Jesus is a human being but not the one true God

[OzSpen]

Is Greek grammar what establishes just who Jesus is ? If I tell you that I am so-and-so, showing you my driver's license, credit cards, pictures of my family, and birth certificate, then you say that well, I need to show you grammatically exactly who I am, whose the one that needs help ?
Jesus and his apostles words establish who he is, the "only-begotten Son of God" (John 3:16), that " I am a representative from" God (John 6:29) and that "the Son of man cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing".(John 5:19) "the firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15), "the beginning of the creation by God".(Rev 3:14)

John 1:1 says that Jesus is "a god", and in which an ancient Sahidic Coptic (a language that Greek was translated into shortly after the death of the apostles) manuscript verifies this. The Anchor Bible Dictionary says of Sahidic Coptic: "Since the [Greek Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures or New Testament] were being translated into Coptic during the 3rd century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant (or existing) witnesses".

Sahidic Coptic also had an indefinite article ("a") that is lacking in Koine Greek and has to be understood by context. The Sahidic Coptic rendering of John 1:1 reads: "in the beginning existed the Word and the Word existed with the God and a god was the Word".(Chester Beatty Manuscript 813, located in Dublin, Ireland)

You don't like the fact the NT is a translation of a foreign language that is no longer spoken. Accurate knowledge of koine Greek grammar is so important for Bible teachers.

Your example of obtaining an ID is a red herring.

Oz

 

[Guestman]

Context! Context! Context!

When Jesus said, 'I am', he did not mean 'I am' as in this sentence, 'I am in hospital', which is where I am now.

Oz

Yes, recognizing the context is vital in order to grasp many "truths" of the Bible, as for example when Jesus said to the Jews that "if anyone who observes my word, he will never taste death at all".(John 8:51) The Jews responded by saying that "You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died, are you ? The prophets also died".(John 8:53)

Jesus now tells them: "Abraham your father rejoiced greatly at the prospect of seeing my day, and he saw it and rejoiced" (John 8:56). The Jews could not understand how Jesus was able to say that "Abraham rejoiced greatly.....at seeing my day" since he would have had to be alive at that time, so they queried him as to just how old he is, not who he was, by saying: "You are not yet fifty years old, and still you have seen Abraham ?"(John 8:57)

To answer their question rightfully concerning how old he was, Jesus responds: "Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been".(John 8:58) The Jews did not believe that Jesus existed before Abraham and now showed their true colors by picking up stones to throw at him, but "Jesus hid and went out of the temple".(John 8:59)

 

[OzSpen]

Again, you fail to be a careful student of the Bible, for if saying "I am" (according the rendering of the archaic King James Bible whose language is long out of date) at John 8:58 means that Jesus is God, then the man born blind at John 9 is also God, for he said the same two Greek words "ego eimi" when asked if he was the one born blind.(John 9:9; note, the King James Bible adds the word "he" here)

Thus, this argument of Jesus being God due to a couple of words does not "hold water". And if you had read more closely, the context shows that the Jews were questioning Jesus age (John 8:57), not who he was, and in which Jesus responded: "Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came in to existence, I have been".(John 8:58, New World Translation)

Clinging onto the words "I am" at John 8:58 as rendered by the KJV is based on the faulty rendering of the KJV at Exodus 3:14 of the meaning of God's name of Jehovah: "I AM THAT I AM.....say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you". The Hebrew hawah as part of God's name, means, not I AM, but "cause to become".

Hence, according to the interlinear Scripture4all at Exodus 3:14, the Hebrew words aeie ashr aeie (as transliterated into English characters) means "I-shall-become who I-am-becoming", or properly rendered "I Will Become What I Choose to Become". And Jesus words should bring to rest that he is not God, for if he were God, then why does he not know the "day and hour" when "the great tribulation" will begin ?(Matt 24:36) Did he suddenly have amnesia ?

Why did he tell his apostles concerning "restoring the kingdom to Israel" that "it does not belong to you to know the times and seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction" ?(Acts 1:6, 7) Why is this knowledge off-limits to Jesus if he is God ? And how could Jesus be "the beginning of the creation by God" if he is God ?(Rev 3:14)

As the expression "You're barking up the wrong tree" applies, so you're have the wrong belief that Jesus is God. As John Dickerson of Meet the Press said back in April 2017: "Studies show that when a person believes something passionately, contrary facts don’t change their mind, they make them double down". Why would people "double down" against the facts ? Because they don't want their "boat to be rocked", remaining with a mistaken conviction rather than seek what really is true.

