QUESTION 1 for YOU - IF YOU BELIEVE JESUS is GOD

[RANDOR]

Did I say TEMPLE sacrifice? Yeah, you got a fav dog?

It is finished for Jesus as far as what he had to do. Not for me and you, bud. Hear, bud? Brother?

Covenant is tow away, I mean two way. And God doesn't JUDGE you for what He did. OR his son.

Thank God..............I love my dog..wheeeew...that was close.

I do believe you will be judged at death......but hey..I could be wrong.

But being wrong........is really not that bad...............cause...........I've only been on this planet for a few years and only have known the lord half that time.

So I really don't get into the details of it all.

I just try to keep my eyes focused on Christ........keep satan and his little demons at bay....and cry for those who think they know Christ and do not.

By my readings...............i'm being told about God.............but no one has shown me God.

I'm not pickin on you...............cause I started a thread a few weeks back...it was called "are there any born again Christians here"

out of 200 views.............maybe 4 responded.................wow.............that was a shock.

Only a hand full could tell us what God or shall I say...how God changed their lives. Physically, mentally and spiritually.

Let me tell you all about Sean Connery...I've seen all his movies, read everything there is to read about Sean......but what good does that do you.....because...................I've never met him...........so.......we are both losing aren't we.

I've met Christ and His loving power......and you can to. It's yours..........but here's the kicker............you have to ask for it.

If ya don't.....well, good luck with what ever you are being taught. Because...........if you haven't had the touch of God on your shoulder.......then you are just being told about Him................and what good is that to you?

Yep..one can waste his entire life...............entire life............being taught about God, reading, learning, studying, and in a way that will never birth an encounter with their savior.................sad...very sad.

Experience God.......................if ya get the time.

 

[nothead]

.

Isa 42:8 I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.

Isa 48:11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.



God says here very clearly that he will not give his glory to another. This poses an insurmountable problem for the anti-trinitarian.

If you take this to be true absolutely then we as men have no hope for it is the Shekinah Glory which God shares with all who love Him. And our hope.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

He is asking for the Holy Spirit presence, the power to overcome the Cross which was now looming...he says he HAD it since the time God planned for it to be HIS, the beloved son's.

If Jesus was merely an exalted creature as some anti-trinitarians would have it, and not God incarnate, then his request is blasphemous. This Jesus would be a lunatic or a liar and certainly couldn't be anyone's savior. John 17:5, Isa. 42:8 & 48:11 leave us with only two options. Jesus is God or Jesus is a liar or lunatic. John tells us which it is.

No, YOU just do not understand the Jewish traditional concept of pre-existence, that which God plans before the Foundation of the World.

John 1:1 ...and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us...

The Word was qualitatively God, since it was his expressed WILL, thought and spoken. When spoken, this will as metaphor is manifest. "Jesus" became Jesus in the flesh, the spoken metaphor, "Jesus." Amen.

 

[Nomad]

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

He is asking for the Holy Spirit presence, the power to overcome the Cross which was now looming...he says he HAD it since the time God planned for it to be HIS, the beloved son's.

No sir. He is asking for the glory that he had with the Father before the world existed. I see no reference to the Holy Spirit or any request for power of any sort in John 17:5 or its immediate context. You sir are engaging in pure eisogesis. That is, you are reading something into that text that just isn't there. You have just demonstrated that Scripture is not really your guide. Your philosophical hang ups are your guide, even to the point of blatantly and unabashedly twisting a plain passage of Scripture into a pretzel.

 

[shturt678]

If you take this to be true absolutely then we as men have no hope for it is the Shekinah Glory which God shares with all who love Him. And our hope.

He is asking for the Holy Spirit presence, the power to overcome the Cross which was now looming...he says he HAD it since the time God planned for it to be HIS, the beloved son's.





No, YOU just do not understand the Jewish traditional concept of pre-existence, that which God plans before the Foundation of the World.




The Word was qualitatively God, since it was his expressed WILL, thought and spoken. When spoken, this will as metaphor is manifest. "Jesus" became Jesus in the flesh, the spoken metaphor, "Jesus." Amen.

Thank you for caring again!

A head's up, ie, there are some sagacious Christians on this thread - throw in the towel asap.

