Why Did God Tell Israel That He is One?

[Mr GLee]

Greetings again Binyawmene and LeviR


Many or most translations give the rendition "sinful flesh" but this verse has the same word S#266 three times:

Romans 8:1–3 (KJV): 1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful S#266 flesh, and for sin S#266, condemned sin S#266 in the flesh:

Note that this is the only place where this word is translated "sinful".
266 ἁμαρτία [hamartia /ham·ar·tee·ah/] n f. 174 occurrences; AV translates as “sin” 172 times, “sinful” once, and “offense” once. 1A to be without a share in. 1B to miss the mark. 1C to err, be mistaken. 1D to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong. 1E to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin. 2 that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act. 3 collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many.
Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

My understanding of this is that the first occurrence can be translated "flesh of sin" or "sin's flesh". Jesus came in the same flesh as we possess, it is "sin's flesh" because in everyone else it is the flesh that actually sins. There is a sensitive use of the word "likeness". This can mean "sameness", but it also hints at the fact that although Jesus possessed the same nature which in ALL others has been the source of sin, in Jesus he never allowed the flesh to have dominance.

The second use of "sin" has the literal meaning. There is a problem, that man has sinned, and there is a need to find a solution to this problem.

The third occurrence is different again. "Sin" here is used as either a personification, in the sense of "King Sin", or metonymy where "sin" represents the lusts of the flesh which normally cause sin. God through Jesus condemned, passed judicial judgement against, make of no effect, render impotent the lusts of the flesh.

Kind regards
Trevor

I would offer.

I think that is where Mechisdek enters the picture as a parable. . Comparing the temporal historical things seen to the eternal things not seen (Christ's faith as a labor of love. )

Jesus from the tribe of Judah the new kingdom of priests, the promise to the apostle Joel,. . . . male and female, gentile and Jew. . kingdom of priest from all the nations.

God is not a racist.

A theophany (vision) could not accomplish what flesh signified as sinful could . Take away the sting of the letter of the law (death)

1 Corinthians 15:55-57King James Version O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Dead things were needed to destroy death (letter of the law )

Genesis 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

Psalm 110:4The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

 

[TMSO]

The form used in the verse is used in 37 other verses. I have 37 witnesses from scripture.

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: John 1:12

It is still aorist.

This is the same form of the verb. It refers to the ones who had received him.
John is not referring to giving those ones the right to become sons of God unless they receive him.
He is not saying that they were sons of God before they received him.

IOW, before they to become, they must receive him.

To as many as received Him in the past, however, being aorist it speaks of everyone as an event, the them He gave the right to become children of God in that past, that is, in connection with the event. It isn't so much before they to become, but that they to become when they receive Him.

The past of “to become” is the receiving of him.

The past of Abraham to become is that he believed on him.

No. Wow you add so much to scripture. It is still to be born, because it is speaking of a one time event in which Abraham came into existence. This is why thousands of skilled translators put it in the past tense as aorist. Why? We know Abraham came into existence in the past, so that is the event. Dealing with a human, it is to be born, however, he was born in the past, so to properly state it is to say He was born. Or, to please you, he came into existence, he became a human from not being human. (Which speaks to a transitioning state. Non-human, non-existent state to human, existent state.)

 

[LeviR]

It is still aorist.

To as many as received Him in the past, however, being aorist it speaks of everyone as an event, the them He gave the right to become children of God in that past, that is, in connection with the event. It isn't so much before they to become, but that they to become when they receive Him.

No. Wow you add so much to scripture. It is still to be born, because it is speaking of a one time event in which Abraham came into existence. This is why thousands of skilled translators put it in the past tense as aorist. Why? We know Abraham came into existence in the past, so that is the event. Dealing with a human, it is to be born, however, he was born in the past, so to properly state it is to say He was born. Or, to please you, he came into existence, he became a human from not being human. (Which speaks to a transitioning state. Non-human, non-existent state to human, existent state.)

But even when speaking of persons “to be born” it does not imply “was born”.
Is Abraham to be born? Certainly.
He is to be born from the dead. Before Abraham is to be born from the dead, Jesus is (I am).
Jesus is the firstborn from the dead. And those whom he raises from the dead are also born from the dead. This is the day which Abraham longed to see.
He longed to see the day when he would inherit the promised kingdom through his promised son.

Abraham is in the past. He is the object. Before Abraham (the past object) to be born, I am.

