Janosky:


Seriously?
My Master clarified the truth regarding the fate of these men.
John 3:13. Acts2:34. Matt11:11

13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (John 3:13).

Jesus was the one who made this statement. He wasn't talking to angels but to humans who were on earth.

You don't understand the scripture. I'm not in the mode to explain it.


For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself (Acts 2:34)

I didn't say David but Enoch and Elijah.

22. and enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: 23. and all the days of enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: 24and enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. (Genesis 5:22-23)

11. And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. (2 King 2:11)

You see that two men had left the earth to heaven without without dying.

11. Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

What you don't know is that heaven is like earth. You can be in America and another will be in Nigeria yet both are on earth.

The word heaven mean sky. As the word earth mean land.

Now from your submission, Jesus was not suppose to die having not sinned after the similitude of Adam.

Why did Jesus die when he didn't have the sin of Adam in him?

budaatum:

Which first people, solite3?

studies has proven that children do not learn how to lie.

the adamic sin is very very true and verifiable even from everyday experiences. sin is inherent in man, every form of sin is from this adamic sin inherent in man.
every human inherited this sin nature from Adam and that is humans need redemption so that they do not perish.


Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


do you badatuum want to be saved? receive Jesus Christ today.

don't be deceived your works cannot save you.
you must come to Jesus for the redemption of your soul.

Matthew 16:26
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

ichuka:


For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.Romans5:19
When Adam disobeyed God,we all affirm to his decision because we where in him when he ate the fruit.
So,it's not what one does that makes him a sinner,No!but who you are.
Let's assume your name is Budaatom.
You didn't chose the name,for you where born (a) budaatum.whatsoever you do in these life you are a budaatum.
If you become the Pope,Doctor,President or an arm robber you are still budaatum.
Nothing can make you otherwise because of the issue of birth.
Since you are born a budaatum,it's only by death that can make you something other than a budaatum.
It's only by death that one is free from being a sinner.
That's the meaning of the above verse.

I can only inform you that I am not the buda of yesterday not to talk of a year ago or ten. And if I "become the Pope,Doctor,President or an arm robber", I would very definitely be a different buda to the buda of today even if my dna and name remains the same.

A different budaspirit manifests everyday.

budaatum:

I can only inform you that I am not the buda of yesterday not to talk of a year ago or ten. And if I "become the Pope,Doctor,President or an arm robber", I would very definitely be a different buda to the buda of today even if my dna and name remains the same.

A different budaspirit manifests everyday.

Hi bro
It doesn't matter how long you have changed.
The issue here is one of source.
Because there's only two kind source according to the bible.in Romans5:19
It's either you are from Adam or Christ simple.
There's no middle nature.
And to over the former nature you have to born not of blood,parent decent or the will of a father.....John1:12
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Janosky:


He/she still Budatuum for life eee no dey change.
Why does modern science employ DNA /forensics to trace or identify victims/ casualties of tragic fire accidents?
Your DNA must match those of your blood relations

Hi dude
Call it whatsoever you want.it changes nothing of his nature.
It's the source/origin that matters not what one does.
And according to the bible we have two source of life.
Adam/Christ .Romans5:19.
We can't jump from one to the other that's impossible.Luke18:27.
Since it was by birth we inherited our sinful nature,we have to died to be free from it.that is putting the sinful nature to death.Romans7:2
So bro "ITS EITHER WE DIE OR HE DIES FOR US"
There's no third option.

soulpeppersoup:


13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (John 3:13).

Jesus was the one who made this statement. He wasn't talking to angels but to humans who were on earth.

You don't understand the scripture. I'm not in the mode to explain it.


Jesus was not suppose to die having not sinned after the similitude of Adam.

Why did Jesus die when he didn't have the sin of Adam in him?

