For free will believers out there

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
I can show you scriptures of the incarnation of the Word, who was God. But can you show me scriptures that says that Jesus became qualified to be almighty God? Besides, isn’t your take of Jesus Christ not really God, for you only worship and pray through him but not pray and worship him.

Also, Jesus never humbled himself to the devil, even as a man.

Do you believe God Himself humbled Himself to the devil and sinful man per Phil 2?

Yes or no?

Who humbled himself in Phil 2?

Scriptures does say that God humbled Himself to the devil. So NO.

Phil.2:5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

It is Jesus Christ, the incarnated Word that apostle John refers to in John 1, who humbled himself.

Tong
R2289

 

[Truther]

Scriptures does say that God humbled Himself to the devil. So NO.

Phil.2:5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

It is Jesus Christ, the incarnated Word that apostle John refers to in John 1, who humbled himself.

Tong
R2289

So, Jesus Christ is a humble God, right?

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<Since God is inside Jesus, they cannot be separated, but have been unified as one.>>>

No matter. Such does not take away that in your view of God and Jesus Christ, God is not Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is not God.

<<<12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.>>>

Please be kind to give the book and chapter in the Bible.

Rev 3:12

Is Jesus saying he has a God in the verse 4 times?

Should he have said it 8 times for us to believe him?

He said “My God”. So, yes.

Tong
R2291

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Scriptures does say that God humbled Himself to the devil. So NO.

Phil.2:5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

It is Jesus Christ, the incarnated Word that apostle John refers to in John 1, who humbled himself.

So, Jesus Christ is a humble God, right?

Clarification: What do you mean by “humble God”?

Tong
R2292

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

What I was saying in other words is that Adam was not created immortal and also not with eternal life, as I have shown in scriptures, which refutes your teaching that Adam was created having eternal life and lost it when he sinned having eaten of the forbidden tree.

So much with that, as you apparently do have any counter refutation of it. So on to the other issues you bring up here.

<<< Now the scriptures at Genesis 2:16,17 show us that for Adam to continue to live was conditional.>>>

Gen. 2:16-17 was not really a condition for Adam to continue to live. It was a simple commandment that God gave him to obey, warning him of what the eating of the said tree would bring upon him. What we learn from there is that God loves him and cares for his life. God gave him all the other trees whose fruit yields seed and every herbs that yields seed for food to enjoy and nourish his mortal body of flesh and keep it healthy and stay alive in the flesh. Now we also learn that God gave him the tree of life. What we know of this tree is that it was not forbidden of Adam to eat of and was made accessible to him in the midst of the garden of Eden.

The commandment also serve as some sort of a simple test on him, if he will stay faithful and obedient to God or not.

<<<The point is, both Adam and Eve made a choice, it was the wrong choice but they made a choice. Isn't that freewill, being able to make a choice of either being obedient or disobedient?>>>

Yes, came a day that Eve made a different choice for the first time, the choice to listen to the voice of another other than her husband Adam, a choice she made under deception. Adam also on that day made a different choice, the choice of listening to another voice other than God’s, that of his then sinful wife Eve, a choice he willfully made that offended God.

Is that free will? Yes it was. But before that, he also exercised his will freely in the choices he made day by day, until the day he made a choice concerning the eating of the forbidden tree.

Tong
R2282

Genesis 2:16,17 was a test yes, it shows that obedience has always been a requirement to be a faithful servant of God and continue having life for eternity in paradise, so I don't believe Eternal life and immortality to be the same. A person can lose the prospect of living for eternity by dying because of disobedience. Immortality means beyond death, death has no hold on the person who is immortal. So you and I agree that Adam wasn't immortal but where we differ is you believe immortality and eternal life to be the same thing and I don't.
God expelled both Adam and Eve from Eden so that they wouldn't be able to eat of the tree of life.(Genesis 3:22,23) They lost the prospect of living forever in paradise because the True God told Adam the only way to live in paradise for eternity was being obedient to the command concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and Evil is to not eat the forbidden fruit from that tree.

 

[Wrangler]

So, Jesus Christ is a humble God, right?

Jesus is not any kind of God. Phil 2:5 says he is in the form of God, which applies to us all per GE 1:26, all of us are in the likeness (form) of God. Having said that, the man Jesus was humble. The verse below clearly says God raised this man from the dead. (It does not say God incarnate raised himself because God is not man.).