Guestman,

Your reply is an example of pushing your meaning without taking into consideration the context of this verse, John 8:58 (ESV).

52 The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” 54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ 55 But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple (John 8:52-59 ESV).​

Why would the Jews seek to kill Jesus by throwing stones at him? The punishment for blasphemy in the Jewish law was stoning (Lev 24:16; cf. Misnath Sanhedrin 7:4). Such stoning was supposed to be the result of a calm and measured judicial process and not like what happened here with the group violence against Jesus that caused him to hide himself. In John 8:58-59, the Jews presupposed what Jesus said, 'Before Abraham was, I am', was Jesus' blasphemous claim to deity.

What was the blasphemy that Jesus committed? John 10:31-33 (ESV) explains:

31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”​

All your wanting to link ego eimi with what Jesus said and what the man born blind did, is a smoke screen that avoids the issue.

Please, please don't go to an interlinear Bible for exegesis of the Greek text. All an interlinear does is provide a word-for-word literal English translation. It does not provide exegesis of the text. For that, go to a recognised Greek lexicon such as Arndt & Gingrich and extensive word studies of the Greek language such as those in Kittel & Gingrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (10 vols).

As a Greek teacher, I've done the hard yards of Greek exegesis and using Interlinears to try to defeat the divinity of Jesus will flounder on the rocks of eisegesis.

Oz

​

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, not saying either of you are right or wrong, I must agree with Guestman here Jesus is the God of the OT now Manifested in flesh and bone in the New testament diversified, or shared in spirit. consider this, Isaiah 35:4 "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you". now my question is this who came and save us?. before you answer read first Isa 45:21; Isa 49:26 and especially Isaiah 43:11.

 

[OzSpen]

GINOLJC, not saying either of you are right or wrong, I must agree with Guestman here Jesus is the God of the OT now Manifested in flesh and bone in the New testament diversified, or shared in spirit. consider this, Isaiah 35:4 "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you". now my question is this who came and save us?. before you answer read first Isa 45:21; Isa 49:26 and especially Isaiah 43:11.

You didn't deal with the stoning for blasphemy. What blasphemy did Jesus commit that deserved stoning to death by the Jews? Claiming to be God!

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all, first to OzSpen, thanks for the response. you said,

“It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

I would like to answer that, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God". now is there any man that is "EQUAL" with God? to you OZ, is this so?. I say yes. but before U answer this, I suggest you read Isaiah 40:25 and Isaiah 40:5 and get that clear in your mind. and after you answer I'll give the definitive answer to the blasphemy question once in for all..... (smile). I'll be waiting for your answer. I'll be heading to church soon so if you answer quickly I respond quickly or else I'll answer after church, thanks in advance.

 

[OzSpen]

GINOLJC, to all, first to OzSpen, thanks for the response. you said,

I would like to answer that, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God". now is there any man that is "EQUAL" with God? to you OZ, is this so?. I say yes. but before U answer this, I suggest you read Isaiah 40:25 and Isaiah 40:5 and get that clear in your mind. and after you answer I'll give the definitive answer to the blasphemy question once in for all..... (smile). I'll be waiting for your answer. I'll be heading to church soon so if you answer quickly I respond quickly or else I'll answer after church, thanks in advance.

Here there is no dealing with the stoning for blasphemy in John 8:52-59. Until that is dealt with, we have hit a brick wall in our discussion.

Until the exegesis of Phil 2:6 is done in context, it proves nothing. Do remember John 1:1 (NIV): 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'.

Who is the Creator?

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him (Col 1:15-16 NIV).​

So, Jesus the Creator was 'the image of the invisible God'. What does this phrase mean?

(1) We know that it confirms that Jesus is God: 'For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form' (Col 2:9 NIV). Rom 9:5 confirms that Christ 'is God over all' (ESV). Col 2:3 states that in Christ 'are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge' (NIV).

(2) Jesus is the Son of God. In Paul's letters this identifies Jesus, the Son, as God Himself. In 2 Cor 4:4, Christ is called 'the image of God'. How does Heb 1:3 described Jesus? 'The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being' (NIV) or as the NRSV puts it, 'He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being'.

What about Phil 2:6, where Jesus is described as being 'in the form of God' (Phil 2:6 ESV)? Phil 2:6-7 (ESV) states, '6 who, though he was in the form [morphe] of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form [morphe] of a servant, being born in the likeness [schema] of men.