"And no man had ascended into heaven,but he that came down from heaven even the son of man (Jesus)"
John 3:13 is crystal clear and to the point.
In other words Jesus said he never saw Elijah and Enoch in heaven ("no man hath ascended into heaven"


** Man is imperfect.
"None can by any means redeem himself or his brother nor give to God a ransom for him" Psalms 49:8

Jesus was perfect, without sin.
1Pet1:21-24.
He was the perfect person to offer ransom sacrifice of himself for us and regain the prospect of everlasting life for (all offspring of Adam) which Adam lost because of sin. (Matt18:11. 1cor15:21,22,45).
The perfect man Christ gave himself as a ransom for all ( 1tim2:6
Matt20;28).

Omooba224:
I repeat again which of the gods? You don't mean your megalomaniac genocidal psychopath you call God. You are trying too hard to mesmerize me with your brainwashed nonsense. It is you that needs a lobotomy so as to remove all the fufu in your brain and fill it with rationality. Shalom!

Mumu atheist dey great shalom?
Wetin concern atheism with a religious greeting of Judaism?
You foolishly say God no dey exist, but you dey "thief" the greeting wey Yahweh worshippers dey take do fellowship for their synagogues.

Your buffoonery is legendary.
Nonsensical brainwashed atheist.

Omooba224:
I repeat again which of the gods? You don't mean your megalomaniac genocidal psychopath you call God. You are trying too hard to mesmerize me with your brainwashed nonsense. It is you that needs a lobotomy so as to remove all the fufu in your brain and fill it with rationality. Shalom!

Wow !!
Mumu atheist dey great shalom?
Wetin concern atheism with religious greeting of Judaism?
You foolishly say God no dey exist, but you dey "thief" the greeting wey Yahweh worshippers dey take do fellowship for their synagogues.
Your buffoonery is legendary.
Nonsensical brainwashed atheist.

Budaatum hope you are not attacking a strawman, there are different versions of adamic sin, ancenstral sin, original sin...etc. Which of the shades are you rejecting

Ubenedictus:
Budaatum hope you are not attacking a strawman, there are different versions of adamic sin, ancenstral sin, original sin...etc. Which of the shades are you rejecting

I don't think I am Uben. I assure you that if my parents don't pay my school fees, buy me books, feed and house me so I can study, they are committing a 'sin' which I would bear the consequences of and therefore will gladly call it an ancestral sin since I inherit the hell burning they inflict on me through no fault of my own. But Adamic sin and original sin is mythical, to me.

budaatum:

I don't think I am Uben. I assure you that if my parents don't pay my school fees, buy me books, feed and house me so I can study, they are committing a 'sin' which I would bear the consequences of and therefore will gladly call it an ancestral sin since I inherit the hell burning they inflict on me through no fault of my own. But Adamic sin and original sin is mythical, to me.

Lol, let me suggest you read up ancestral sin from an orthodox/eastern catholic perspective, then read up original sin from an augustinian western perspective then add original sin from the catholic catechism and then total depravity from a protestant perspective...this will show you the different varieties and then u can critique them individually without mixing stuff up.

Do u believe in D adamic story itself?

Ubenedictus:
Lol, let me suggest you read up ancestral sin from an orthodox/eastern catholic perspective, then read up original sin from an augustinian western perspective then add original sin from the catholic catechism and then total depravity from a protestant perspective...this will show you the different varieties and then u can critique them individually without mixing stuff up.

Do u believe in D adamic story itself?

I have read up on them Uben. They are not exactly new issues. And in fact there's not much difference between them all is what I found. Here's two references for instance (though take neither as the extent of my reading on the topic!).

Original sin is an Augustine Christian doctrine that says that everyone is born sinful. This means that they are born with a built-in urge to do bad things and to disobey God. ... Original sin is not just this inherited spiritual disease or defect in human nature; it's also the 'condemnation' that goes with that fault.

Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is a Christian belief in the state of sin in which humanity has existed since the fall of man, stemming from Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, namely the sin of disobedience in consuming the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I don't do belief, Uben. Especially where mythology is concerned, I seek to know and understand instead.

