As in the days of Noah... ALL flesh had CORRUPTED itself

The problem is that Tartarus only comes from mythology, Greek mythology. If other people want to believe that Zeus, Ares, Apollo and the Titans and Tartarus are real, that they really exist, that's their right, but no one is going to convince me that the gods Zeus, Apollo, Ares, or the Titans, and Tartarus truly ever existed. These were false gods from false religion that Satan and his demons deceived people to believe existed and should be worshipped. These gods nor Tartarus ever really existed.

Really? I thought it was mentioned in the New Testament? Didn't Jesus go down and preach to those in chains?

I believe all the things you stated except the last one.
You can say we don't have the authority to pick and choose what is true vs what is an allegory, but that is just another way to say to someone to follow what someone says blindly, to let someone brainwash you into not using your own brain to reason on the scriptures. I'm going to use my brain and reason that the True God doesn't agree with false religion, that the True God and Satan and his demons, have nothing in common. The True God is about Love, and truth, and life, but Satan is about hatred and lies, and death. By Satan and his demons using false religion they convince people that such gods as Zeus, Ares, Apollo, the Titans, and places like Tartarus truly exist, but they don't. You can't side with the True God and Satan. False religion is all about Satan and his lies.
As far as the last thing you asked if I believed in and that I said you and I would disagree, I believe God sent his only begotten Son to mankind. That it was the only begotten Son of God who sacrificed his human life for me. I don't believe God sent himself to mankind. I know that many believe that it was God who became flesh/human, because they believe the Word is God. Like I said they and I will disagree on this. While they believe the Word is God, I believe the Word is, the only begotten son of God, so when the scriptures says the Word became flesh/human, I believe it was the only begotten son of God who became flesh/human.

Like I said before, I know that the word Tartarus is used at 2 Peter 2:4, but Tartarus comes from Greek mythology, which is false religion. False religion has everything to do with Satan and his demons, and about deceiving people to believe lies, not truth. So just as the mythological gods, Zeus, Ares, Apollo, and the Titans, never really existed, neither has Tartarus, ever really existed. So when Peter used the word Tartarus, he wasn't saying that the True God threw these fallen angels in the mythological Tartarus that never has really existed, but he was saying that the True God abased these fallen angels from their heavenly place and privileges, over to a condition of deepest mental darkness respecting the true God's purposes. This darkness also marks these fallen angels eventuality, which the scriptures show is everlasting destruction, along with their ruler Satan the Devil. So Peter using the word Tartarus here at 2 Peter 2:4 indicates the lowest condition of abasement for these fallen angels.

John 1:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Please read the OP of this thread and see if it helps to make more sense... :

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...of-god-word-father-son-and-the-trinity.72792/

Also - the 'begotten' rests in the virgin birth of Jesus - begotten from/into/of the human race. He was not the son of God before the Holy Spirit "conceived" Him in Mary. The "sonship" rests in the human conception and birth.

Wow, are you the only person who thinks this way?

This is the last one. You don't believe it?

Do you believe God became flesh, in the form of His Son, Jesus the Messiah, to die for our sins, and raised Him to life?

John 1:1 has debated upon for centuries as to how it should be translated, so
I know that there are translations of the scriptures that have John 1:1 as your translation above, but there are other translations of the scriptures that translate John 1:1 differently, a few are:

1808: "and the word was a god" (The new testament in an improved version, upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's new translation: with a corrected text)

1864: "and a god was the word"(The Emphatic Diaglott, inter linear reading, by Benjamin Wilson)

1928: "and the Word was divine." (La Bible during Centenaire, L'Evangileselon Jean, by Maurice Goguel)

1935:"and the Word was divine." (The Bible man American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed)

1958:"and the Word was a god."(The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek)

I believe the Word to be the only begotten Son of God. So when the scripture that says the Word became flesh, I believe it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh/human.

I believe the Word to be the only begotten Son of God, so when the scripture says the Word became flesh, I believe it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh/human. The only begotten Son of God name was Jesus he was/is the Messiah, he came to sacrifice his human life for mankind so mankind could be save. The only True God resurrected Jesus back to life, three days after his death.

Let’s try this.

Is Jesus God?

Yes I know He is the Son of God, but is He also God?

John 2:19-Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Only God can raise Himself up from the dead. Jesus said He could raise Himself up from the dead. And He did raise Himself up from the dead. That makes Him God.

I am not able to die and raise my own self up neither can you. Jesus could and did. You have to be God to be able to physically die and raise yourself up. Jesus did. That makes Him God.

I know therefore believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, so no I don't agree that Jesus is God. The Gospel account by John particularly emphasizes Jesus prehuman existence as "the Word" and explains that "the Word became flesh/human and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only begotten son from a father."(John 1:1-3, 14) From my research and study of the scriptures I understand that this sonship did not begin with his human birth, this is seen from Jesus own statements, as when he said, "what things I have seen while with my Father I speak" (John 8:38, 42; compared with John 17: 5, 24), as well as from other clear statements of his inspired apostles, such as, Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:4, and 1 John 4:9-11, 14.

