1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

1+1+1 = 1 ?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Rex, Jul 24, 2004.

  1. Hope

    Hope Princesinha

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,363
    Ratings:
    +408
    As a Christian, I refer to God as a 'he', of course, but I believe that 'He' encompasses both genders. He is really neither male nor female. I believe that He created us as men and women to reflect different facets of His character. So when you say, Runt, that there are passages in the Bible where God sounds more female, that is not so shocking. Maybe some Christians would disagree with me, but in my opinion God is not really 'male' in the sense of the word that we are accustomed to.
     
  2. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    1john5:7(or 8)

    get the point?
    ok, think you've had enough?

    now why do most versions read as "the scriptures" read?
    The King James Version has words that support the Trinity that most modern versions do not have. How can this be? The reason that there are different translations of this verse is that some Greek texts contain an addition that was not original, and that addition was placed into some English versions, such as the KJV (the words added to some Greek texts are underlined in the quotation above). The note in the NIV Study Bible, which is well known for its ardent belief in the Trinity, says, “The addition is not found in any Greek manuscript or NT translation prior to the 16th century.”I agree with the textual scholars and conclude from the evidence of the Greek texts that the statement that the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit are “one” was added to the Word of God by men, and thus has no weight of truth.

    There are many Trinitarian scholars who freely admit that the Greek text from which the KJV is translated was adjusted in this verse to support the Trinity. The Greek scholar A. T. Robertson, author of the unparalleled work, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research, and the multi-volumed Word Pictures in the New Testament, writes:

    At this point [1 John 5:7] the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, [No.] 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it, and 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian’s exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus.”

    The famous textual scholar, F. F. Bruce, does not even mention the addition in his commentary on 1 John (The Epistles of John). The International Critical Commentary does not mention it either. The conservative commentator R. C. H. Lenski, in his 12 volume commentary on the New Testament, only mentions that it is proper to leave the addition out. He writes: “The R. V. [Revised Version] is right in not even noting in the margin the interpolation found in the A.V. [KJV].” Henry Alford, author of the The Greek Testament, a Greek New Testament with extensive critical notes and commentary, writes:

    …OMITTED BY ALL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS previous to the beginning of the 16th century;

    ALL the GREEK FATHERS (even when producing texts in support of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity: as e.g., by [abbreviated names of Church “fathers”] Clem Iren Hipp Dion Ath Did Bas Naz Nys Ephih Caes Chr Procl Andr Damasc (EC Thl Euthym);

    ALL THE ANCIENT VERSIONS (including the Vulgate (as it came from Jerome, see below) and (though interpolated in the modern editions, the Syriac;

    AND MANY LATIN FATHERS (viz. Novat Hil Lucif Ambr Faustin Leo Jer Aug Hesych Bede)


    why is verse 7 rendered as such in the kjv*?

    *is the kjv(1611) really the word of the almighty?

    While the 1611 edition had, "Then cometh Judas" at Matthew 26:36, today's KJV has "Then cometh Jesus". Quite a remarkable difference!

    In fact, between 1611 and 1644 there were 182 editions

    1659 William Kilburne found 20,000 errors in 6 different editions made in the 1650's

    dabhar('word' or 'thing') is rendered by 84 different English words.
    panim('face') by 34 different English words.
    sim('to set' or 'place') by 59 different English words
    nasah('to lift up') by 46
    abhar('to pass over') by 48
    rabh('much' or 'many') by 44
    tobh('good') by 41
    shubh('to turn back') by 60
    katargein('to make void) by 17
    passover is translated Easter in Acts 12:4

    Mythical Creatures in the KJV

    cockatrice(Isa11,8/14:29/59:5)
    Unicorn(Deut33:17/Ps22:21/Isa34:7)
    Satyr(Isa13:21/34:14)

    stay tuned for the sequel.

    -shawn
     
  3. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    long overdue!


    Different Names for the same Person in the KJV
    Sheth and Seth; Pua and Puah; Cis and Kish; Agar and Hagar; Jeremiah, Jeremias and Jeremie; Enos and Enosh; Henoch and Enoch; Jered and Jared; Noe and Noah; Jonah, Jona and Jonas; Jepthae and Jepthah; Balak and Balac; Sara and Sarah; Gidion and Gideon; Elijah and Elias; Kora and Core; Elisha and Eliseus; Hosea and Osee; Isaiah, Esaias and Esay; Hezekiah and Ezekiah; Zechariah and Zecharias; Judas, Judah, Juda and Jude; Zera, Zara and Zarah; Marcus and Mark; Lucas and Luke; Timothy and Timotheus.