Janosky:


"And no man had ascended into heaven,but he that came down from heaven even the son of man (Jesus)"
John 3:13 is crystal clear and to the point.
In other words Jesus said he never saw Elijah and Enoch in heaven ("no man hath ascended into heaven"


** Man is imperfect.
"None can by any means redeem himself or his brother nor give to God a ransom for him" Psalms 49:8

Jesus was perfect, without sin.
1Pet1:21-24.
He was the perfect person to offer ransom sacrifice of himself for us and regain the prospect of everlasting life for (all offspring of Adam) which Adam lost because of sin. (Matt18:11. 1cor15:21,22,45).
The perfect man Christ gave himself as a ransom for all ( 1tim2:6
Matt20;28).

Oga you didn't finish the John 3:13 you quoted. This is the full quotation.

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (John 3:13).

It says, the son of man who made this quote was in heaven when he was making the quote. Yet the same son of man wasn't talking to angels in heaven but the Jews on earth.

The issue here isn't if Elijah and Enoch are in heaven but that they never died.

This was brought to prove to you that the sin of Adam didn't make all men sinners who by it according to your argument are subject to death because of the sin of Adam.

The time God took these men, Jesus hasn't come so if the sin of Adam was passed to all men. There was no way they could have escaped death since sin brought death.

My argument is that Adam brought sin into the world and not into man. AND sin in the world brought death into the world and not into man.

Sin is an outside influence not an inner influence. Sin doesn't exist in man it exist outside man. It's man that takes it into himself.

This submission of mine makes the theory of original sin or Adamic nature (sin) non and void.

soulpeppersoup:


Oga you didn't finish the John 3:13 you quoted. This is the full quotation.

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (John 3:13).

It says, the son of man who made this quote was in heaven when he was making the quote. Yet the same son of man wasn't talking to angels in heaven but the Jews on earth.

The issue here isn't if Elijah and Enoch are in heaven but that they never died.

This was brought to prove to you that the sin of Adam didn't make all men sinners who by it according to your argument are subject to death because of the sin of Adam.

The time God took these men, Jesus hasn't come so if the sin of Adam was passed to all men. There was no way they could have escaped death since sin brought death.

My argument is that Adam brought sin into the world and not into man. AND sin in the world brought death into the world and not into man.

Sin is an outside influence not an inner influence. Sin doesn't exist in man it exist outside man. It's man that takes it into himself.

This submission of mine makes the theory of original sin or Adamic nature (sin) non and void.

It's crystal clear you don't believe and love the truth of God's word wey you done see am and read am korokoro.
OK na, stay your lane jejely.
Peace

Janosky:


It's crystal clear you don't believe and love the truth of God's word wey you done see am and read am korokoro.
OK na, stay your lane jejely.
Peace

The issue is you understand the word of God. Don't go beyond your level of understanding in anything.

soulpeppersoup:


The issue is you understand the word of God. Don't go beyond your level of understanding in anything.

They believe because understanding is beyond them!

soulpeppersoup:


Oga you didn't finish the John 3:13 you quoted. This is the full quotation.

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (John 3:13).

It says, the son of man who made this quote was in heaven when he was making the quote. Yet the same son of man wasn't talking to angels in heaven but the Jews on earth.

The issue here isn't if Elijah and Enoch are in heaven but that they never died.

This was brought to prove to you that the sin of Adam didn't make all men sinners who by it according to your argument are subject to death because of the sin of Adam.

The time God took these men, Jesus hasn't come so if the sin of Adam was passed to all men. There was no way they could have escaped death since sin brought death.

My argument is that Adam brought sin into the world and not into man. AND sin in the world brought death into the world and not into man.

Sin is an outside influence not an inner influence. Sin doesn't exist in man it exist outside man. It's man that takes it into himself.

This submission of mine makes the theory of original sin or Adamic nature (sin) non and void.

soulpeppersoup:


The issue is you understand the word of God. Don't go beyond your level of understanding in anything.

budaatum:

They believe because understanding is beyond them!

@Soulpeppersoup: When you read a Bible translation from the (TR) textus receptus manuscript renowned for it's numerous errors,your "acquired wisdom" is bliss.