31 He has fixed a day of accountability, when the whole world will be justly evaluated by a new, higher standard: not by a statue, but by a living man. God selected this man and made Him credible to all by raising Him from the dead.
Acts 17:31 (Voice)

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
What I was saying in other words is that Adam was not created immortal and also not with eternal life, as I have shown in scriptures, which refutes your teaching that Adam was created having eternal life and lost it when he sinned having eaten of the forbidden tree.

So much with that, as you apparently do have any counter refutation of it. So on to the other issues you bring up here.

<<< Now the scriptures at Genesis 2:16,17 show us that for Adam to continue to live was conditional.>>>

Gen. 2:16-17 was not really a condition for Adam to continue to live. It was a simple commandment that God gave him to obey, warning him of what the eating of the said tree would bring upon him. What we learn from there is that God loves him and cares for his life. God gave him all the other trees whose fruit yields seed and every herbs that yields seed for food to enjoy and nourish his mortal body of flesh and keep it healthy and stay alive in the flesh. Now we also learn that God gave him the tree of life. What we know of this tree is that it was not forbidden of Adam to eat of and was made accessible to him in the midst of the garden of Eden.

The commandment also serve as some sort of a simple test on him, if he will stay faithful and obedient to God or not.

<<<The point is, both Adam and Eve made a choice, it was the wrong choice but they made a choice. Isn't that freewill, being able to make a choice of either being obedient or disobedient?>>>

Yes, came a day that Eve made a different choice for the first time, the choice to listen to the voice of another other than her husband Adam, a choice she made under deception. Adam also on that day made a different choice, the choice of listening to another voice other than God’s, that of his then sinful wife Eve, a choice he willfully made that offended God.

Is that free will? Yes it was. But before that, he also exercised his will freely in the choices he made day by day, until the day he made a choice concerning the eating of the forbidden tree.

Genesis 2:16,17 was a test yes, it shows that obedience has always been a requirement to be a faithful servant of God and continue having life for eternity in paradise, so I don't believe Eternal life and immortality to be the same. A person can lose the prospect of living for eternity by dying because of disobedience. Immortality means beyond death, death has no hold on the person who is immortal. So you and I agree that Adam wasn't immortal but where we differ is you believe immortality and eternal life to be the same thing and I don't.
God expelled both Adam and Eve from Eden so that they wouldn't be able to eat of the tree of life.(Genesis 3:22,23) They lost the prospect of living forever in paradise because the True God told Adam the only way to live in paradise for eternity was being obedient to the command concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and Evil is to not eat the forbidden fruit from that tree.

<<<but where we differ is you believe immortality and eternal life to be the same thing and I don't.>>>

Nobody says they are the same. Though I would say they are related.

Tong
R2294

 

[Tong2020]

Jesus is not any kind of God. Phil 2:5 says he is in the form of God, which applies to us all per GE 1:26, all of us are in the likeness (form) of God. Having said that, the man Jesus was humble. The verse below clearly says God raised this man from the dead. (It does not say God incarnate raised himself because God is not man.).

31 He has fixed a day of accountability, when the whole world will be justly evaluated by a new, higher standard: not by a statue, but by a living man. God selected this man and made Him credible to all by raising Him from the dead.
Acts 17:31 (Voice)

<<<It does not say God incarnate raised himself because God is not man.>>>

Here’s scriptures relevant to that.

John 2:18So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?”

19Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

20Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”

21But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.

Tong
R2296

 

[Wrangler]

Here’s scriptures relevant to that

My God man! I provided the relevant Scripture! Acts 17:31.

Sad reliance on a figurative verse to go against a literal verse. Jesus is a man. Acts 17:31 could not be more literal, explicit or clear. (It's just that it goes against your theology). What do you have to say about the relevant verse I provided, Acts 17:31?

 

[Tong2020]

My God man! I provided the relevant Scripture! Acts 17:31.

Sad reliance on a figurative verse to go against a literal verse. Jesus is a man. Acts 17:31 could not be more literal, explicit or clear. (It's just that it goes against your theology). What do you have to say about the relevant verse I provided, Acts 17:31?

Nobody is denying that Jesus is a man.