    Fast Facts on the KJV
    1The Greek text used for the King James Version, which is the Textus Receptus, took less than a year to produce by Erasmus.
    2The Received Text(Textus Receptus, TR) ...."was not based on early manuscripts, not reliably edited, and consequently not trustworthy." N. Geisler/W. Nix A General Introduction to the Bible
    3Since the KJV uses Elijah and Elias for the same person(see above), Mormon prophet Joseph Smith interestingly had a vision of both(Doctrine and Covenants 110:12-16)!
    4King James is speculated to of been a flaming homosexual with a preference for boys.
    5In 1851 the American Bible Society compared six different editions of the King James Bible and discovered over 24,000 variations between the editions of the same Bible translation! How could there be an inerrant King James Bible when even the different editions of the King James Bible had ten's of thousands of variant readings!?
    7The original KJV had a calendar of annual Holy days which all believers were to follow such as: Purification of the virgin Mary, annunciation of our Lady, Innocents day, etc..
    8The teaching that the King James translators had a perfect Greek text is denied by the translators themselves. In the original edition of 1611 are marginal notes as follows: Note on Luke 17:36, "This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." Note on Acts 25:6 where their text reads: "When he had tarried among them more than ten days," they inserted the following marginal note: "or, as some copies read, 'no more than eight or ten days.'"

    had enough?

    In Psalms 81:4, "was" is totally uncalled for and not in the original Hebrew. New Moons are still a statute of God.

    Matthew 24:24 should not have the italicized words "it were". It IS possible for the elect to be deceived. We need to be on guard!

    Romans 1:7 incorrectly has (the italicized words) "to be." The fact is, true followers are now saints.

    There are three Greek words rendered "hell" in the New Testament: gehenna, hades (equivalent of Hebrew sheol used in the Old Testament), and tartaroo. Gehenna is the lake of fire, hades is the grave and tartaroo is the abyss, the place of restraint for Satan. For English speaking people during the time of King James, "hell" [hades] was a cellar to store potatoes, not a lake of burning brimstone. In Acts 2:27, "hell" is hades, meaning the grave, while in Matthew 10: 28 and Mark 9:43-48 "hell" means the lake of fire. The only place tartaroo is used is in II Peter 2:4.

    1John2:23
    "(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" is placed in italics in the KJV. The Greek Text omits this portion entirely.

    Romans 16:25-27 belongs after Romans 14:23, not at the end of the book.

    AGE or ETERNITY?

    Conclusion(regarding kjv) – With all these admitted errors(there's much more if you think you can defend this), how can anybody insist that this is the true word of 'God'. It is a rather closed minded and arrogant position. If you like using the KJV, by all means use it, unicorns and all.

    so feeble so closed off to scripture is your mind.

    2Pe 1:4

    ASV...he hath granted unto us his precious and exceeding great promises; that through these ye may become partakers of the divine nature...
    KJV(HAHA)...ye might be partakers of the divine nature...
    GEN...ye should be partakers of the diuine nature...
    bishops...ye might be partakers of the godly nature...
    HNV...through these you may become partakers of the divine nature...

    ok ok, haha, ok.i'll stop

    further more regarding the MIStranslation of 1john5:7,8.does being one with 'god' make you equal to him?or even MAKE YOU HIM?(for fun, also include the term "in god" or "god in him")
    John 17:21,23,26
    21
    ASV...they may all be one; even as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us...
    KJV...they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us...
    HNV...they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us...
    23
    ESVI in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one...
    RSVI in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one...
    CSBI am in them and You are in Me. May they be made completely one...
    26
    easy-to-read-version(just for you?)
    I showed them what you are like. And again I will show them what you are like. Then they will have the same love that you have for me. And I will live in them.

    why didn't our messiah say "I showed them what I am like"?haha.does his living in believers make his believers uncreated too!lol


    well basically, according to trinitarians, 'god' made our logic to break it.

    may i ask, who did 'god' think he was talking to?Would he intentionally confuse us?1co14:33"For 'god' is not 'god' of confusion but of peace..."

    oh and, the duck/dog thing, i loved that.does your 'bible' ever read "we are one god"?


    btw, that was a mavelous explenation of christmas in the other thread, thanks for changing the subject.i especially liked the "through Mary!" part, that wouldn't happen to also be of man would it?thanks for telling me that book isn't official, i'd like to know just what it is then, and where the list of official publications(sounds eerily like the watchtower to me) are, so i may point your flaws of your own 'authorized'(by who?haha) documents.