 

[LeviR]

.

@TMSO speaking of John’s prologue. John has to be speaking of the Messiah of whom he was expecting to come and not who had always existed. The one whom he expects to come is called the Word of God. This becomes evident when John says that “in him was life and the life was the light of men”. This is the gospel message. That life would come through Jesus. However, in order for that life to come through Jesus, that life had to be first given to him or else no one else could receive it. John says elsewhere that the life that the Father has in Himself, He has given to the son also to have that same life..so, when the Father gave the son life, it was the life that the son could give to others if he first gave his own life. The expectation of whom John speaks comes to reality when the son is born, dies and is raised again from the dead. Now the gospel message can be fulfilled because the life given to Jesus is the same life the Father has which has given life to all of creation

 

[David1701]

It does NOT mean “came into existence”. It means “to become”. Even Trinitarian scholars admit that’s what it means. They however changed the meaning for that one verse only.
Also, many Trinitarian scholars have admitted that “I am” does not necessarily refer to Exodus 3:14.
Some need to catch up.

LOL!

Before Abraham became (short for "came to be" - i.e. "came into existence"), I AM. This doesn't help your case at all...

Even if John 8:58 did not allude to Ex. 3:14 (and I'm sure that it does), it would still mean that Jesus exists eternally (and only God exists eternally, without beginning or end).

 

[Mr GLee]

But even when speaking of persons “to be born” it does not imply “was born”.
Is Abraham to be born? Certainly.
He is to be born from the dead. Before Abraham is to be born from the dead, Jesus is (I am).
Jesus is the firstborn from the dead. And those whom he raises from the dead are also born from the dead. This is the day which Abraham longed to see.
He longed to see the day when he would inherit the promised kingdom through his promised son.

Abraham is in the past. He is the object. Before Abraham (the past object) to be born, I am.

I would offer

Was born. Names were written in the lamb book slain from the foundation. The six days he did work. Not in respect to the outward demonstration two thousand years ago . The two books will be opened

Jesus the Son of man, prophet, apostle declared the words of the Father ...I Am They were not his own thoughts

The Jews that did not walk by faith "the unseen eternal things of God" . had thier faith or belief system toward dead Abraham as if he was eternal God .

One of the do not even think about it false doctrines . Catholiscim replaces Abraham with Peter.

Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Abraham meaning the father of all the nations

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings David1701,

Before Abraham became (short for "came to be" - i.e. "came into existence"), I AM. This doesn't help your case at all...

I have a different perspective on this verse. I consider that John 8:58 should be translated "I am he" and is part of the theme of whether or not Jesus is the Christ, the same as in John 8:24 and John 8:28.

Even if John 8:58 did not allude to Ex. 3:14 (and I'm sure that it does),

I suggest it is not alluding to Exodus 3:14 as this should be translated as "I wilbe" Tyndale, or "I will be" as per RV and RSV margins.

it would still mean that Jesus exists eternally (and only God exists eternally, without beginning or end)

I disagree that this is what Jesus is teaching. Jesus was in the plan and purpose of God before Abraham came on the scene, and one evidence of this is that Jesus is the promised seed of the woman of Genesis 3:15.

Jesus stated the following:
John 8:56 (KJV): Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Jesus was alluding to the offering of Isaac in Genesis 22, where as a result Abraham could see the future day of Jesus and his sacrifice and resurrection:
Genesis 22:13–14 (KJV): 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. 14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.

The Pharisees most probably understood what Jesus was suggesting but instead they deliberately muddied the waters so that they could stir up the crowds and accuse him. Trinitarians also ignore what Jesus stated in verse 56, as they like the Pharisees have a similar agenda.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Mr GLee]

I disagree that this is what Jesus is teaching. Jesus was in the plan and purpose of God before Abraham came on the scene, and one evidence of this is that Jesus is the promised seed of the woman of Genesis 3:15.

The I am he is directed toward the father who worked in the Son of man. Jesus. to both will and empower to do him to the good pleasure of Christ the teching master..

Some did know the teaching of Holy Spirit Christ that worked in the Son of man (dying flesh and blood.)

God is not a man

2 Corinthians 5:16-17 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: (son of man) yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, (son of man) yet now henceforth know we him (son of man) no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

The fleshly body of the Son of man began turning to dust over two thousand years ago . Jesus awaits his new body just a any born again son of God .