"No one has gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven - the son of man"
John 3:13 (NIV)

Janosky:


@Soulpeppersoup: When you read a Bible translation from the (TR) textus receptus manuscript renowned for it's numerous errors,your "acquired wisdom" is bliss.

"No one has gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven - the son of man"
John 3:13 (NIV)

The bible translation I gave is king james version. So now king James and NIV Which is the authentic version?

How do we know NIV has no error but others has error?

Na holy spirit translate NIV?

soulpeppersoup:


The bible translation I gave is king james version. So now king James and NIV Which is the authentic version?

How do we know NIV has no error but others has error?

Na holy spirit translate NIV?

Pls Google "Textus Receptus Bibles" or 'Textus Receptus'.
You will be informed...

Janosky:


Pls Google "Textus Receptus Bibles" or 'Textus Receptus'.
You will be informed...

The Textus Receptus is not just the half-dozen manuscripts of Erasmus
In any event, the fact that Erasmus had only a handful of manuscripts during his preparation of the 1516 edition is irrelevant in regards to the reliability of the text underlying the KJV. First of all, no scholar disputes the fact that Erasmus had studied variant readings of the New Testament throughout his life prior to publishing the Textus Receptus. In fact, the study of variant readings in the Greek New Testament did not begin with Erasmus but with scholars such as Thomas Linacre (1460-1524) and John Colet (1467-1519), and even as far back as Jerome (347-420). Although Erasmus spent only two years in front of a handful of Greek manuscripts to compose his first edition, his knowledge concerning the Greek New Testament and its variants did not come solely from looking at these few manuscripts in the two year period. Secondly, the KJV was completed in 1611 – almost a century after Erasmus composed his first edition of the Textus Receptus in 1516. The KJV translators most likely used the 1598 edition of Beza. At least three-quarters of a century of scholarship had gone into the Textus Receptus by the time of the KJV. Erasmus updated his Textus Receptus in 1519, 1522, and 1527. Stephanus also edited the Textus Receptus in 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551. Beza edited the Textus Receptus nine times between 1565 and 1604.

Critics are quick to point out that Erasmus back-translated the last six verses of Revelation for his 1516 edition. But despite this charge, we see that Erasmus included a reading in Revelation 22:20 that exists in the Greek and not in any edition of the Vulgate (i.e. "αμην ναι ερχου (Amen. Even so, come)” instead of “amen veni (Amen. Come)". This is one evidence that Erasmus was not confined to the readings contained in the few manuscripts placed before him during his editing of the 1516 edition. At the very least, Erasmus consulted notes such as the annotations of Laurentius Valla. The charge with respect to Erasmus' treatment of Revelation 22:16-21 is dealt with in on the website. The analysis shows that the only translatable differences between the Textus Receptus and other extant Greek manuscripts are two small words: καὶ and γὰρ.

As for the alleged "countless hundreds of printing errors" in Erasmus' first edition, these were corrected in later editions of the Textus Receptus by Erasmus himself and others, and never made their way into the KJV.

KJV translators knew of alternate readings
The KJV translators were not ignorant of the body of manuscripts and variant readings. The 1611 KJV has marginal notes next to the following verses showing alternate readings:

Matthew 1:11, Matthew 26:26, Luke 10:22, Luke 17:36, John 18:13, Acts 25:6, Ephesians 6:9, James 2:18, 1 Peter 2:21, Peter 2:2, 11, 18, 2 John 8.

This shows that the KJV translators were not translating in a Textus Receptus vacuum. There were other manuscripts available to the KJV translators, and yet they used the Textus Receptus.

You just learn things without knowing what they mean.

Your supposed textus receptus doesn't make the ending part of that verse void.

What makes NIV a better translation if I may ask?

Janosky:


Pls Google "Textus Receptus Bibles" or 'Textus Receptus'.
You will be informed...

I just downloaded NIV now. There is a window beside John 3:13, if you click the window it says, "some manuscript man, who is in heaven."

That means they didn't out rightly reject that phrase. "Man, who is in heaven."