    A gentleman is a man who can play the accordion but doesn't. ~Author Unknown

    I have six locks on my door all in a row. When I go out, I lock every other one. I figure no matter how long somebody stands there picking the locks, they are always locking three. ~Elayne Boosler


    --S
     
  4. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    HelpMe,

    Wow.... you are a tough one to figure out.

    Why did you waste so much time attacking the KJV?

    The Catholic NAB reads:
    7 So there are three that testify, 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord. Did you honestly think 2000 years of Catholic teaching rested on the KJV (NON-Catholic) translation?

    Yep.... you are a fine example for your faith. God bless you.

    Oh......... if I was only so wise, so holy........... sheesh. :rolleyes:

    For the record, why don't you let everyone know the name of the church you attend.

    Maybe this will help:

    The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

    In this passage, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are said to share one name (notice that the term "name" is singular, not plural), and that name is almost certainly Yahweh, the personal name of God in the Bible. We know this because the name Yahweh is applied to both the Father and the Son in the New Testament.

    Peter tells us, "David did not ascend into the heavens; but he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies a stool for your feet.’ Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:34–36). Here God is "the Lord" who speaks to "my Lord," Jesus. When one looks at the Old Testament quotation, one finds, "Yahweh says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool’" (Ps. 110:1); so here the Father is called Yahweh.

    In Philippians 2:10–11, we read: "[A]t the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." This is a reference to Isaiah 45:18–24, which tells us: "I, Yahweh, speak the truth . . . I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn. . . . To me every knee shall bow, every tongue confess. ‘Only in Yahweh,’ it shall be said of me, ‘are righteousness and strength.’ " Here Paul applies the prophecy of every knee bending and every tongue confessing to Jesus, resulting in the prophecy that they will "confess that Jesus Christ is Yahweh." The stress on Christ as God is also picked up by the early Church Fathers (e.g., Ignatius, below).

    Jesus himself declares that he is Yahweh ("I AM," in English translation). In John 8:58, when questioned about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." His audience understood exactly who he was claiming to be. "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple" (John 8:59).

    With the personal name of God, Yahweh, being applied to both the Father and the Son, it is almost certainly applied to the Spirit, and thus to all three members of the Trinity.

    The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians, who clearly understood them in the sense that we do today—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).



    May Mary, the Mother of God richly bless you, by the grace of her divine son, our Lord, Jesus Christ....
    Scott
     
  5. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    HelpMe,

    As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr who wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:


    "On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place......"I thought it was Constantine who brought the "pagan" worship of the Sun to Christianity...... ???

    It seems that your timeline might be a little off.

    Getting back on topic, here's some early Christian fathers who don't share your views:

    The Didache
    "After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

    Why would the Son and the Holy Spirit be on the same level as the Father? It would make more sense to baptize in the name of the Father alone.......... right.
    AD 70..... hmmm.... some of the Apostles were still ALIVE then, right? :)


    Ignatius of Antioch
    "[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).
    "For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).


    Justin Martyr
    "We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).


    Do I have to go on?............. time after time, these first and second century Christians defeat your view of the Trinity..... long before Constantine.......... long before you.

    Peace,
    Scott
     
  6. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    make up your mind?you quoted the kjv, many ppl use it.
    If Matthew 28:19 is accurate as it stands in modern versions, then there is no explanation for the apparent disobedience of the apostles, since there is not a single occurrence of them baptizing anyone according to that formula.


    Eusebius (c. 260—c. 340) was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.” Although he wrote prolifically, his most celebrated work is his Ecclesiastical History, a history of the Church from the Apostolic period until his own time. Today it is still the principal work on the history of the Church at that time. Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings, and Matthew 28:19 is one of them. He never quotes it as it appears today in modern Bibles, but always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.” For example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:

    But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”

    Eusebius was present at the council of Nicaea and was involved in the debates about Arian teaching and whether Christ was God or a creation of God. We feel confident that if the manuscripts he had in front of him read “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” he would never have quoted it as “in my name.” Thus, I believe that the earliest manuscripts read “in my name,” and that the phrase was enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence spread.