Satan's goal to deceive mankind eternal God is dying mankind as King of kings

 

[LeviR]

You guys

Greetings David1701,

I have a different perspective on this verse. I consider that John 8:58 should be translated "I am he" and is part of the theme of whether or not Jesus is the Christ, the same as in John 8:24 and John 8:28.

I suggest it is not alluding to Exodus 3:14 as this should be translated as "I wilbe" Tyndale, or "I will be" as per RV and RSV margins.

I disagree that this is what Jesus is teaching. Jesus was in the plan and purpose of God before Abraham came on the scene, and one evidence of this is that Jesus is the promised seed of the woman of Genesis 3:15.

Jesus stated the following:
John 8:56 (KJV): Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Jesus was alluding to the offering of Isaac in Genesis 22, where as a result Abraham could see the future day of Jesus and his sacrifice and resurrection:
Genesis 22:13–14 (KJV): 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. 14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.

The Pharisees most probably understood what Jesus was suggesting but instead they deliberately muddied the waters so that they could stir up the crowds and accuse him. Trinitarians also ignore what Jesus stated in verse 56, as they like the Pharisees have a similar agenda.

Kind regards
Trevor

The translation of the verb γενέσθαι to “was born” in John 8:58 is due to the question of the Jews about Jesus seeing Abraham. It is assumed that Jesus directly answered their question by telling them he existed before Abraham..
However, Jesus did not say that. And the proof is right before your eyes but you and others refuse to accept it.
The verb does not mean “was”. Nowhere is it ever translated as such. The verb implies that one thing is to become something else.
I’ve been asking to be shown evidence that I’m wrong about this, but none has appeared.
Would you like to try prove me wrong?
An appeal to Tyndale won’t work.

 

[TMSO]

But even when speaking of persons “to be born” it does not imply “was born”.

If that is how you understand language, this whole discussion is DOA.

Is Abraham to be born? Certainly.

Aorist past tense. WAS BORN. That is why all the biblical versions put the statement, however they translated it, in the past tense.

He is to be born from the dead. Before Abraham is to be born from the dead, Jesus is (I am).

You may not want to tell God that He said something different. God knows what He said.

Jesus is the firstborn from the dead. And those whom he raises from the dead are also born from the dead. This is the day which Abraham longed to see.

Abraham longed to see God become man on Earth. Abraham just got to see the preincarnate Jesus as the ANGEL OF THE LORD. (A theophany).

He longed to see the day when he would inherit the promised kingdom through his promised son.

He longed to see the day God came to Earth.

Abraham is in the past. He is the object. Before Abraham (the past object) to be born, I am.

Why do you keep taking it out of the aorist tense?

 

[LeviR]

If that is how you understand language, this whole discussion is DOA.

Aorist past tense. WAS BORN. That is why all the biblical versions put the statement, however they translated it, in the past tense.

You may not want to tell God that He said something different. God knows what He said.

Abraham longed to see God become man on Earth. Abraham just got to see the preincarnate Jesus as the ANGEL OF THE LORD. (A theophany).

He longed to see the day God came to Earth.

Why do you keep taking it out of the aorist tense?

The aorist tense points to the object to say something about that object without reference to time. That’s how Greek verbs work..
The reason it’s translated as “was” is because it is assumed Jesus directly answered the question about him seeing Abraham. And that his response caused them to want to kill him.

That’s the only reason.

Other than that, there is no reference we can point to where the verb is used as such.
The verb refers to something about an object that is TO BECOME something else. That’s the Biblical use.
You can stick with the assumed idea or the truth. Take your pick.

 

[David1701]

Greetings David1701,

I have a different perspective on this verse. I consider that John 8:58 should be translated "I am he" and is part of the theme of whether or not Jesus is the Christ, the same as in John 8:24 and John 8:28.

Well, I have a different perspective on John 8:24 and 28, which should be translated without the "he", which has been added, gratuitously, in many translations.

John 8:23,24 (W.P.N.T.)
23 He said to them: “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
24 That’s why I told you that you will die in your sins, because if you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sins.”

The whole point here, is that Jesus is saying that he is from heaven (i.e. he is God), and that he is the "I am" of Exodus (i.e. he is God); and that if they do not believe that, they will die in their sins. This point is repeated in verses 28 and 58.

I suggest it is not alluding to Exodus 3:14 as this should be translated as "I wilbe" Tyndale, or "I will be" as per RV and RSV margins.