Old Jack

btw Jn.1:1c construed with Jn.1:14, ie, the Logos "became flesh" leaves no doubt regarding the deity of the Word.

 

[Pelaides]

We cant expose error where there is no perceived error, this has been the theological battle raging since before the Nicene Creed was established.
Arius still went on, even Constantines best efforts had little impact and he imposed death penalties on anyone still harbouring any shred of his teachings.

We cant teach each other anything, All we can do is go around and around with the same old arguments.

I use these boards to ask myself questions and strengthen my beliefs, if what I believe is right I know the Spirit will guide my understanding and lead me in the right direction, because aren't our prayers that we should seek and find?

If that prayer is asked in honesty, who is the Holy One going to deceive? God said he looks at a mans heart, whats your heart look like when you argue these forums?

The problem is, everyone thinks they have the answers and there is nothing else to learn like a bunch of old Pharisees arguing with Jesus. All willing to spite him but none willing to listen.

If your belief is true then it will withstand trial, but if there is question then the eigo (Satan) needs to be put aside and the question honestly addressed, if we do not do this there is not a heart of seeking amongst us.

Peace




argued since the church fathers.

I agree,but i still chose to follow the teachings of Jesus himself.And if that makes me an arian heritic then thats what i am.

 

[nothead]

No sir. He is asking for the glory that he had with the Father before the world existed. I see no reference to the Holy Spirit or any request for power of any sort in John 17:5 or its immediate context. You sir are engaging in pure eisogesis. That is, you are reading something into that text that just isn't there. You have just demonstrated that Scripture is not really your guide. Your philosophical hang ups are your guide, even to the point of blatantly and unabashedly twisting a plain passage of Scripture into a pretzel.

Not really a PRETZEL, sir. Since Jesus said he had accomplished all, yet the Cross was a coming and well, he HAD sweat drops as like blood for this before, in ANTICIPATION, sir remember??

Like I never did that, but I can imagine the sstresss yhh yuh huminah wuh wuh....not so very far-fetched after all, hey?

Thank you for caring again!

A head's up, ie, there are some sagacious Christians on this thread - throw in the towel asap.

Old Jack

btw Jn.1:1c construed with Jn.1:14, ie, the Logos "became flesh" leaves no doubt regarding the deity of the Word.

The Word "Jesus" became Jesus. Now LOGOS is the same throughout John. More than 30 times.

 

[StanJ]

The Word "Jesus" became Jesus. Now LOGOS is the same throughout John. More than 30 times.

WRONG...as usual...The WORD became Jesus. The WORD was God in the beginning. Please place you call again.

 

[nothead]

WRONG...as usual...The WORD became Jesus. The WORD was God in the beginning. Please place you call again.

The holistic and exhaustive definition of the Word WORD which cannot be true...since now it cannot be on the lips of John the Baptist or Paul or Jesus himself.

Since he IS the Word since the beginning...NO BEFORE the beginning of time...NO WAIT...Jesus can HAVE the Word of God in his mouth AND BE the Word at the sane tine!!

And I can be a a;oithg biubnoz. usli?J:AR#B
V[ J\SPTN AND THE WORLD CAN BE A ;AOR8STHV [053IPRGAJ too!!

Thank you for caring again!

A head's up, ie, there are some sagacious Christians on this thread - throw in the towel asap.

Old Jack

btw Jn.1:1c construed with Jn.1:14, ie, the Logos "became flesh" leaves no doubt regarding the deity of the Word.

RATHER the deity of the Word is established in the first verse. The expression of will which made our world. "Light" became LIGHT. "Firmament" became FIRMAMENT.

What is 'firmament' anyway? What we want our brains to be? But I digress...this DABAR occurs thirteen times in Genesis and IT WAS. THEN..."Jesus" became JESUS.

WHOO HOO!! The INTENT OF JOHN HIMSELF!!

 

[Madad21]

Thank you for being civil!

Its all subjective - correct....and that's the point isn't it? Do we introduce external thoughts to the subject which is at hand. Let me explain.