    Even if the Father, Son and holy spirit are mentioned in the original text of this verse, that does not prove the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity states that the Father, Son and “Holy Spirit” together make “one God.” This verse refers to three, but never says they are “one.”

    It is sometimes stated that in order to be baptized into something, that something has to be God, but that reasoning is false, because Scripture states that the Israelites were “baptized into Moses” (1 Cor. 10:2).

    It is sometimes stated that the Father, Son and spirit have one “name,” so they must be one. It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine not to “confound the persons” (Athanasian Creed), and it does indeed confound the persons to call all three of them by one “name,” especially since no such “name” is ever given in Scripture (“God” is not a name). If the verse were teaching Trinitarian doctrine and mentioned the three “persons,” then it should use the word “names.” There is a much better explanation for why “name” is used in the singular.

    study of the culture and language shows that the word “name” stood for “authority.” Examples are very numerous, but space allows only a small selection. Deuteronomy 18:5 and 7 speak of serving in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. Deuteronomy 18:22 speaks of prophesying in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. In 1 Samuel 17:45, David attacked Goliath in the “name” (authority) of the Lord, and he blessed the people in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. In 2 Kings 2:24, Elisha cursed troublemakers in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. These scriptures are only a small sample, but they are very clear. If the modern versions of Matthew 28:19 are correct (which we doubt, see above), then we would still not see this verse as proving the Trinity. Rather, they would be showing the importance of the three: the Father who is God, the Son (who was given authority by God [Matt. 28:18]) and the holy spirit, which is the gift of God.

    Does having the name [yhwh] make you him,uncreated, or equal?
    Ex
    Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in him.

    concerning my salvation, almost certainly just isn't good enough.especially considering the fact that in actuality, it is never applied to the 'set-apart spirit'

    unless i'm mistaken, there is no nt remaining scripts with the name, so i beg of you, plz plz.tell me where the name [yhwh] is used in your NT.also, tell me where a name is applied to the spirit.

    Isa45:21,22
    who hath declared it of old? have not I, [yhwh]? and there is no Elohim else besides me, a just Elohim and a Saviour; there is none besides me.Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else.

    if you really think this makes every savior the same person, then i beg of you to explain these verses.

    2Ki 13:5
    Jud 3:15
    [yhwh] raised them up a saviour, Ehud the son of Gera
    Isa 19:20
    Ac 5:31
    ect.

    saviours?plural?Ne 9:27,Ob 1:21

    i'm awaiting your response, dismiss these scriptures as you have so many others, they are still the truth.these saviors are not yhwh, but they are one with him, and therefor not `beside him`.this is also the case with his son.

    perhaps also of interest?
    If the phrase “God was in Christ” means that Christ is God, then when the Bible says that Christ is “in” Christians (Col. 1:27), it would mean that Christians are Christ.Since we know that Christ being “in” Christians does not make us Christ, then we also know that God being “in” Christ does not make Christ God.

    heb1:4
    "having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs."

    inherited?....become?...
    then i'd really like to know why he didn't simply say so.or why no verse ever makes such a claim that he is his father.

    TBC
     
  7. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    how thoroughly was i through this?you keep pretending that it is true.i think you're not paying attention, and who can blame you.the truth can.

    esv-Heb2:17
    Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

    like brothers in everyway...were they also fully man/"almighty" as you(not the scriptures) say?do you know of any scripture that would let us believe that the almighty could be in service of another 'god'? are we ever called the almighty's brothers in scripture?did he ever say he would become our brother?a son of man?

    rev3:12
    He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name.

    Yeshua said "My 'GOD'" 4x in one verse?after his death?after he was in heaven and in the same position he's in now, there seems scripturally to be one above him still and forever, never his equal, never...

    Acts 5:31
    Him did God exalt with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.
    ..."exalted"(i.e.;raised,promoted) to be a prince and saviour, rather interesting, rather.

    Joh 5:22
    For neither doth the Father judge any man, but he hath given all judgment unto the Son;

    if they were equal, obviously judgement would not be given to the son, for it would already be his.