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM!”

The whole point here is the contrast between Abraham having come into existence, at a point in time, and Jesus' timeless and eternal being. The "I am" is present indicative, not future, so the RV and RSV margins are wrong.

I disagree that this is what Jesus is teaching. Jesus was in the plan and purpose of God before Abraham came on the scene, and one evidence of this is that Jesus is the promised seed of the woman of Genesis 3:15.

This is not a basis for disagreement, but an irrelevant comment.

Jesus stated the following:
John 8:56 (KJV): Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Jesus was alluding to the offering of Isaac in Genesis 22, where as a result Abraham could see the future day of Jesus and his sacrifice and resurrection:
Genesis 22:13–14 (KJV): 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. 14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.

The Pharisees most probably understood what Jesus was suggesting but instead they deliberately muddied the waters so that they could stir up the crowds and accuse him. Trinitarians also ignore what Jesus stated in verse 56, as they like the Pharisees have a similar agenda.

Kind regards
Trevor

If you don't believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, you are not a Christian anyway and are in need of salvation. Such people are least able to contribute anything worthwhile to discussions like this.

 

[David1701]

You guys

The translation of the verb γενέσθαι to “was born” in John 8:58 is due to the question of the Jews about Jesus seeing Abraham. It is assumed that Jesus directly answered their question by telling them he existed before Abraham..
However, Jesus did not say that. And the proof is right before your eyes but you and others refuse to accept it.
The verb does not mean “was”. Nowhere is it ever translated as such. The verb implies that one thing is to become something else.
I’ve been asking to be shown evidence that I’m wrong about this, but none has appeared.
Would you like to try prove me wrong?
An appeal to Tyndale won’t work.

I've already rebutted this nonsense, more than once. Abraham became (i.e. came to be) and Jesus did not merely exist before Abraham, but he exists (present tense - in other words, he exists eternally, being God) before Abraham.

 

[LeviR]

I've already rebutted this nonsense, more than once. Abraham became (i.e. came to be) and Jesus did not merely exist before Abraham, but he exists (present tense - in other words, he exists eternally, being God) before Abraham.

Actually, you failed. Because you make up your own definition and think it’s correct.
Where does the verb mean “came to be”? Other than in you own head.

The verb meaning “came to be” or “was born” is ἐγενήθη

 

[LeviR]

@David1701

Ἐγένετο…. Means came to pass. Or came to be

γενέσθαι……Means come to pass or come to be

“was born” is ἐγενήθη

You’re using the wrong verb

γενέσθαι ….Means “ to be born”

You can say, “before Abraham was born” . Or “before Abraham to be born”.

To say “before Abraham was born” …..πρίν Ἀβραάμ ἐγενήθη

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings David1701,

The whole point here, is that Jesus is saying that he is from heaven (i.e. he is God), and that he is the "I am" of Exodus (i.e. he is God); and that if they do not believe that, they will die in their sins. This point is repeated in verses 28 and 58.

I noticed that you carefully avoided the other "I am he" reference:
John 8:28 (KJV): Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
Jesus is NOT claiming to be Deity in this use of "I am he". Jesus speaks concerning his absolute dependence on God, his Father.

The "I am" is present indicative, not future, so the RV and RSV margins are wrong.

I was referring to the RV and RSV margins concerning Exodus 3:14.

If you don't believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, you are not a Christian anyway and are in need of salvation.

I am not in the least intimidated by your judgement. It is evident from your lack of discernment in the above post that you are in no way qualified to draw the line as to who or what is acceptable before God. Jesus is the only one qualified to make such a decision and he is both just and very merciful. If there is already a line drawn, two sides of the fence as it were, I feel much more comfortable with my belief that there is One God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
1 Corinthians 4:3–5 (KJV): 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Mr GLee]

The aorist tense points to the object to say something about that object without reference to time. That’s how Greek verbs work..
The reason it’s translated as “was” is because it is assumed Jesus directly answered the question about him seeing Abraham. And that his response caused them to want to kill him.

That’s the only reason.

Other than that, there is no reference we can point to where the verb is used as such.
The verb refers to something about an object that is TO BECOME something else. That’s the Biblical use.
You can stick with the assumed idea or the truth. Take your pick.

Aorist used to describe a single, completed action in the past. Time reference "past"

Not a word to wonder after as if prophecy

Words of the father not words or thoughts of the Son of Man Jesus the apostle prophet.