Now what do you make of this NIV verse 19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. John 5:19.

Do you mean the Father was on earth doing the things Jesus was seeing and copying?

I know that a lot of Christian like defending anything that threaten their beliefs to the extent of removing a part of the Bible. Yet those issues can be resolved if they truly know what they mean.

soulpeppersoup:


I just downloaded NIV now. There is a window beside John 3:13, if you click the window it says, "some manuscript man, who is in heaven."

That means they didn't out rightly reject that phrase. "Man, who is in heaven."

Now what do you make of this NIV verse 19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. John 5:19.

Do you mean the Father was on earth doing the things Jesus was seeing and copying?

I know that a lot of Christian like defending anything that threaten their beliefs to the extent of removing a part of the Bible. Yet those issues can be resolved if they truly know what they mean.

"Who is in heaven" ,this portion is a disputed text because reading from John 13 v1to13,where Jesus spoke one on one with Nicodemus ,that disputed portion is totally out of sync with v1-13.
*** The rendition of Weymouth New Testament ( WNT)sort of resolved the matter very well.
" There is no one who has gone up to heaven but there is one who came down from heaven, namely the son of man whose home is in heaven" John3:13. compare John 8:23

WNT is not saying that Jesus spoke the words in heaven but that his original abode was heaven.

We understand John5:19 in the context of John 12:49,50. 6:38.
God bless.

soulpeppersoup:


The Textus Receptus is not just the half-dozen manuscripts of Erasmus
In any event, the fact that Erasmus had only a handful of manuscripts during his preparation of the 1516 edition is irrelevant in regards to the reliability of the text underlying the KJV. First of all, no scholar disputes the fact that Erasmus had studied variant readings of the New Testament throughout his life prior to publishing the Textus Receptus. In fact, the study of variant readings in the Greek New Testament did not begin with Erasmus but with scholars such as Thomas Linacre (1460-1524) and John Colet (1467-1519), and even as far back as Jerome (347-420). Although Erasmus spent only two years in front of a handful of Greek manuscripts to compose his first edition, his knowledge concerning the Greek New Testament and its variants did not come solely from looking at these few manuscripts in the two year period. Secondly, the KJV was completed in 1611 – almost a century after Erasmus composed his first edition of the Textus Receptus in 1516. The KJV translators most likely used the 1598 edition of Beza. At least three-quarters of a century of scholarship had gone into the Textus Receptus by the time of the KJV. Erasmus updated his Textus Receptus in 1519, 1522, and 1527. Stephanus also edited the Textus Receptus in 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551. Beza edited the Textus Receptus nine times between 1565 and 1604.

Critics are quick to point out that Erasmus back-translated the last six verses of Revelation for his 1516 edition. But despite this charge, we see that Erasmus included a reading in Revelation 22:20 that exists in the Greek and not in any edition of the Vulgate (i.e. "αμην ναι ερχου (Amen. Even so, come)” instead of “amen veni (Amen. Come)". This is one evidence that Erasmus was not confined to the readings contained in the few manuscripts placed before him during his editing of the 1516 edition. At the very least, Erasmus consulted notes such as the annotations of Laurentius Valla. The charge with respect to Erasmus' treatment of Revelation 22:16-21 is dealt with in on the website. The analysis shows that the only translatable differences between the Textus Receptus and other extant Greek manuscripts are two small words: καὶ and γὰρ.

As for the alleged "countless hundreds of printing errors" in Erasmus' first edition, these were corrected in later editions of the Textus Receptus by Erasmus himself and others, and never made their way into the KJV.

KJV translators knew of alternate readings
The KJV translators were not ignorant of the body of manuscripts and variant readings. The 1611 KJV has marginal notes next to the following verses showing alternate readings:

Matthew 1:11, Matthew 26:26, Luke 10:22, Luke 17:36, John 18:13, Acts 25:6, Ephesians 6:9, James 2:18, 1 Peter 2:21, Peter 2:2, 11, 18, 2 John 8.