    Ac 7:30,Ac 7:35
    This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? him hath God sent [to be] both a ruler and a deliverer with the hand of the angel that appeared to him in the bush.

    here, we are told an 'angel' uttered those words that were of [yhwh].which btw are more accurately translated as 'i will be'.are you calling the 'angel' identified in acts 7 as almighty?

    Here is the weblink for a website that discusses the phrase "ehyeh asher ehyeh."

    http://www.bluethread.com/ehyeh.htm

    As you will see from the website, Rashi supports the rendering as "I will be what I will be."

    The phrase is not as one dimensional as you may have been taught or as the translations you have referenced may lead you to believe.

    http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ex&chapter=3&verse=14#Ex3_14

    And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say ... I AM hath sent me unto you. (ASV)

    "I WILL BE WHO (OR WHAT) I WILL BE." (Fields)
    "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE." (Tyndale Bible)

    "I AM WHO AM." (the Douay Version)

    "I AM THE BEING." (the Septuagint (LXX))

    "I AM BECAUSE I AM." (ASV's margin)

    "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE." (Moffatt)

    "I AM WHO I AM." (RSV)

    .........................
    Furthermore, if we look at a Bible Hebrew Dictionary , we can look up the Phrase "I AM" hayah {haw-yaw} in Hebrew and see that it Means;


    "was, come to pass, came, has been, were happened, become, pertained, better for thee

    1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
    1a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
    1b) to come about, come to pass
    2) to come into being, become
    2a) to arise, appear, come
    2b) to become
    2b1) to become
    2b3) to be instituted, be established
    3) to be
    3a) to exist, be in existence
    3b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)
    3c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)
    3d) to accompany, be with "

    The Phrase "I AM" hayah {haw-yaw} is Used 72 times in the Hebrew Bible by a

    number of Prophets including (David, Moses, etc...)

    The Phrase " I-AM-GOD "'Elohiym {el-o-heem'} is Used 200 times in the Bible , Never by Any Prophets .

    Furthermore , in the Gospel of John , Jesus is recorded to have said "ego eimi" _Not_ "Hayah" Two completely different words in completely different languages , but both translated in to English as "I_am"

    Why then did't Jesus also say "Hayah" (I_am) the same way God said "Hayah" ??Remember acts26:14, the messiah did speak hebrew as well.

    Therefore with a *Statement* as grand as "I_am" , Jesus (if he said it) would have said "Hayah" like God said "Hayah"

    Instead , Jesus says "ego eimi" which is not what God said .

    This proves that Jesus did Not say "I_am" like God said "I AM"

    Also , this phrase appears in Jhn, but Not in Luke , Mark , or Matthew.Why only john?if it is as monumental as you believe?why wouldn't the others record it as well?

    1The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God.The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he” or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be”—John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament.

    While the Greek phrase in John does mean “I am,” the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means “to be” or “to become.” In other words God is saying, “I will be what I will be.”*see as many translations as you can find, many will not read in ex3:14 "..i am..".also, keep in mind that ex3:14 was an 'angel' speaking on behalf of [yhwh] and not himself.

    It is believed that John.8:59 further supports the position that YAHushua is the "I AM." Why else would the Jews try to stone him? He obviously blasphemed in the eyes of the Jews, a stoneable offense. Or did he? Is the mere utterance of "ego eimi" a blasphemy? Does the use of "ego eimi" automatically identify the speaker as YAHWEH, the I AM?

    Several individuals aside from YAHushua used "ego eimi" as well. In Lu.1:19, the angel Gabriel said, "Ego eimi Gabriel." In John.9:9, the blind man whose sight was restored by YAHushua said, "Ego eimi." In Acts 10:21, Peter said, "Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek." Obviously, the mere use of "ego eimi" does not equate one to the "I Am" of Ex.3:14. But perhaps the Saviors use of it was somehow different. After all, he came down from heaven.

    If, in fact, YAHushua spoke Greek to the Jews (which I doubt), he used the phrase "ego eimi" at least twenty times and yet, in only one instance did the Jews seek to stone him (John.8:58). YAHushua said, "I am the bread of life" to a large crowd, in John.6:35 & 48, yet no one opposed him. In verse 41, the Jews murmured because he said, "I am (ego eimi) the bread which came down from heaven." But in verse 42, the Jews questioned only the phrase, "I came down from heaven" and ignored "ego eimi." The same is true of verses 51 & 52.
    In John.8:12, 18, 24, & 28, YAHushua used "ego eimi" with Pharisees present (vs.13) and yet, no stoning. He, again, used it four times in John.10:7, 9, 11, & 14 with no stoning.