Context again: John 8:56 Your father Abraham was overjoyed152 to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.”153

Translators comment:

152 greatly overjoyed.
153 What is the meaning of Jesus’ statement that the patriarch Abraham “saw” his day and rejoiced? The use of past tenses would seem to refer to something that occurred during the patriarch’s lifetime.

What is subjective?

1. I could say to you "Abraham saw Jesus in the future as some vision from God"
2. I could say Abraham was transported into Jesus' time to see his day
3. I could say Abraham experienced certain circumstance in his life which revealed to him that a sacrifice would be provided for by God in that day. Gen 22:13–15

The question we must ask is in what way could Jesus say:

8:57 Then the Judeans154 replied,155 “You are not yet fifty years old!156 Have157 you seen Abraham?” 8:58 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth,158 before Abraham came into existence,159 I am!”160

Are you inferring upon Jesus thoughts which were not his intention?
In what way could Jesus claimed he pre-existed before Abraham? (in Yahwehs purpose?)
What Scripture would teach us of Christ before Abraham? Gen 3:15 (seed of the woman)

You see if you were honest I suggest from points 1-3 above you would chose number 3? Yahweh walked with Abraham and Abraham walked with his God - God allowed Abraham to experience a promised Son as a Father sees it - correct?

We know that "Abraham saw Jesus day", ie in vision, prophecy, etc. Thus Christ existed in Abraham's day, in prospect and purpose....this is the context to which Jesus is speaking.

Christ establishes here in John 8 preeminence, not preexistence.

Abraham saw the day of Christ, marked out from the world's beginnings (1Pe 1:20; Rev 13:8). As the son and heir, Jesus' power and authority preceded that of Abraham.

So in terms of saying all is subjective we need to determine with honesty the subject.

In this text I see no place for pre-existence; the Judeans unreasonably inferred Jesus was teaching "he was God" but rather his life and purpose was greater with pre-eminence prescribe by his Heavenly Father, which they, the people were not willing to except.

In the end he proved the people did not have the prophetic vision to "see" the Son of God as he stood before them (As Abraham had done by faith) - rather wanting to make him something he was not they took up stones to kill him.

The irony here of course some 2000 years Christians desire to make him something he is not and thereby also miss the promised Son of David.

P.

Yes there is subjectivity but to infer is not just subjective its lack of knowledge. We have no need to play guessing games with whats in the text, subjectivity can come from inspecting the translations and all its elements, and it comes by way of context and in veiw of all we know is there in the black ad white. Only then should an assumption or an inferring be made. this is all obvious of course. What you have provided here is an argument but without scriptural backing. for example with what textual reasoning do you maintain your veiw?

This is where I stand



Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day

· Or "he was desirous to see my day", as the Syriac and Arabic versions rightly render the word; or "very desirous",

· we know the day of Christ, and how long he was here on earth; this whole time is called "his day"; this Abraham had a very great desire to see:

and he saw [it] and was glad;
· he saw it with faith and he saw it in the promise, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed. (Genesis 22:18) "and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."
· he was promised a son, which was the beginning of the fulfilment and he laughed, and so his son was called Isaac, he saw him in the birth of his son Isaac and rejoiced, and therefore called his name Isaac, that is, "laughter":
· he saw also Christ and his day (being Christs day), this in the binding of Isaac and in the sacrifice of the ram.
· He saw the second person, the promised Messiah, in an human form, ( Genesis 18:2 ) “Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.” This was all a matter of great joy to Abraham.

[SIZE=12pt]I am[/SIZE]
· I AM, is the name of God,( Ex 3:14); it speaks his self-existence;
· he is the First and the Last,( Rev 1:8) "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."
· He was not only before Abraham, but before all worlds, (Pro 8:23) “From eternity I was appointed, from the beginning, from before there was land.” (John 1:1) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
· As Mediator, he was the appointed Messiah, long before Abraham; the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, (Rev 13:8) “All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.”
· The Lord Jesus was made of God Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification, and Redemption, to Adam, and Abel, and all that lived and died by faith in him, before Abraham.

For Abraham there was no need for prophetic visions of the future, he lived out the evidence and he saw Christ. This is in the text subjectivity is granted but where applied is the key.