In the paragraph in which this phrase occurs, there are two words we have to consider: morphe = form and schema = fashion. These 2 words are closely connected in this passage with this meaning, 'existing in the form of God ... recognized in fashion as a human being'. The latter part of Phil 2:7 literally is: 'being born in the likeness [homoiōma] of man. And being found in appearance [schēma] as a man'. Many modern translations take the phrase/sentence, 'in the likeness [homoiōma] of man. And being found in appearance [schēma] as a man' and translate it only as 'being born in the likeness of men' (ESV), 'being made in human likeness' (NIV), and 'being born in human likeness. And being found in human form' (NRSV). The ESV and NIV do not differentiate between homoiōma and schēma but the two words convey a similar idea. However, the NRSV does translate to accommodate the 2 different words.

In Greek literature, according to the lexicons, at times morphe and schema can have the same meaning such as appearance, form, shape. However in some contexts, as we have here, there is a noticeable difference in meaning. We see this transition as well translated by the ESV from 'form' to 'likeness'. Therefore, in these contexts, morphe 'refers to the inner, essential and abiding nature of a person or thing, while schema or fashion points to his or its external; accidental, and fleeting bearing or appearance' (Hendriksen 1962:104). Hendriksen gives other NT examples on p. 104 of this comparison of different meanings of morphe and schema in the NT.

R C Trench (1953) in his Synonyms of the New Testament compared the use of morphe and schema and concluded that 'none could be en morphe theou [in form God] who was not God'. He explained that morphe 'signifies the form as it is the utterance of the inner life; not "being," but "mode of being," or better, "mode of existence"; and only God could have the mode of existence of God'. As for the meaning of schema, his examination of the Greek for Phil 2:6-7 concluded that it was 'signifying his whole outward presentation' (Trench 1953:262-263).

Quoting portions of verses, without exegesis, does not arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.

Oz

Works consulted

Hendriksen, W 1962. Philippians (New Testament Commentary: combined volume of Exposition of Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

Trench, R C 1953. Synonyms of the New Testament (reprint of 1880 9th ed). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

 

[101G]

have hit a brick wall in our discussion

classic cop out, no my friend you have hit a brick wall, THE WORD OF GOD. now since you're a teacher of Greek, well exegesis of Phil 2:6 in context, and by the way you just answered the Phil 2:6 with John 1:1. so the ball is in your court.

 

[OzSpen]

classic cop out, no my friend you have hit a brick wall, THE WORD OF GOD. now since you're a teacher of Greek, well exegesis of Phil 2:6 in context, and by the way you just answered the Phil 2:6 with John 1:1. so the ball is in your court.

I have just added my exegesis of Greek of Phil 2:6 in context to #127.

Do you read and understand NT Greek grammar?

 

[101G]

Here there is no dealing with the stoning for blasphemy in John 8:52-59. Until that is dealt with, we have hit a brick wall in our discussion.

Until the exegesis of Phil 2:6 is done in context, it proves nothing. Do remember John 1:1 (NIV): 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'.

Who is the Creator?

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him (Col 1:15-16 NIV).​

So, Jesus the Creator was 'the image of the invisible God'. What does this phrase mean?

(1) We know that it confirms that Jesus is God: 'For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form' (Col 2:9 NIV). Rom 9:5 confirms that Christ 'is God over all' (ESV). Col 2:3 states that in Christ 'are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge' (NIV).

(2) Jesus is the Son of God. In Paul's letters this identifies Jesus, the Son, as God Himself. In 2 Cor 4:4, Christ is called 'the image of God'. How does Heb 1:3 described Jesus? 'The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being' (NIV) or as the NRSV puts it, 'He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being'.

What about Phil 2:6, where Jesus is described as being 'in the form of God' (Phil 2:6 ESV)? Phil 2:6-7 (ESV) states, '6 who, though he was in the form [morphe] of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form [morphe] of a servant, being born in the likeness [schema] of men.

In the paragraph in which this phrase occurs, there are two words we have to consider: morphe = form and schema = fashion. These 2 words are closely connected in this passage with this meaning, 'existing in the form of God ... recognized in fashion as a human being'. In Greek literature, according to the lexicons, at times morphe and schema can have the same meaning such as appearance, form, shape. However in some contexts, as we have here, there is a noticeable difference in meaning. We see this transition as well translated by the ESV from 'form' to 'likeness'. Therefore, in these contexts, morphe 'refers to the inner, essential and abiding nature of a person or thing, while schema or fashion points to his or its external; accidental, and fleeting bearing or appearance' (Hendriksen 1962:104). Hendriksen gives other NT examples on p. 104 of this comparison of different meanings of morphe and schema in the NT.