    TBC
     
  8. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    The point about Mt.26 is, why would false witnesses be sought if they had true witnesses in attendance? The arresting officers heard YAHushua say "Ego eimi." They could have stoned him right there in the garden for blasphemy, but they didn't. They could have reported the supposed blasphemy to the council, but they didn't. Why not? Because it wasn't blasphemy, nor was it a stoneable offense. He was merely identifying himself as "I am YAHushua of Nazareth."
    This brings us back to John.8:58. Why did the Jews seek to stone him on that occasion? The context of John.8 shows that YAHushua;
    1Accused the Jews of "judging after the flesh" (vs.15).
    2Said they would die in their sins (vss.21,24).
    3Implied they were in bondage (vss.32,33).
    4Said they were servants of sin (vs.34).
    5Said they were out to kill him (vss. 37,40).
    6Implied they were spiritually deaf (vs.43,47).
    7Said their father was the devil (vs.44).
    8Said they were not of Elohim (vs.47).
    9Accused them of dishonoring him (vs.49).
    10Accused them of not knowing YAHWEH (vs.55).
    11Accused them of lying (vs.55).

    Aside from that, the Jews misunderstood YAHushua's words leading them to believe;
    1That he accused them of being born of fornication (vs.41).
    2YAHushua had a devil (vs.52).
    3That he was exalting himself above Abraham (vs.53).
    4That he saw Abraham (vs.56).

    YAHushua's words in verse 58 were the culmination of an encounter that was so offensive to the Jews that they couldn't restrain themselves anymore. They simply couldn't take it anymore so they sought to stone him, not because of two simple words, "ego eimi," but because he was making himself out to be greater than their beloved father Abraham. They sought to stone him illegally.Keep in mind that be exalting him to the throne of the almighty, you are agreeing with the jew's whom opposed our savior.

    Then in verse 56 YAHushua says Abraham "rejoiced to see my day." He did not say he saw Abraham as the Jews misunderstood. How did Abraham see YAHushua's day?

    Heb.11:13 says, "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth."

    They saw YAHushua's day of the reigning King, by faith.

    YAHushua then resumed the context of his initial conversation by saying, "Before Abraham was, I am." "Was" is from the Greek "ginomai" meaning, "to come into being, ... to arise." What YAHushua actually meant was, "Before Abraham comes into being (at his resurrection unto eternal life), I will." Confirmation of this understanding comes to us from Figures of Speech Used in the Bible by E.W. Bullinger, pgs. 521,522. Under the heading "Heterosis (Of Tenses)," subheading "The Present for the Future," he writes, "This is put when the design is to show that some thing will certainly come to pass, and is spoken of as though it were already present."

    Included among this list of examples of Heterosis is John.8:58. In other words, although properly written, "Before Abraham comes to be, I am," with "I am" in the simple present tense, the meaning points to the future, "Before Abraham comes to be, I will."
    Some people believe this verse should be translated, "Before Abraham existed, I existed." However, neither Greek verb is in the perfect tense (past tense). "Was" is in the aorist tense and "am" is in the present tense. Let's look a little closer at "was." Concerning the aorist tense, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey says, "It has time relations only in the indicative, where it is past and hence augmented." The verb ginomai (was) is in the infinitive, not the indicative. Therefore it should not be translated in the past tense. This same reference says of the infinitive, "The aorist infinitive denotes that which is eventual or particular, ..." Abraham will eventually resurrect which is why the Greek uses the aorist infinitive. The meaning is, "Before Abraham comes to be" not "Before Abraham was (or existed)."




    i'd love nothing other than an explenation of how the mentioning of the existance of three beings makes them equal, or the same.love

    YAHWEH gave YAHushua the authority to forgive sins, judge men, heal the sick, raise the dead, etc. He is YAHWEH's Representative with the power to act in His name. The word "power" in Mt.9:2 is from the same Greek word that was translated "authority" in John.5:27 and throughout the New Testament. This same power was given to the Angel of YAHWEH in Exodus

    "mother of god" in scripture?

    i attend every assembly or congregation my time* permits, trinitarian ones as well.i

    *i worked 66 hours this last week.