Blessings :)

 

[nothead]

Yes there is subjectivity but to infer is not just subjective its lack of knowledge. We have no need to play guessing games with whats in the text, subjectivity can come from inspecting the translations and all its elements, and it comes by way of context and in veiw of all we know is there in the black ad white. Only then should an assumption or an inferring be made. this is all obvious of course. What you have provided here is an argument but without scriptural backing. for example with what textual reasoning do you maintain your veiw?

This is where I stand



Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day

· Or "he was desirous to see my day", as the Syriac and Arabic versions rightly render the word; or "very desirous",

· we know the day of Christ, and how long he was here on earth; this whole time is called "his day"; this Abraham had a very great desire to see:

and he saw [it] and was glad;
· he saw it with faith and he saw it in the promise, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed. (Genesis 22:18) "and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."
· he was promised a son, which was the beginning of the fulfilment and he laughed, and so his son was called Isaac, he saw him in the birth of his son Isaac and rejoiced, and therefore called his name Isaac, that is, "laughter":
· he saw also Christ and his day (being Christs day), this in the binding of Isaac and in the sacrifice of the ram.
· He saw the second person, the promised Messiah, in an human form, ( Genesis 18:2 ) “Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.” This was all a matter of great joy to Abraham.

[SIZE=12pt]I am[/SIZE]
· I AM, is the name of God,( Ex 3:14); it speaks his self-existence;
· he is the First and the Last,( Rev 1:8) "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."
· He was not only before Abraham, but before all worlds, (Pro 8:23) “From eternity I was appointed, from the beginning, from before there was land.” (John 1:1) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
· As Mediator, he was the appointed Messiah, long before Abraham; the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, (Rev 13:8) “All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.”
· The Lord Jesus was made of God Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification, and Redemption, to Adam, and Abel, and all that lived and died by faith in him, before Abraham.

For Abraham there was no need for prophetic visions of the future, he lived out the evidence and he saw Christ. This is in the text subjectivity is granted but where applied is the key.

I AM is NOT THE NAME OF GOD. Third time is a charm? How charming are you, Madad? Not so much I gotta repeat myself three times to you.

I WILL BE WHOM I WILL BE. Eyeah ashr Eyeh. Tell them the BEING sent me to you. Exodus 3.

IMPERFECT TENSE. "I am" is perfect present tense.

And I EXIST makes no sense. We know WE EXIST. and those spiritual like NOTHEAD knows God exists. So what is He saying to you sir? HE EXISTS?? Whoo hoo. Your God is redundant of speech too.

And from the KOINE I AM THEOLOGY also don't make sense. EGO EIMI is not HO OWN. The second clause in the Septuagint DOES NOT CORRELATE to EGO EIMI without a complement.

Anyway John uses EGO EIMI four times in John without a complement and it means I AM once and I AM HE three times? How about I am [he] all four times?

And I AM CANNOT BE the name of YHWH the acronym the third person, HE WILL BE. He will manifest what he will manifest. This was the ancient meaning. NOT I AM.

 

[Madad21]

I AM is NOT THE NAME OF GOD. Third time is a charm? How charming are you, Madad? Not so much I gotta repeat myself three times to you.

I WILL BE WHOM I WILL BE. Eyeah ashr Eyeh. Tell them the BEING sent me to you. Exodus 3.

IMPERFECT TENSE. "I am" is perfect present tense.

And I EXIST makes no sense. We know WE EXIST. and those spiritual like NOTHEAD knows God exists. So what is He saying to you sir? HE EXISTS?? Whoo hoo. Your God is redundant of speech too.

And from the KOINE I AM THEOLOGY also don't make sense. EGO EIMI is not HO OWN. The second clause in the Septuagint DOES NOT CORRELATE to EGO EIMI without a complement.

Anyway John uses EGO EIMI four times in John without a complement and it means I AM once and I AM HE three times? How about I am [he] all four times?

And I AM CANNOT BE the name of YHWH the acronym the third person, HE WILL BE. He will manifest what he will manifest. This was the ancient meaning. NOT I AM.

Mate thats starting to get a bit annoying.