Quoting portions of verses, without exegesis, does not arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.

Oz

Works consulted

Hendriksen, W 1962. Philippians (New Testament Commentary: combined volume of Exposition of Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

LOL, LOL, LOL, hogwash, fashion is the outward figure in human nature, and Heb 1:3 have nothing to do with "Form" or Schema. Heb 1:3 is dealing with "character" or the "characteristics" of someone. listen, G5481 χαρακτήρ charakter (cha-rak-teer') n.
1. an engraver (the tool or the person).
2. (by implication) an engraving.
3. (hence) a “character,” the figure stamped.
4. (by extension) an exact copy.
5. (figuratively) a representation.
as you know character is abstract, so "the express image" here have nothing to do with a Fashion or figure. so your train of though or your exegesis is rejected.

Now what do "SON" G5207, huios means metaphorically? that's right, character as definition #3 above states. now the thing we need do is find out our Lord's NATURE. and Yes it's found right here in Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God". form here is G3444 μορφή morphe, and it means "NATURE". now follow me, the real question is "WHAT KIND OF NATURE" do our Lord and saviour have?. that's found in the root of G3444 μορφή morphe, which is G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros). and what do it mean?, 1. a portion. 2. a share. 3 a division. now we know that God is not divided, so #3 is eliminated. #1 say a portion, but #2 say a "SHARE" there's our answer, the NATURE the Lord Jesus is a SHARED nature. let's back this up. note definition #1 is PORTION, do you know what a portion means? that's right "SHARE". let's fully confirm this "SHARED" nature. since you're a Greek teacher, ANOTHER, in English have two definitions in Greek. now follow me teacher, G243 and G2087 ,allos and heteros. Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes "another" of the same sort; heteros expresses a qualitative difference and denotes another of a different sort. did you get that Oz? "ANOTHER" (numerical difference, meaning two or more), but with the SAME sort, meaning ONE in the same. know what sort means here? answer 1, a particular kind, species, variety, class, or group, distinguished by a common character or nature. 2. character, quality, or nature. understand what that definition just said?, it said that our LORD and SAVIOUR is in the SAME God class, same God Group , same God class, with the SAME GOD NATURE, that is EQUALLY SHARED. what are we saying? the Lord Jesus have the SAME NATURE, only it's a EQUALLY "shared" nature, meaning it's the same one person shared, or...... diversified in a another "FORM" (Phil 2:2 & 8). Just as Genesis 1:1 say what God is an H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym, a plurality of 2 or "ANOTHER" of himself as Adam is Another of himself in EVE. and you do know how the KJV can translate MAN right, let's see. H120 אָדָם 'adam (aw-dawm') n-m.
ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.).
LOOK BELOW,
KJV: X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.
Just like Adam, God is ANOTHER of HIMSELF in flesh as the "SON" are you now getting this now?. I SUGGEST YOU READ THIS POST AGAIN FOR CLARITY.

 

[OzSpen]

LOL, LOL, LOL, hogwash,

I will not respond to you again. I will not tolerate flaming of me and failure to deal with the exegesis I provided.

Quoting at length from Strong's concordance does not exegete the text.

Oz

 

[101G]

I will not respond to you again. I will not tolerate flaming of me and failure to deal with the exegesis I provided.

Quoting at length from Strong's concordance does not exegete the text.

Oz

flaming?, was it not you who said, "Until that is dealt with, we have hit a brick wall in our discussion". so you can down me after I answered you. no way. see this is only deception on your part. you cannot grasp the understanding I presented.

and "Quoting at length from Strong's concordance does not exegete the text". boy it sure help. I suggest you re-read my post.

and if you don't want to discuss any further, why that's fine with me. your lost, so good day

 

[Guestman]

Guestman,

Your reply is an example of pushing your meaning without taking into consideration the context of this verse, John 8:58 (ESV).

52 The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” 54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ 55 But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple (John 8:52-59 ESV).​

Why would the Jews seek to kill Jesus by throwing stones at him? The punishment for blasphemy in the Jewish law was stoning (Lev 24:16; cf. Misnath Sanhedrin 7:4). Such stoning was supposed to be the result of a calm and measured judicial process and not like what happened here with the group violence against Jesus that caused him to hide himself. In John 8:58-59, the Jews presupposed what Jesus said, 'Before Abraham was, I am', was Jesus' blasphemous claim to deity.

