Search results

Identity is not I am but existence, as Mark pointed out. Worse, your own post tells the story 5 Words <> 2 words. Jesus is NOT saying what God said.

I did answer you. It's just that you do not like the answer. BTW, you do this a lot. I give an answer and you immediately ask me what I just answered. I guess it's what makes you, you. To summarize @Pierac's post. What Jesus said and what God said regarding their existence are not the same. Do...

See how you dodge questions?

@Pierac and I believe what Jesus said there, just not what Christendom is imposing as the interpretation of what it means.

No. The only question is why would anyone think this is a claim to deity?

See @Pierac's brilliant 1st post in this thread.

I think his point is the "Great, I am" is actually "I am that I am" (or "I am what I am becoming" a variant declaration of his essential characteristic, immortal, existing eternally). So, no matter how you slice it, Jesus never claimed to be God. What's more, "I am" is not a name of any kind...

The 'audience' does not have ears to hear.

Agreed. It is a fallacy of argumentation. They cannot attack your flawless argument, so they attack you personally. If only you weren't so childish. If only you worded it more diplomatically. Yea, right! WHAT is the matter not WHO.

Wow! The OP and others use Jesus' statement of his existence to be his identity, right? Beyond that subterfuge is the translators inconsistently translating the same words. ego eimi = ego eimi = ego eimi

In your estimation, did this thread start off with the love you refer or is the burden only on @Pierac?

Resort to name calling = you have lost the argument.

What an outstanding analysis! Bravo, my man!!

Yes, we birds flock together as there is safety in numbers from predators. :p

@TLHKAJ has exposed it very well. You ought to re-read her posts. That's not true. The front man for your glory has been generic man over generic woman.

I agree. @Michiah-Imla is self-glory seeking by taking Scripture out of context. What a shame.

Yea, let's look at it. Note: The 150,000 mostly peaceful protestors did not aim to replace the government. If that was their objective, no force on Earth could have stopped them from wiping out the corrupt politicians in Congress - with or without them being armed.

I've thought long and hard about this. Thomas Jefferson nails it in the Declaration of Independence. He talks about the right of the people to alter or abolish government that does not meet it's needs and to re-arrange it in whatever forms seems best to them to achieve happiness, peace and...

And again, that is where you are wrong. There is a difference between initiating violence from defending yourself. I know you like the verse where Jesus tells Peter to put the sword away. Can't recall your commenting honestly about Jesus telling us to sell our coat to buy a sword, if we don't...

I agree with the additional exception of civil authorities, e.g., police, judge, etc, also having authority over both, men and women.