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/exodus-3-14.html
Exodus 3:14
Exodus 3:14http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/exodus-3-14.html
And God said unto Moses, I am that I am
This signifies the real being of God, his self-existence, and that he is the Being of beings; as also it denotes his eternity and immutability, and his constancy and faithfulness in fulfilling his promises, for it includes all time, past, present, and to come; and the sense is, not only I am what I am at present, but I am what I have been, and I am what I shall be, and shall be what I am. The Platonists and Pythagoreans seem to have borrowed their (to on) from hence, which expresses with them the eternal and invariable Being; and so the Septuagint version here is (o wn) : it is said F26, that the temple of Minerva at Sais, a city of Egypt, had this inscription on it,
And on the temple of Apollo at Delphos was written (ei) , the contraction of (eimi) , "I am" F1. Our Lord seems to refer to this name, ( John 8:58 ) , and indeed is the person that now appeared; and the words may be rendered, "I shall be what I shall be" F2 the incarnate God, God manifest in the flesh: thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto
you;
or as the Targum of Jonathan has it,``I am he that is, and that shall be.''
This is the name Ehjeh, or Jehovah, Moses is empowered to make use of, and to declare, as the name of the Great God by whom he was sent; and which might serve both to encourage him, and strengthen the faith of the Israelites, that they should be delivered by him.


See nothead Gill commentary explains it in a way that is easy to understand and he didn't have to caps lock every second word to make his point. just saying

 

[nothead]

Mate thats starting to get a bit annoying.

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/exodus-3-14.html
Exodus 3:14
Exodus 3:14http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/exodus-3-14.html
And God said unto Moses, I am that I am
This signifies the real being of God, his self-existence, and that he is the Being of beings; as also it denotes his eternity and immutability, and his constancy and faithfulness in fulfilling his promises, for it includes all time, past, present, and to come; and the sense is, not only I am what I am at present, but I am what I have been, and I am what I shall be, and shall be what I am. The Platonists and Pythagoreans seem to have borrowed their (to on) from hence, which expresses with them the eternal and invariable Being; and so the Septuagint version here is (o wn) : it is said F26, that the temple of Minerva at Sais, a city of Egypt, had this inscription on it,
And on the temple of Apollo at Delphos was written (ei) , the contraction of (eimi) , "I am" F1. Our Lord seems to refer to this name, ( John 8:58 ) , and indeed is the person that now appeared; and the words may be rendered, "I shall be what I shall be" F2 the incarnate God, God manifest in the flesh: thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto
you;
or as the Targum of Jonathan has it,``I am he that is, and that shall be.''
This is the name Ehjeh, or Jehovah, Moses is empowered to make use of, and to declare, as the name of the Great God by whom he was sent; and which might serve both to encourage him, and strengthen the faith of the Israelites, that they should be delivered by him.


See nothead Gill commentary explains it in a way that is easy to understand and he didn't have to caps lock every second word to make his point. just saying

Yeah he used pythagoreans and platonists and the Chronicles of Adelphi and whomish else? Temple of minerva? What?

That is just about as OBNOXIOUS as Gill himself is. Have you actually studied his writings, sir? Do you know how he strings paragraphs and PAGES along as a single sentence only bordered by semi-colons? Who does that but a crazy man? EXCUSE MY CAPS.

And is "I am" a single contraction of let's see, um your own "I AM THAT I WILL BE," or say, um ahhhh forget it. Gill GLOSSES the simple rendering of HO OWN as not even close to I AM. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

HO OWN does not translate I AM. Fourth time sir. Please just refute this one, from a Greek grammatical perspective. DO NOT MENTION GILL MY MOST UNFAV bonkers bunnyman of the fatih.

 

[Madad21]

Yeah he used pythagoreans and platonists and the Chronicles of Adelphi and whomish else? Temple of minerva? What?

That is just about as OBNOXIOUS as Gill himself is. Have you actually studied his writings, sir? Do you know how he strings paragraphs and PAGES along as a single sentence only bordered by semi-colons? Who does that but a crazy man? EXCUSE MY CAPS.

And is "I am" a single contraction of let's see, um your own "I AM THAT I WILL BE," or say, um ahhhh forget it. Gill GLOSSES the simple rendering of HO OWN as not even close to I AM. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

HO OWN does not translate I AM. Fourth time sir. Please just refute this one, from a Greek grammatical perspective. DO NOT MENTION GILL MY MOST UNFAV bonkers bunnyman of the fatih.