What was the blasphemy that Jesus committed? John 10:31-33 (ESV) explains:

31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”​

All your wanting to link ego eimi with what Jesus said and what the man born blind did, is a smoke screen that avoids the issue.

Please, please don't go to an interlinear Bible for exegesis of the Greek text. All an interlinear does is provide a word-for-word literal English translation. It does not provide exegesis of the text. For that, go to a recognised Greek lexicon such as Arndt & Gingrich and extensive word studies of the Greek language such as those in Kittel & Gingrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (10 vols).

As a Greek teacher, I've done the hard yards of Greek exegesis and using Interlinears to try to defeat the divinity of Jesus will flounder on the rocks of eisegesis.

Oz

​

Was Jesus "claiming to be God" that the Jews were wanting to stone Jesus ? No. It was for his expressing that "most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been".(John 8:58) The argumentative Jews, who said that "you are not yet 50 years old, and still you have seen Abraham ?"(John 8:57) were unwilling to accept Jesus words that "before Abraham came into existence, I have been" or as William's New Testament reads: "I existed before Abraham was born". Hence, Jesus did not "claim to be God" but rather told the confrontational Jews that he existed before Abraham and saw Abraham "rejoiced greatly at the prospect of seeing my day".(John 8:56)

And at John 10, who are the ones saying that Jesus is ' making himself God ', according to the rendering by the King James Bible ? Other Bibles render the Jews words as "we are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god".(John 10:33, New World Translation)

Why the rendering of "a god" instead of "God" ? Simply put, because Jesus tied this conversation in with Psalms 82:1 concerning the human judges of ancient Israel, whereby it says that "God takes his place in the divine assembly; in the middle of the gods he judges". Jesus told the belligerent Jews: "Is it not written in your Law (at Ps 82:1): ' I said: "You are gods" ? If he (Jehovah God) called "gods" those whom the word of God came - and yet the scripture cannot be nullified - do you say to me whom the Father sanctified (or sent as holy on a special assignment) and sent into the world, ' You blaspheme ', because I said ' I am God's Son ' ?"(John 10:34-36)

Thus, Jesus never claimed to be "God", but his own words establish that he is "God's Son". Reading that he said that he made the profession of being God is twisting what Jesus (and the Jews) really said, which is a common ploy to keep the Trinity doctrine as viable. If a lawyer tried to twist a person's words to fit his agenda, a sound judge would have him in contempt of court and if the lawyer did not stop his contorting of words, he would have him jailed.

 

[dattaswami8]

The absolute God is unimaginable. We cannot imagine Him or see Him. He is beyond our comprehension. He is beyond the worldly logic. Such GOD created this world for His entertainment. The creation is only His dream. Thus creation is His imagination. The creation is negligible or nothing compared to God or almost nil or only God is said to be truly existing or THE TRUTH.


Such God enters into His own creation (own imagination) by selecting the most suitable soul existing in the creation known as Son of God to give His presence to us, preach, and uplift us through divine knowledge. He is known as Human Incarnation and we can see Him, touch Him, co-live with Him and clear all our doubts. Whoever see Son of God has seen the invisible God existing in Him. This is the only way to see and serve the unimaginable God.


Such God comes to this world in human form to preach divine knoweldge to uplift the humanity.


This was the reason why when Philip asked Jesus to show the Father, Jesus told him that when you have seen Me you have seen Father only.

When you see the present human form of God you have seen the unimaginable invisible Father only. When you serve the present human incarnation of God you have served the invisible Heavenly Father alone. This is the only way to see, touch and co-live with God (Immanueal) there is no other way than this to approach and serve God. When GOd comes in human form one can see Him, touch Him and co-live with Him. God comes to this world to preach excellent divine knowledge. God is impartial and comes to this world in every human generation.


See, God is impartial. If He comes only in one generation then, He become partial to that particular Generation alone. But God is impartial and gives chance to all the generation people, to see Him, touch Him and co-live with Him.

When God comes to this world in human form, generally common public do not recognize Him, seeing the outer appearance of God. They treat God in human form or Human incarnation as an ordinary human being only. The reason is that ego and jealosy towards other human beings. Generally people cannot digest another person who is greater than him. Therefore due to ego and jealosy when God also comes in human form they do not know that God has come to them in human form. They reject Him. Mock Him and deny Him.


This is the reason why when God came as Jesus in that part of the world, He told to three types of people in 3 different way.

