also ignore the true relation between the verbs of the sentence and produce a sentence that makes no sense in English.  

Face it Kerwin, it is the “I AM” translation of 8:58 that makes no sense to anyone in English.  You KNOW this, and would NEVER change the “I have been” in 14:9 to “I AM” if you didn't think it helped your cause with 8:58.

Think about that Kerwin.  Never in a million years would you say, “I have been” is a poor translation of 14:9.  But now, you MUST claim this SECOND irresponsible thing to even out the FIRST irresponsible thing you're trying to claim.  Are you blind to the paths your pre-conceived notions are taking you down?  Because WE can see it from a mile away.

Btw, it wasn't “the conclusion of the non-credible Jews that Jesus was claiming to have lived during Abraham's day”.  The conclusion of the non-credible Jews was that Jesus COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE SEEN ABRAHAM before, since he had yet to reach 50 years of age.

Jesus CORRECTED the non-credible Jews with his statement, by assuring them that he HAD INDEED seen Abraham, and that he WAS INDEED older than 50 years, because he existed even BEFORE Abraham came into being.

[GeneBalthrop]

Mike………..Fact is you and T8 and Pierre, are the ones who lack Scriptural “harmony”. You force the texts to say what in fact it is not saying at all, Kerwin is far more right on this matter then you all are. Tell us Mike why don't you seek scripture harmony that shows Jesus was a “SON OF MAN”, he seemed to think he was saying it over and over many times. also why did Jesus not elaberate on any of his past Existence, nor any of the Deciple either, Surely being this is such a major tenet of you Faith and as well as The Trinitarinas , this would have been a very clearly explained event by not only Jesus but all the deciples would have spent much time in their writing expounding it. Why is it that you must use scriptures that can be used different way so you can force to convey your Preexistent views?

At least T8 in the past has ackinowledged some of these as going either way. Jesus himself said “PLAINLY” he was the Root and Offspring of King David Anyone and i mean “Anyone can understand that as being his linage, but you preexistences have to seperate the (AND) to imply something different. If i said I am the root and offsprng of my Grandfather James Balthrop, anyone would know what i was saying and it would not mean  my granfather Balthrop  was from my roots but it meant the family linage He and I were both from.  But you Trinitarians and Preexistence twist up those plain scriptures to convey your Past Convictions and force the text to meet them. And this is Just one example of forcing the text of many you people use. And you have the idosity to me and Kerwin and others are, when in fact that is exctly what you and your Co-harts are doing.

Tell us Mike why is it you stay away from the texts that suport Jesus comming into existwnce at his Berth on the earth as a Son of Man? Why is that?, and then act like those scriptures  simply do not exist, and Just stay on scriptures that you suppose backes up your erounious belief system?

What about scripture like these to just name a few.

Gen 3:15………Jesus a MAN is that “SEED” of a WOMAN.

Rom 15:12……..And again, Isaiah 11:10..>says, There shall be a root of Jesse and he that shall rise to regin over the Gentiles; in Him shall the Gentiles trust.

Mike the word “OF” there means FROM, Jesus was a root from Jesse and so was King David who Jesus was an Offspring of.

Deu 18:15…> The LORD thy God will raise up unto you a Prophet from the mist of you, of, or (FROM) thy brethern like unto me unto him shall you hearken;……….> verse 18…> I (the LORD) will raise them up a “PROPHET, from among their “brethern”, like unto you, and will put my words in his mouth and he shall speak unto the all that i command him.

Act 3:22….For Moses Truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the LORD you God rais up unto you of (or From) your brethern, like into me him shall you hear in “ALL” things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

Mat 1:1…..> The book of the Gneration of Jesus Christ the son of  DAVID, the Son of ABRAHAM

Mike not one of these mention any “PREEXISTENT” Being now do they? 

Now here is a clever trick of Trinitarians and Preexistences, Notice carefully how a different word are substuted by translators for MAN to ONE

Rom 5:17….> For if by one man's < (Greek hice) offense death regined by one < (Greek hice)  much more they which recieve abundance of grace and of the gift of rihtiousness shall regin in life by one < (Greek hice), Jesus Christ.

Mike did you notice how the translators changed the words from man to mean “ONE”. Cleave trick, it is quit similar to what you Preexistences  and Trinitarians do with many scriptures also. Mike this is just a small amount of scriptures that back up Jesus was a Pure Himan Being and nothing more who the LORD brought forth in due time to fullfil his Purposeses in and through Mankind By a 100% human being Jesus the Christ. You religion is a relagion of “SEPERATION” rather you realize that or not, make no difference Mike it still is. Mike believe me brother you are completly indoctrinated into a false teachings,  a product of Trinitarism. IMO  

peace and love to you and yours…………………….gene

[terraricca]

gene

Quote

gene Quote Mike believe me brother you are completly indoctrinated into a false teachings,

how could that be possible Mike ,t8,and me are ONLY rely on scriptures,and so are only indoctrinated by the word of God;

would you insinuate that the BIBLE TEACHES FALSELY

[terraricca]

gene

you never answered all the questions that clearly states that Jesus came from above ,and not in a dream ,or plan,but truly and really ,unless of cause Christ himself LIED is that possible I do not think so ,so it must be you that do not understand what he says .

[Author]

Posts