What you dont seem to understand my learned friend is that it plays no bearing the 2 seperate translations of I am from exodus to John, whatsoever, Jesus could just as well be quoting Isaiah 48 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." These I am's are grammatically the same as in John 8.

But you wish to linger and hang your argument at a single point of contention, contention that only crates hurdle for you.

All that we have to go by is the Gospel of John in Greek (we do not know what Jesus said in Hebrew or Aramaic) and we can only speculate as to what that would be and the relationship with Exodus 3:14.

However your argument certainly takes nothing away from its reference in John weather exodus or Isaiah, Jesus clearly refers to himself as the devine, Gill might be a nut job but even he recognised that.

blessings

 

[Pelaides]

"...When ye pray,say,Our Father which art in heaven,Hallowed be thy name.Thy kingdom come.Thy will be done,as in heaven so in earth.Give us this day our daily bread.And forgive us our sins;for we also forgive everyone that is indebted to us.and lead us not into t
emptation but deliver us from evil."


Sound familiar?It should,you really cant call yourself a christian if you dont know the "Lords Prayer".

Why would Jesus teach us to pray to God in heaven,If he was God?

 

[StanJ]

"...When ye pray,say,Our Father which art in heaven,Hallowed be thy name.Thy kingdom come.Thy will be done,as in heaven so in earth.Give us this day our daily bread.And forgive us our sins;for we also forgive everyone that is indebted to us.and lead us not into t
emptation but deliver us from evil."


Sound familiar?It should,you really cant call yourself a christian if you dont know the "Lords Prayer".

Why would Jesus teach us to pray to God in heaven,If he was God?

It is important to note that Jesus said; "This is HOW you should pray, not WHAT.
At that point of course Jesus was NOT Glorified. He did however, later on in John 14, instruct them;
Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

Yeah he used pythagoreans and platonists and the Chronicles of Adelphi and whomish else? Temple of minerva? What?

That is just about as OBNOXIOUS as Gill himself is. Have you actually studied his writings, sir? Do you know how he strings paragraphs and PAGES along as a single sentence only bordered by semi-colons? Who does that but a crazy man? EXCUSE MY CAPS.

And is "I am" a single contraction of let's see, um your own "I AM THAT I WILL BE," or say, um ahhhh forget it. Gill GLOSSES the simple rendering of HO OWN as not even close to I AM. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

HO OWN does not translate I AM. Fourth time sir. Please just refute this one, from a Greek grammatical perspective. DO NOT MENTION GILL MY MOST UNFAV bonkers bunnyman of the fatih.

and yet you still can't provide on iota of evidence that we should accept that YOU are qualified to reject what these credentialed scholars teach.
I'll stick with Gill any day over you pal.

And I can be a a;oithg biubnoz. usli?J:AR#B
V[ J\SPTN AND THE WORLD CAN BE A ;AOR8STHV [053IPRGAJ too!!

Again all I see, is blah blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah. :unsure:

 

[nothead]

What you dont seem to understand my learned friend is that it plays no bearing the 2 seperate translations of I am from exodus to John, whatsoever, Jesus could just as well be quoting Isaiah 48 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." These I am's are grammatically the same as in John 8.

But you wish to linger and hang your argument at a single point of contention, contention that only crates hurdle for you.

All that we have to go by is the Gospel of John in Greek (we do not know what Jesus said in Hebrew or Aramaic) and we can only speculate as to what that would be and the relationship with Exodus 3:14.

However your argument certainly takes nothing away from its reference in John weather exodus or Isaiah, Jesus clearly refers to himself as the devine, Gill might be a nut job but even he recognised that.

blessings

GILL recognises NOTHING pardon the caps. He uses pagan seers, temples and philosophies to make his point. Whoo hoo, what next Mickey Mouse? He was a wyze mouse, and a prophet among the mice...

I am listening and I am not hearing. I am nothead purveyor of blessings and wyze sayings. Ooooo. Three times I said "I am."


Must be a reference TO GOD, hermano. And inferences like this make me pull my hair out.

Makes me God and Trinity both, eh? Since I said it three times each one for one of me.