He told to common people that He is only a messenger of God, because common people are full of egoism and jealosy and they cannot accept God in human form if God in human form says to them that He is God Himself. To such group of people Jesus told that He is only a messenger of God who is better than a common man.

To a group of people who are less prone to egoism and jealosy, Jesus declared that He is Son of God means He is very very close to God just like a close Son.

To His dearest disciple who loved Him very much to such disciples He told that He and Father are one and the same.

To Peter in particular Jesus told that He is the Messiha means God in human form or GOd Himself and told Peter not to tell to any body this information. Because if ordinary people come to know that Jesus was God in human form then they cannot digest such higher truth. In fact the news spread and then Jews and High priest could not digest this and they caught Jesus and mocked Him, beaten Him and finally crucified Him. They said that Jesus was possessed with Satan. That was their standard. To such cruel people Jesus preached divine knowledge.

Jesus most of the time preached in parables, so that only interested people stayed back and asked the inner meaning of the parables. In fact most of the people were behind Jesus to get cure, get some miracles to be done for them to solve their problems etc. To filter such undeserving people who have no interest on God or His divine knowledge but only had interest in God's power ; to such people Jesus told in parables so that they cannot understand anything because they have no interest in divine knowledge or God.

To His disciple Jesus explained the inner meaning of parables, because they had left everything for Him for His mission of divine knowledge propagation.

The same GOd or Jesus comes in every human generation to preach divine knowledge. He can be identified from His divine knowledge that He preaches you. Divine knowledge is the identify mark of God in human form.

 

[101G]

The same GOd or Jesus comes in every human generation to preach divine knowledge. He can be identified from His divine knowledge that He preaches you. Divine knowledge is the identify mark of God in human form.

I would like to ask you a question, you said, "The same GOd or Jesus comes in every human generation to preach divine knowledge" is not this the Holy Spirit?", supportive John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you". the scripture states the Holy Spirit will teach us (all things). so I ask, is the Lord Jesus the Holy Spirit" yes or no.

 

[dattaswami8]

I would like to ask you a question, you said, "The same GOd or Jesus comes in every human generation to preach divine knowledge" is not this the Holy Spirit?", supportive John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you". the scripture states the Holy Spirit will teach us (all things). so I ask, is the Lord Jesus the Holy Spirit" yes or no.
-------------

Lord Jesus was the human incarnation of the Holy Spirit. The human body of Holy Jesus is like the metallic wire, which was all over, pervaded by the Holy Spirit. Veda says ‘Antarbahischa’ which means that the Holy Spirit pervades all over the body of Human Incarnation. Wherever you touch the wire the electric shock is given. Similarly the entire human body of Holy Jesus is holy. The holiness is the nature of Holy Spirit just like the shock is the property of electricity.


As the electricity cannot be separated from the wire, the Holy Spirit cannot be separated from the Holy Jesus. So here the Holy Spirit is the Holy Jesus. Holy Jesus refers this Holy Spirit as His Father. He tells that He was sent by His father as a messenger. Though He and His father are one and the same, He speaks like this for which there is a practical reason i.e., every human being repels with another human being. A man cannot accept another man as God due to Jealousy and Egoism. Bhagavatgita says, “A man will insult Me when I come here in human form (Avajananti mam….)”. For this purpose Holy Jesus wants Himself to be called only as the messenger of the Holy Spirit by the disciples whenever He is introduced to the public. If He tells the truth the egoistic public will not hear even what He preaches and will reject Him. Therefore He is telling His disciples to introduce Him as a messenger only. Ofcourse, the disciples are really the messengers of Holy Jesus.

Holy Spirit has taken over the human body of Holy Jesus and pervaded all over the body to preach the divine knowledge to this world. The same Holy Spirit is sending the disciples for the propagation of the Divine knowledge. Both the body of Holy Jesus and the disciples are instruments of the Holy Spirit chosen for different purposes. The Holy Spirit is preaching through the body of Holy Jesus and is propagating the divine knowledge through disciples. Therefore if you respect the disciple you are respecting the Holy Spirit indirectly. Though both the instruments exist like this, the Holy Spirit is present in Jesus and is not present in the disciples.


Due to this difference the disciple is an indirect instrument and the direct instrument is Holy Jesus. The disciple propagates the divine knowledge after hearing from the Holy Jesus. Therefore when such disciple is respected, Holy Jesus is respected first and then the Holy Spirit. But among the disciples there may be some person who cannot repeat what Holy Jesus exactly preached. In such a case the Holy Spirit will take over the body of that disciple and preaches (Mathew 10: 20). Such a disciple differs from Holy Jesus because the Holy Spirit resides in that disciple for some time only where as the Holy Spirit resides in Jesus all the time.