<<<What do you have to say about the relevant verse I provided, Acts 17:31?>>>

That Jesus is a man and that God raised him from the dead.

Now, what do you have to say about the relevant verse I provided, John 2:18-22?

Tong
R2298

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus is a man and that God raised him from the dead.

Now, what do you have to say about the relevant verse I provided, John 2:18-22?

a figurative verse

The 'temple' referred to Solomon's temple the previous 500 times that word was used. His audience did not even grasp he was not making a literal statement. The desperation of trinitarianism is shown in the fact that in the same verse that uses 'temple' figuratively, it is desired another word be taken literally. "The early bird" is not the only figurative part of that idiom. "The worm" is also figurative.

God does many things through others. In John 2:18-22 Jesus was talking about this in reverse; what he will do through God. Dead men tell no tales - and they do not raise themselves from the dead. Jesus was a man and you agreed. Jesus is a man and God raised him from the dead. God, in his unitarian nature, not 'the Father.' This same God selected Jesus. Do you agree with that also?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

What I'm saying and will continue to say, you and those who say Jesus came as a God-Man, you're saying he came as more than human. The first man Adam was a human not a God-man, so either you believe Jesus came as a human or you believe he came as more than human.

He was the God-man. REmember god is His Father and Mary His Mother! Adam was made Jesus was procreated by God and woman. that makes HImmore than human by nature.

Just like when the angels in Genesis 6 had children with women. They were a hybrid race of human/angel.

 

[Tong2020]

The 'temple' referred to Solomon's temple the previous 500 times that word was used. His audience did not even grasp he was not making a literal statement. The desperation of trinitarianism is shown in the fact that in the same verse that uses 'temple' figuratively, it is desired another word be taken literally. "The early bird" is not the only figurative part of that idiom. "The worm" is also figurative.

God does many things through others. In John 2:18-22 Jesus was talking about this in reverse; what he will do through God. Dead men tell no tales - and they do not raise themselves from the dead. Jesus was a man and you agreed. Jesus is a man and God raised him from the dead. God, in his unitarian nature, not 'the Father.' This same God selected Jesus. Do you agree with that also?

John 2:18So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?”

19Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

20Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”

21But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.

Apparently you do not see what’s in the passage, what Jesus told them in v.19. Verse 21 explains what He meant. The temple He was referring to is that of His body. It was that that He was telling them to destroy and which He will after three days will raise up. Verse 22 tells us ultimately what Jesus was talking about in verse 19. It was about them killing Him and after three days dead, He resurrected from the dead.

You are correct in reasoning that dead man do not raise themselves from the dead, yet Jesus did. You are correct in saying that God raised Him from the dead. And yet Jesus said “I will raise it up”, and He did. When the Christian consider those truths about Jesus, he will truly be amazed and could not but see and understand that Jesus is not only a man, but is God. As John had testified about the Word, who was God, who became flesh, in the person of Jesus. Jesus is God incarnate.

Tong
R2299

 

[Wrangler]

Apparently you do not see

It is figurative. The temple is not the temple.

 

[Tong2020]

It is figurative. The temple is not the temple.

Yes, the temple is not the temple, but refer to that of the body of Jesus Christ.

Tong
R2301

 

[Ronald Nolette]

<<<The bible declares in the psalms that rom the womb we go astray. God said He put all under condemnation. They have a sin nature by default . We do not gain a sin nature the moment we commit a sin, but we sin because we have a nature determined ot sin. Paul in Ephesians said that we are all by nature (not action) objects of wrath!>>>

Yes we were at one time all objects of the wrath of God including the infants, but not after Jesus had offered His life as an atoning sacrifice for the sin of the world that appeased God with the precious blood of Christ covering the sins of all men, young and old alike.

<<<Yes God is working out HIs salvation. But since the birth of the Church--no one, I repeat no one can be saved apart from the gospel and the sad fact is that since the church was born- billions have lived and died apart from eever hearing the gospel and thus lost3 forever.>>>

Yes, Peter preached of the name of Jesus Christ, that there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. But what does he meant by that? If the name “yeshua” is some sacred or magic word or name, so to speak, why translate it to “Jesus”? Peter was referring to name of the Lord, that is, the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. In other words, He is simply referring to God, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob, of Moses. And that had been even since the beginning. How do you suppose were the men mentioned in Hebrews 11, saved?