John 8:56-58King James Version Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said (words of the father )unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

 

[TMSO]

The aorist tense points to the object to say something about that object without reference to time. That’s how Greek verbs work..
The reason it’s translated as “was” is because it is assumed Jesus directly answered the question about him seeing Abraham. And that his response caused them to want to kill him.

That’s the only reason.

Other than that, there is no reference we can point to where the verb is used as such.
The verb refers to something about an object that is TO BECOME something else. That’s the Biblical use.
You can stick with the assumed idea or the truth. Take your pick.

"The aorist tense is the Greek grammarian's term for a simple past tense. Unlike the other past tenses (imperfect and perfect), the aorist simply states the fact that an action has happened. It gives no information on how long it took, or whether the results are still in effect." (From the Ezra project, Greek explained. So, is that now explained?)

 

[LeviR]

"The aorist tense is the Greek grammarian's term for a simple past tense. Unlike the other past tenses (imperfect and perfect), the aorist simply states the fact that an action has happened. It gives no information on how long it took, or whether the results are still in effect." (From the Ezra project, Greek explained. So, is that now explained?)

The words translating γενέσθαι are in bold. These are the occurrences in John’ gospel.

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (John 1:12, ESV)

Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be? (John 3:9, ESV)

When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had already been there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want to be healed?” (John 5:6, ESV). (2016)

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before [πρὶν] Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:58, ESV)

He answered them, “I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become his disciples?” (Jonn 9:27, ESV).

I am telling you this now, before [πρὸ] it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he [ ἐγώ εἰμι]. (John 13:19, ESV)

And now I have told you before [πρὶν] it takes place, so that when it does take place you may believe. (John 14:29, ESV)

1096 (ginomai) means "to become, and signifies a change of condition, state or place" (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 109)

1096 gínomai – properly, to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another. 1096 (gínomai) fundamentally means "become" (becoming, became) so it is not an exact equivalent to the ordinary equative verb "to be" (is, was, will be) as with 1510 /eimí (1511 /eínai, 2258 /ēn).

All occurrences of this verb refer to a change of condition. Of particular interest are the verses below where specific change is described.

12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become, γενέσθαι, children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (ESV)

“And now I have told you before [πρὶν] it takes place (γενέσθαι) so that when it does take place you may believe that I am he [ ἐγώ εἰμι]. (John 13:19, ESV).

The only verse that changes the verb’s meaning is John 8:58. And yet John 14:29 even uses the word “before” and “I am”.

All the evidence suggests that John 8:58 should read:
“Before Abraham is to become, or to be born, or to emerge, I am”

Suggests that the condition of Abraham is to change from what he was.

There’s no scriptural justification for translating it as “was” or “was born” or “existed”.

 

[TMSO]

Words translating γενέσθαι are in bold. These are the occurrences in John’ gospel.








1096 (ginomai) means "to become, and signifies a change of condition, state or place" (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 109)

1096 gínomai – properly, to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another. 1096 (gínomai) fundamentally means "become" (becoming, became) so it is not an exact equivalent to the ordinary equative verb "to be" (is, was, will be) as with 1510 /eimí (1511 /eínai, 2258 /ēn).

However the verse didn't use ginomai. It used genesthai, which is conjugated, and is aorist. The word ginomai is not aorist, it is a verb. When conjugated it changes.

All occurrences of this verb refer to a change of condition. Of particular interest is the verse below where specific change is described.

12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become, γενέσθαι, children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (ESV)

The only verse that changes the verb’s meaning is John 8:58. And yet John 14:29 even uses the word “before”. The verse says, “And now I have told you before [πρὶν] it takes place (γενέσθαι) so that when it does take place you may believe”. (John 14:29, ESV).

All the evidence suggests that John 8:58 should read:
“Before Abraham to become,or be born, or emerge,I am”

There’s no scriptural justification for saying “was” or “was born”.

There is PLENTY of scriptural justification for saying "was" or "was born". Abraham WAS in Jesus past. The word genesthai is aorist simple past. An even that occurred once in the past, and is not continuing. If Jesus was simply a man, or a man with the job of prophet (as there have been quite a few in history), you have no hope of attaining salvation. Men can't die for even there own sin, much less someone else's. You can read scripture all the way through, and it does not once include human sacrifice in the sacrificial system, does it?