Holy Jesus is telling that He is the messenger of the Holy Spirit and He is also telling that the disciple is His messenger. He is giving the same status to Himself and the disciple by telling like this. The reason is that some disciple may become jealous in future if He says that He Himself is the Holy Spirit where as the disciple is His messenger only. The difference in the status may bring jealousy. Therefore He is maintaining the equal status so that no devotee becomes jealous of Jesus in the future. Due to jealousy the disciple may slip from Holy Jesus.


When He says that He is only the messenger, this shows the humble and submissiveness of Holy Jesus. He wants His disciples to be humble and submissive to the Holy Spirit through out their lives. For this purpose He sets Himself as an ideal. The Holy Spirit present in the human body of Holy Jesus is the essence of true and infinite knowledge as Veda says “Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma….” Humbleness and submissiveness are the fruits of the Divine Knowledge. Therefore the humbleness and submissiveness are the qualities of the Holy Spirit itself. This means whatever Holy Jesus speaks is the statement of the Holy Spirit only.

 

[101G]

As the electricity cannot be separated from the wire, the Holy Spirit cannot be separated from the Holy Jesus. So here the Holy Spirit is the Holy Jesus. Holy Jesus refers this Holy Spirit as His Father.

I agree that the Holy Spirit is the Lord Jesus manifested in flesh. now just one more question. in Revelation 1:1 please read it. who was it that sent his angel to John. was it the one whom you call the Father, or was it the Lord Jesus. but before you answer please read Revelation 22:6 first before you answer. thanks in advance.

 

[101G]

As the electricity cannot be separated from the wire, the Holy Spirit cannot be separated from the Holy Jesus. So here the Holy Spirit is the Holy Jesus. Holy Jesus refers this Holy Spirit as His Father.

GINOLJC to dattaswami8, since you didn't answer my last question, may I ask you another. if the Holy Spirit cannot be separated from the Holy Jesus. So here the Holy Spirit is the Holy Jesus. Holy Jesus refers this Holy Spirit as His Father. now if this is true, then please explain, Isaiah 35:4 "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you". if the Holy Spirit is his, (the Lord Jesus) father, how is he, (the Lord Jesus) his son?. I'll be waiting for that answer.

 

[OzSpen]

Was Jesus "claiming to be God" that the Jews were wanting to stone Jesus ? No. It was for his expressing that "most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been".(John 8:58)

Guestman,

ἐγὼ εἰμί (egw eimi) means 'I am' and NOT 'I have been'. This is the NWT's deceptive way to avoid the truth of Greek grammar. I know and teach NT Greek.

Why do you have the audacity to provide the New World Translation here and not tell us it is the NWT? It is a false translation from the Greek. See: John 8:58, "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been."

Oz
https://carm.org/john-858-abraham-came-existence-i-have-been-jehovahs-witness

 

[Guestman]

Guestman,

ἐγὼ εἰμί (egw eimi) means 'I am' and NOT 'I have been'. This is the NWT's deceptive way to avoid the truth of Greek grammar. I know and teach NT Greek.

Why do you have the audacity to provide the New World Translation here and not tell us it is the NWT? It is a false translation from the Greek. See: John 8:58, "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been."

Oz

Since when is there the requirement to identify the translation that I use as the New World Translation ? But I will for your information. Of the accuracy of the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, Dr. Benjamin Kedar, professor emeritus of History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, stated in 1989: "In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translation, I often refer to the English edition as what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this kind of work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew.....Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open for debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain".

Of the Christian Greek Scriptures of the New World Translation, Jason BeDuhn, professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University (USA), with a Ph. D. degree from Indiana University in Comparative Study of Religion, an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School and a B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of Illinois, after carefully examining several major translations for accuracy that included the New World Translation, called the New World Translation a "remarkably good" translation, "better by far" and "consistently better" than some of the others he considered.

He further said that the New World Translation "is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available" and "the most accurate of the translations compared".(the translations he compared are (1) The Amplified New Testament, or AB (2) Good News Bible in Today's English Version, or TEV (3) The Living Bible, or LB (4) New American Bible with Revised New Testament, or NAB (5) The New American Standard Bible, or NASB (6) Holy Bible, New International Version or NIV (7) New Revised Standard Version, or NRSV (8) New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, or NW.