I believe that we must harmonize Jesus words with other scripture. Numerous scriptures show that Jesus didn't raise himself from the dead, but that he was resurrected by YHWH God his Father.(Romans 8:11; 1 Corinthians 15:15; Ephesians 1:20)

So how I would view John 2:19 is by examining the context of John 2:13-18 which show that Jesus had cleansed the literal temple at Jerusalem, routing from it those who were making it a place of merchanised, and as a result Jesus had been confronted with this question from the Jews: "What sign have you to show us, since you are doing these things?" Then at John 2:19 Jesus told them the sign which is the basis of the question the Jews asked. The Jews continued at John 2:20-22 saying: "This temple was built in forty six years, and will you raise it up in three days?' But he was talking about the temple of his body. When, though, he was raised up from the dead, his disciples called to mind that he used to say this."
This setting shows that Jesus wasn't talking about his physical body, but "he was talking about the temple of his body." The temple in Jerusalem that Jesus cleansed represented not Jesus alone but also the body-members over which Jesus is head. Just as the temple in Jerusalem was not made up of one stone, but many stones, so "the temple of Jesus body" has many stones, with Jesus as the foundation cornerstone: "You yourself also as living stones are being built up a spiritual house for the purpose of a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."1 Peter 2:4-7. After the Jewish religionists rejected Christ the living stone and broke him down by death, on the third day thereafter YHWH God raised him up to become the chief cornerstone of the temple of living stones then under preparation. Jesus immediately appeared to his disciples and lifted them out of their despondency, built them up spiritually so that they could "offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God." That this building of "the temple of Jesus body" started then and continued through the years that followed is shown by Peter's use of the present tense when years afterward Peter said Christ's followers "are being built up a spiritual house."

Now with this broadened view of matters I return to the consideration of Jesus’ words, “In three days I will raise it up.” I can see from scripture how Jesus did start giving attention to the building up of the temple of living stones after his resurrection on the third day of his death. Yet it can be argued with some force, that since Jesus was to be the chief cornerstone and he was the firstfruits of the resurrection, the first one to be built up for use in the construction of the spiritual house or temple, we cannot eliminate Jesus entirely from this building work and apply the expressions concerning it to his followers only. Yet we cannot say that Jesus raised himself up from the dead, because he was dead, and I know myself from research and study of the scriptures the trinity doctrine, has been proved false by so many scriptures, and so it cannot be appealed to as a basis for saying he was dead only as Christ but alive as God, and so could, as God, raise himself up. Besides, as I have previously noted, John 2:22 specifically states that “he was raised up from the dead”, not that he raised himself. Is there any way, then, that we can understand and harmonize in a reasonable way Jesus’ statement that “in three days I will raise it up”, having it embrace his own resurrection as chief cornerstone as well as the building up of his followers as living stones?

There seems to be a reasonable explanation. When Jesus said, “Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” he was speaking in a predictive sense; not that he would raise himself up, but that he predicted that three days after he was broken in death by his enemies the temple of God would begin to be raised up, beginning with him as the head member of it. There are examples of this predictive use of a term elsewhere in the Bible, where an individual says he will do something, but he actually does not do it at all. It comes about only as a result of his action.

For instance, at Isaiah 6:9, 10, where YHWH God appears to Isaiah and says, “Go, and tell this people.” And then what does he say? He says: “Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.” God didn't mean for Isaiah to actually go and fatten their hearts and stop up their ears and close their eyes to forestall any repentance; but he was predicting that that would be the effect of the message that Isaiah had been commanded to go tell the people, that the people themselves would show closed eyes and unhearing ears and fatty hearts, that they would not repent and turn to YHWH God for healing spiritually.

A similar usage is found at Ezekiel 43:3 where Ezekiel sees the vision of Jehovah coming to the temple, and says it was “according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city”. But Ezekiel did not come to destroy Jerusalem; he came only to predict the destruction of the city by the Babylonians. Yet he spoke of himself as doing it. So in the same predictive sense Jesus could speak as though he was going to raise himself, yet actually he would be resurrected by YHWH God.

Then we also have that controversial text where it says YHWH God hardened the heart of Pharaoh. He said: “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you.” (Exodus 7:3, 4) Now, YHWH God didn't harden the heart of Pharaoh, but he was predicting that Pharaoh’s heart would be hardened as a result of the message sent to him by Moses and Aaron, and that the repeated extension of God’s mercy to him would not soften him but would cause his heart to harden even more. It is not unusual for wicked men to interpret YHWH God's long-suffering as a sign of weakness and so become more set in their evil ways, thinking the time of reckoning will never come. This is shown by Ecclesiastes 8:11: “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.”

There are a number of other Scriptures where one person is spoken of as doing a thing, not because he actually does it, but because he predicts it or it results from some action of his. So it is at John 2:19. Jesus’ words, “In three days I will raise it up,” were merely predicting that the temple would be raised up on the third day after his death on the torture stake, and YHWH God was the one who raised up the temple by first raising up the head member of it, the Lord Jesus Christ, and from then on, from that third day on, God used him to raise up all the other members of the temple class. (Zechariah 6:12) So through the Roman military the Jews broke down the chief and initial member of God’s spiritual temple, but on the third day YHWH God raised him as a spirit creature and chief cornerstone of the spiritual temple.

This is heresy and I believe, even disqualifying as a Christain.

Accepting that Jesus IS God is an essential component to THE Gospel unto Salvation.

This is where most cults, like Mormons, display they are not true Christians.

I thought you were a JW when you couldn't understand simple logic and didn't believe in Hell. JWs are not allowed on the forum, as they worship a heresy.

Just read the bible for what it says, and stop letting the Watch Tower Tract and Bible Society tell you what God is saying (the Watch Tower Tract and Bible Society works for the devil!) Also, stop reading the New World Translation, which was inaccurately translated by JW minions.

"It pays to have the correct translation."

I don't let other imperfect humans dictate to me what translation of the Bible I'm going to use. Other humans are imperfect humans like me and can be wrong about what they believe the correct translation is.

You can judge other imperfect people of whatever religion you like, that's your right I guess. However, I know that what you mean when you say, "just read the Bible for what it says," you mean as long as when I do read the Bible for what it says, that I agree with you and those like you who believe as you do. I don't believe any human or group of humans are infallible. So I let others choose what they choose to believe, and I don't judge them. I may not agree with them on how they view the scriptures, but I don't judge them because they disagree with me.