What you have effectively done is say whenever Jesus says he is ANYTHING, he is God. So you see the sea, senor?

As the tidal wave drowns you theology? Jesus to the Jews around him, "I am the Bread of Life."

Jews who heard it, "gollah, he say he say I AM...dat means he be GAWD."

Former JW now converted...you had the correct one to begin with...doggone it, Life turns in on itself, eh? At least concerning the singularity of YHWH Elohim the God with one name, one will, one set of character and one mind.

 

[Madad21]

GILL recognises NOTHING pardon the caps. He uses pagan seers, temples and philosophies to make his point. Whoo hoo, what next Mickey Mouse? He was a wyze mouse, and a prophet among the mice...

I am listening and I am not hearing. I am nothead purveyor of blessings and wyze sayings. Ooooo. Three times I said "I am."


Must be a reference TO GOD, hermano. And inferences like this make me pull my hair out.

In other words you have no argument, your just going to refute me with silliness because you have nothing substantial to refute me with.

I would be happy to have a proper discussion and enquire as to your view, maybe even consider it with the right Scriptural backing, but you want to carry on like a clown.
keep laughing at yourself nothead, because I think your the only one who finds you funny.

But I will give credit where credit is due and thank you for confirming what the Spirit has already taught me, the way you carry on is an example of flimsy doctrine with nothing behind it.

So thank you :)

Blessings

 

[nothead]

It is important to note that Jesus said; "This is HOW you should pray, not WHAT.
At that point of course Jesus was NOT Glorified. He did however, later on in John 14, instruct them;
Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

How I should pray...Father who art in heaven, HALLOWED be thy name "Jesus"..."Jesus the Father, many times said in NT, yeah mun."

2) I asked for a million bucks in the name of "Jesus" and it did not come. What happinin' Stan? What kind of plan you got, Stan? What went wrong Stan?

Not enough FAITH? Maybe if I pray LOUDER?? Maybe JUMP UP AND DOWN??

and yet you still can't provide on iota of evidence that we should accept that YOU are qualified to reject what these credentialed scholars teach.
I'll stick with Gill any day over you pal.

I dare you to read out loud a single whole page sentence he strung along with MORE than 500 words. I seen it, I never ATTEMPTED to recite it.

Actually you can't do them in 3-4 breaths. Takes ten or more. How weird is that?

Nothead actually cuts his sentences off. He has more to say but ....he has discretion too.

Again all I see, is blah blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah. :unsure:

The blithering is evident from you pallyboy. Blah blah blah more than 7 times 7 will not be forgiven.

In other words you have no argument, your just going to refute me with silliness because you have nothing substantial to refute me with.

I would be happy to have a proper discussion and enquire as to your view, maybe even consider it with the right Scriptural backing, but you want to carry on like a clown.
keep laughing at yourself nothead, because I think your the only one who finds you funny.

But I will give credit where credit is due and thank you for confirming what the Spirit has already taught me, the way you carry on is an example of flimsy doctrine with nothing behind it.

So thank you :)

Blessings

I rike u 2. And I rike your rickshaw. HA HA HAWHEE HEEE HEEEE.

 

[Madad21]

I rike u 2. And I rike your rickshaw. HA HA HAWHEE HEEE HEEEE.

Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.

 

[nothead]

Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.

I said that nothing matches up perfectly and you said the first words, whether Isa or Exodus do match perfectly, the I AM part of God's sentences. I had mentioned previously that the Hebrew DOES NOT TRANSLATE I AM, but you glossed it. Yeah you right, when God says I am he, the first the last etc. the first two words DO MATCH to ego eimi, but not Ho Own the second clause of Exodus 3.

I showed you that I AM with the complement is a common saying for anyone, not none of us necessarily God. But you glossed it again.

I go no further with you dude. Consider yourself the FIRST poster for nothead to give up on. WHERE IS YOUR HEAD??

You realize NOT that these words mean nothing at all? The blind man says I AM in chpt 9 of John the NEXT CHAPTER and only a few verses later. HE IS GOD? WHAT?

WAIT, I didn't mean that. Not NOTHING AT ALL, he is saying the same thing he says to the Samaritan woman, I am he THE MESSIAH she spoke of.