Why is it a sad fact that many had lived and died from ever hearing the gospel concerning Jesus Christ? Even taking for granted, for the sake of argument, that they were not saved, do you think that there is something wrong with that, something that God must have done but did not do? I don’t think so and son’t believe so.

Tong
R2267

So yu accept thatr there are multiple methods of salvation.

1. For babies because they haven't committed an act of sin. so they are saved, then lost as soon as they choose to sin.

2. For those who never heard the gospel- God has another method to save them! (Why send missionaries out if God can save them apart from the gospel?)

3. Then I guess for those who live where the gospel is available, they have to believe onn Jesus. and you are too hung up on the exact name. Jesus is simply the anglicized name of Jehoshua. God knows!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The point is that, after death comes judgment, and that Jesus did not preach to people past their earthly life.

Tong
R2268

Except when He did!

As it says in Peter.
1 Peter 3:19
By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The point is as I said, that all those who are “in Adam” are all those whom God had created in him, those born and who will be born of him.

Tong
R2268

Ok. We were saying the same thing in different ways. I just wanted to make sure.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

<<<but where we differ is you believe immortality and eternal life to be the same thing and I don't.>>>

Nobody says they are the same. Though I would say they are related.

Tong
R2294

Well no matter how much you say it's not so. Genesis 2:16,17 proves that God created Adam to live forever and the only way that wouldn't happen is if he disobeyed God concerning the command about the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<The bible declares in the psalms that rom the womb we go astray. God said He put all under condemnation. They have a sin nature by default . We do not gain a sin nature the moment we commit a sin, but we sin because we have a nature determined ot sin. Paul in Ephesians said that we are all by nature (not action) objects of wrath!>>>

Yes we were at one time all objects of the wrath of God including the infants, but not after Jesus had offered His life as an atoning sacrifice for the sin of the world that appeased God with the precious blood of Christ covering the sins of all men, young and old alike.

<<<Yes God is working out HIs salvation. But since the birth of the Church--no one, I repeat no one can be saved apart from the gospel and the sad fact is that since the church was born- billions have lived and died apart from eever hearing the gospel and thus lost3 forever.>>>

Yes, Peter preached of the name of Jesus Christ, that there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. But what does he meant by that? If the name “yeshua” is some sacred or magic word or name, so to speak, why translate it to “Jesus”? Peter was referring to name of the Lord, that is, the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. In other words, He is simply referring to God, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob, of Moses. And that had been even since the beginning. How do you suppose were the men mentioned in Hebrews 11, saved?

Why is it a sad fact that many had lived and died from ever hearing the gospel concerning Jesus Christ? Even taking for granted, for the sake of argument, that they were not saved, do you think that there is something wrong with that, something that God must have done but did not do? I don’t think so and son’t believe so.

So yu accept thatr there are multiple methods of salvation.

1. For babies because they haven't committed an act of sin. so they are saved, then lost as soon as they choose to sin.

2. For those who never heard the gospel- God has another method to save them! (Why send missionaries out if God can save them apart from the gospel?)

3. Then I guess for those who live where the gospel is available, they have to believe onn Jesus. and you are too hung up on the exact name. Jesus is simply the anglicized name of Jehoshua. God knows!

<<<So yu accept thatr there are multiple methods of salvation.>>>

No. God’s salvation is by grace, through faith in God.

<<<1. For babies because they haven't committed an act of sin. so they are saved, then lost as soon as they choose to sin.>>>

No. Please read my post again concerning that.

<<<2. For those who never heard the gospel- God has another method to save them! (Why send missionaries out if God can save them apart from the gospel?)>>>

Not different, but still by grace through faith in God. Read my post again.

On the second question, because that is the will of God and it was commanded by Jesus, and is the righteous thing to do. Your question is like asking why choose only some when God can choose all.

<<<3. Then I guess for those who live where the gospel is available, they have to believe onn Jesus. and you are too hung up on the exact name. Jesus is simply the anglicized name of Jehoshua. God knows!>>>

I am not hung up on the exact name. Please read my post again and see the reason behind my having to talk about that.

If the gospel is preached to one, he faces to make a choice.

Tong
R2302