This shows that the KJV translators were not translating in a Textus Receptus vacuum. There were other manuscripts available to the KJV translators, and yet they used the Textus Receptus.

You just learn things without knowing what they mean.

Your supposed textus receptus doesn't make the ending part of that verse void.

What makes NIV a better translation if I may ask?

https://wol.jw.org/in/wol/d/r1/Ip-e/1200002893

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/bible-study/appendix-a/divine-name-christian-greek-scriptures

***"Westcott& Hort vs Textus Receptus:Which is Superior?
by Douglas Kutilek"
bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html

Janosky:


"Who is in heaven" ,this portion is a disputed text because reading from John 13 v1to13,where Jesus spoke one on one with Nicodemus ,that disputed portion is totally out of sync with v1-13.
*** The rendition of Weymouth New Testament ( WNT)sort of resolved the matter very well.
" There is no one who has gone up to heaven but there is one who came down from heaven, namely the son of man whose home is in heaven" John3:13. compare John 8:23

WNT is not saying that Jesus spoke the words in heaven but that his original abode was heaven.

We understand John5:19 in the context of John 12:49,50. 6:38.
God bless.

I asked you,

What do you make of this NIV verse 19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. John 5:19.

Before we go back to John 13:13.

soulpeppersoup:


I asked you,

What do you make of this NIV verse 19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. John 5:19.

Before we go back to John 13:13.

"The son can do nothing by himself" meaning he was God's messenger sent from heaven to carry out his Father's ( Jehovah's) assignment.

"He can only do what he sees his Father doing" ,meaning Jesus was in constant touch with his Father who transmits info,commands to him (Jesus).
Whatever the Father does, the son also does", meaning Jesus copies from his Father and works in agreement with his Father.
Jesus repeats this fact in Jn5:30.
In a nutshell, Jesus says he is inferior to his God and Father (John 20:17).

Janosky:


"The son can do nothing by himself" meaning he was God's messenger sent from heaven to carry out his Father's ( Jehovah's) assignment.

"He can only do what he sees his Father doing" ,meaning Jesus was in constant touch with his Father who transmits info,commands to him (Jesus).
Whatever the Father does, the son also does", meaning Jesus copies from his Father and works in agreement with his Father.
Jesus repeats this fact in Jn5:30.
In a nutshell, Jesus says he is inferior to his God and Father (John 20:17).

"Jesus was in constant touch with his Father". How was he in constant touch with his Father when he was on earth and his Father in heaven?

soulpeppersoup:


"Jesus was in constant touch with his Father". How was he in constant touch with his Father when he was on earth and his Father in heaven?

He communes with his Father in prayers (Luke 6:12. 1st Thess5:17)
By such means, he received his Father's guidelines, messages, commands etc.

God sent angels to his servants on many occasions. (Gen19:1. Judges 2:1-4. Luke 1:11-13,26-36).
Angels are God's messengers.

Jesus too received angelic visits and ministrations ( Matt4:11. Hebrew1:14)

Also , Jesus had supernatural powers,his link to reach his Father no get any barrier.

Janosky:


He communes with his Father in prayers (Luke 6:12. 1st Thess5:17)
By such means, he received his Father's guidelines, messages, commands etc.

God sent angels to his servants on many occasions. (Gen19:1. Judges 2:1-4. Luke 1:11-13,26-36).
Angels are God's messengers.

Jesus too received angelic visits and ministrations ( Matt4:11. Hebrew1:14)

Also , Jesus had supernatural powers,his link to reach his Father no get any barrier.

“Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

John 5:19.

If Jesus was waiting to see what his Father was doing only during prayers, he wouldn't have done half of what he did.

I don't want to go further with the argument but let me show you something.


The INV you spoke about didn't remove that part that read "man who is in heaven." in John 3:13. But there were confused as you are that a man could be in two places at the same time. Hence, they tried to silence it.

They didn't attempt to change it to "man who came from heaven" because that is not what the original text read.

The original text read, "... man who is in heaven."

Jesus was actually in heaven spiritual and on earth physically.