    Ephesians 3:19
    And to know this love that surpasses knowledge — that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.


    Berean--S
     
  9. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    i didn't actually say that.he made it official though.

    btw, would you mind making it ok to change days for the reason it was?also, it was nice of you to change the subject from the changing of the sabbath to the date of the occurance.

    you can seek to agree with church fathers, or with the word.you are obviously following the fathers, i am obviously following the word.

    i doubt it.would you mind documenting the supposed recording of their being alive then?even so, if they were alive, what does that have to do with what Didache said?also "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" simply does not make them on the same level, as i showed in the posts previous.

    who cares?

    i wonder why their would be a 1st 2nd and 3rd if they were equal...since they are not equal, i have no problem understanding this.

    wow, second place?apparently you don't even agree with those whom you quote...

    they do no such thing, their quotes and reasoning have no effect when in comparison to the word.to me that is, because i will follow [yhwh] and you will follow the rulers of this world.


    HF & tx for not responding to the scriptural argument i provided.

    --S
     
  10. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    HelpMe,

    You're gonna get carpal tunnel syndrome soon! Wow.... my eyes hurt now. :eek:

    I applaud your dedication and ability to cut and paste.

    OK....... you're right, you win. Happy now? ;)

    Peace be with you,
    Scott
     
  11. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    cut and paste the words which i posted before and were ignored?or that i've used on other religeous forums?kk thx.i notice you copying and pasting words as well, should you be critisized for it?

    either i'm right in your eyes, or your're lying(about your own opinion).either is ok with me


    --S
     
  12. Feathers in Hair

    Feathers in Hair World's Tallest Hobbit

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    14,605
    Ratings:
    +1,796

    *whispers* I think he was actually taking the other option, giving a kind and gentle reply to your words, and was using humor in a reconciliatory way.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. t3gah

    t3gah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,125
    Ratings:
    +48
    In the NWT, the translation committee put this only for 1 John 5:7

    "For there are three witness bearers"
    Determining that the rest of the verse is not correct stating that some persons added it after the era it was written.:tsk:
     
  14. jewscout

    jewscout Religious Zionist

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    9,497
    Ratings:
    +927
    I'll just throw in my 2 cents here and be off....I believe that G-d is One, He is i believe (and i think i've said this before) sorta like "the force" but He is One.

    Deut. 6:8
    Shema Yisrael, Adonoy, Elohaynu, Adonoy Echad
    Hear Oh Israel, the L-rd is G-d, the L-rd is One

    The trinity is a purely catholic concept, and it's their way of handling the nature of Jesus, so to each their own i guess:D

    As far as the usage of "We", primarily in Genesis during the creation process many sages and commentators give to explenations,
    1) it is a royal "We", and from what i understand the hebrew implies this or
    2) HaShem is speaking with the ministering angels

    and for the different gender uses, it has to do w/ the different names of G-d, each denoting a different aspect of His personality as seen through His actions in the Torah. The authors simply said, ok this is the name for the merciful side of G-d, the Just side, etc. etc.
     
  15. Ronald

    Ronald Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,392
    Ratings:
    +50
    Wouldn't it be grand if the New Testament had been gaurded as the Tanach, maybe it(NT) would have been kosher for passover. LOL
     
  16. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,698
    Ratings:
    +10,018
    Religion:
    Judaism
    And how well is that? You really haven't a clue.
     
  17. Ronald

    Ronald Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,392
    Ratings:
    +50
    Really? <<<<<------------>>>>>>You are God?

    Thanks anyway!

    Baruch ata Adoni Eloheynu Melech ha-olam.
     
  18. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,698
    Ratings:
    +10,018
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Yes.

    >>>>>------------<<<<<<

    No.

    My pleasure.

    Baruch atah Adonai eloheynu melech ha-olam sheh-natan meh-chochma-toe le-va-sah ve-dahm
     
  19. may

    may Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    3,665
    Ratings:
    +110
    Regarding 1 john 5;7 as far as i am aware, the word (heaven )was added by an over zealous trinitarian in the 4th century but was later put right in the text of a latin bible manuscript

    For there are three witness bearers, 8 the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement.(1 john 5;7)i prefer the correct passage as it should be .

     
  20. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,698
    Ratings:
    +10,018
    Religion:
    Judaism
    This is the so-called Comma Johanneum. According to the good folks at Bible.org:
     
Loading...