In addition, he said that "I am not writing to support any denomination or sect of Christianity, but simply to inform.....I am writing because I am a biblical scholar, not by assertion or by approval of authorities, but by training", taking "on the role of a neutral investigator.....People are quick to charge inaccuracy and bias in someone's else's Bible....Greek is not English. Greek words do not have a one-to-one correspondence with English words in terms of their meaning....so there is room for legitimate variation in translation" and added that many translators were subject to pressure "to paraphrase or expand on what the Bible does say in the direction of what modern readers want and need it to say".(Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, pub. in 2003)

Now on with the topic at hand. The Greek words of ego eimi as "I am" is a literal rendition, but translating from one language to another requires understanding nuances, idioms, and subleties. A careful and honest translator will look at the context to ensure that the proper meaning is being set forth or conveyed.

Jason BeDuhn wrote that there is the need of "truth in advertising.....If a translation departs from the meaning of the Greek, and rewrites the Bible......it must be judged poorly......Accuracy does not require following the Greek in a hyper-literal, word-for-word way" which is called an interlinear translation, though "it is not really a translation at all".

For example, the Greek words makarioi hoi ptochoi to pnuemati hoti auton estin he basileia ho ouranos at Matthew 5:3 are rendered as "Blessed [are] the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" by the translators of the King James Bible (and is more of a literal rendition) but which obscures the real meaning and could imply that those "poor in spirit" are mentally unbalanced or lacking in vitality and determination, which is far from the truth.

The New World Translation renders it accurately as "Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need, since the Kingdom of the heavens belongs to them". This brings out the true flavor of the words rather than obscures them and that is what skillful and conscientiously translators do for their readers.

Of John 8:58, Jason BeDuhn quotes Robert Bratcher (who translated the Good News Bible or TEV) who said that "any translation, in order to be considered good, should satisfy three requirements: (1) It should handle textual matters in an informed and responsible way.....(2) Its exegesis of the original texts should be theologically unbiased.....(3) Its language should be contemporary, it should conform to normal usage".

Jason BeDuhn then says that "readers of Bratcher's "Good News Bible" (TEV) quite naturally assume that it satisfies the three principles laid out by the translator himself. So these same readers must scratch their heads in puzzlement when they come upon the following sentence: "Before Abraham was born, I Am"(John 8:58) How's that again ?"(pg 104)

Jason BeDuhn then says: "In this verse, the TEV violates the third of Bratcher's own principles (normal English usage) and, as we have found in other cases, the reason for doing so lies in a breech of his second principle (freedom from theological bias). The TEV form of John 8:58 strays from normal English usage in word order and verbal tense complementarity. That is, it puts the subject after the predicate, which is not the normal word order of English sentences, and it mixes a present tense verb with a past tense verb in a totally ungrammatical construction. Most other versions have the same problem (such as the KJV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, TEV, AB, NAB)"

He further says that "because Greek idioms are different from English idioms, translators do not translate these expressions word-for-word, but rather convey the meaning of the Greek idiom in proper, comprehensible English. It is ungrammatical English for something referred to with a present "am" to occur earlier in time than something described with a past "came to be".......In John 8:58, since Jesus existence is not completed past action, but ongoing, we must use some sort of imperfect verbal form to convey that: "I have been (since) before Abraham came to be". That's as close as we can get to what the Greek says in our own language if we pay attention to all parts of the sentence. Both the LB (The Living Bible) and NW (New World Translation) offer translations that coordinate the two verbs in John 8:58 according to proper English syntax, and that accurately reflect the meaning of the Greek idiom. The other translations fail to do so".

He then says: "Why does Bratcher himself, in the TEV, render John 8:58 as "Before Abraham was born, I Am" ? The answer is theological bias. In the Gospel of John, Jesus uses the words "I am" many times......But in the hands of some interpreters, this very reasonable interpretation of Jesus' use of language in the Gospel according to John has grown into a strange, unsubstantiated idea about the words "I am" themselves, independent of the objects and phrases attached to "I am" in Jesus speech.....But someone at some point noticed that this perfectly ordinary combination of the first person pronoun "I" and the present tense verb "am" just happens to read the same as what God says when he reveals himself to Moses in English translations of the Old Testament, "I am" (Exodus 3:14)"

But then Jason BeDuhn shows that the Hebrew rendering into Greek by the Greek Septuagint is not "I AM THAT I AM", but that of "I am the being" (pg 108), and is accurately rendered as "I Will Become What I Choose to Become".(NW) Thus, John 8:58 does not say: "Before Abraham was, I am", but accurately as "Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been".(NW)