He was saw what the father was doing and replicating same here on earth.

Don't twist scriptures because you want to make a point. You can't help God. Those who have tried it paid dearly for it.

Teach the once you know and leave that you don't know.

soulpeppersoup:


“Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

John 5:19.

If Jesus was waiting to see what his Father was doing only during prayers, he wouldn't have done half of what he did.

I don't want to go further with the argument but let me show you something.


The INV you spoke about didn't remove that part that read "man who is in heaven." in John 3:13. But there were confused as you are that a man could be in two places at the same time. Hence, they tried to silence it.

They didn't attempt to change it to "man who came from heaven" because that is not what the original text read.

The original text read, "... man who is in heaven."

Jesus was actually in heaven spiritual and on earth physically.

He was saw what the father was doing and replicating same here on earth.

Don't twist scriptures because you want to make a point. You can't help God. Those who have tried it paid dearly for it.

Teach the once you know and leave that you don't know.

Pls don't misquote me .
If the footnotes says some manuscript read "Man, who is in heaven", you no get sense to see that statement does not fit in with the context and content of John chapter 3:1-36?
If that footnote stuff is really genuine, NIV no go hang am for corner.
To translate Bible no be child's play, my bro.

**the Bible or Jesus himself never said he was simultaneously in heaven and earth. John 16:28. 20:17. 7:33

The references for John 5:19 such as John John 5:30 ,John 8:28 gives you clear understanding ,rather than form conjectures with out scriptural proof.
**.".. I have told you EVERY THING my Father has told me.." John 15:15

I gave you examples that Jesus was in touch with God, na wetin I twist for there?

I.don't claim to know it all but pls we no dey fight.

Peace.

Janosky:


Pls don't misquote me .
If the footnotes says some manuscript read "Man, who is in heaven", you no get sense to see that statement does not fit in with the context and content of John chapter 3:1-36?
If that footnote stuff is really genuine, NIV no go hang am for corner.
To translate Bible no be child's play, my bro.

**the Bible or Jesus himself never said he was simultaneously in heaven and earth. John 16:28. 20:17. 7:33

The references for John 5:19 such as John John 5:30 ,John 8:28 gives you clear understanding ,rather than form conjectures with out scriptural proof.
**.".. I have told you EVERY THING my Father has told me.." John 15:15

I gave you examples that Jesus was in touch with God, na wetin I twist for there?

I.don't claim to know it all but pls we no dey fight.

Peace.

From your submission above, NIV didn't translate their version from the original Hebrew text but from another source (manuscript). This makes it a non reliable version.

It's not about you having sense or not. A message doesn't make sense to you if it's not directed to you. When the man whom it's directed to see it, it will make sense to him (spiritual sense).

If they had from the original text, they would not have seen the foot note, "man in heaven." and added it.

On the other hand, if they also translated from the original text, they would have seen it but because according to you it doesn't relate with the previous text decided to make it a foot note.

It never said Jesus was in two places simultaneously but from information given we can arrive at the conclusion that he was.

For instance, he said, "he could do nothing of himself, but only does that which he sees his father do." Yet both weren't in the same universe.

budaatum:

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” Rom 3:23

I wouldn't say the above is false since even without Adam's sins, I fall short by myself. And even 5:12 has its standing in that I continue to commit the sin Adam sinned. But that Adam's sin is my sin too, that's harsh.

Would God really punish one for the sins of another?

Take note, God never said (to Adam) "I will kill you the day you eat from this tree.. " He said rather that "you will surely die the day you eat from this tree... "

That's like giving a warning to someone about eating a particular food. Telling the person not to eat the food else he'll die... If the person eat the food and dies, you're not guilty of killing the person, are you?

That's what happened at the garden of Eden. Adam ate something he wasn't supposed to eat and the food killed him.. God never killed him..

Also God never cursed Adam or Eve after eating from the tree.. He only told them what will happen to them now that they've eaten the fruit.. Like a doctor telling a patient what will happen after he (the patient) ate poison..