-
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!
Jesus is God?
- Thread starter Khale
- Start date
Revelations 3:21 says that Jesus overcame and sat down at the right hand of God, I dont believe that God ever had anything to overcome.
No. You'll have to try and do better than that.
He overcame the world in flesh
John 16:33
"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."
Do you even try to read what you reply to?
Do you have any idea what it means when I say "Ego eimi" in the absolute sense?
Shermana
Heretic
Do you even try to read what you reply to?
Do you have any idea what it means when I say "Ego eimi" in the absolute sense?
Yes, I fully know what I'm replying to. Why is Jesus saying "I am" an absolute sense but not Asahels?
Your turn:
Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament:
[FONT="]Before Abraham was[/FONT][FONT="] ([/FONT]πρινἈβρααμγενεσθαι[FONT="] [prin Abraam genesthai]). Usual idiom with [/FONT]πριν[FONT="] [prin] in positive sentence with infinitive (second aorist middle of [/FONT]γινομαι[FONT="] [ginomai]) and the accusative of general reference, “before coming as to Abraham,” “before Abraham came into existence or was born.” I am ([/FONT]ἐγωεἰμι[FONT="] [egō eimi]). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between [/FONT]γενεσθαι[FONT="] [genesthai] (entrance into existence of Abraham) and [/FONT]εἰμι[FONT="] [eimi] (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between [/FONT]ἐν[FONT="] [en] in 1:1 and [/FONT]ἐγενετο[FONT="] [egeneto] in 1:14. See the contrast also in Psa. 90:2 between God ([/FONT]εἰ[FONT="] [ei], art) and the mountains ([/FONT]γενηθηναι[FONT="] [genēthēnai]). See the same use of [/FONT]εἰμι[FONT="] [eimi] in John 6:20; 9:9; 8:24, 28; 18:6.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]Bernard, A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to St. John :
πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί[FONT="], i.e. “before Abraham came into being, I AM.” The contrast between the verbs [/FONT]γίγνεσθαι[FONT="] and [/FONT]εἶναι[FONT="] is as unmistakable as it is in Ps. 90:2, [/FONT]πρὸ τοῦ ὄρη γενηθῆναι[FONT="] … [/FONT]ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος σὺ εἶ[FONT="], “before the mountains came into being … from age to age THOU ART.” Of God it could not be said that He “came into being” or “became,” for He IS. Cf. 1:18 and Col. 1:17 for this absolute use of [/FONT]εἶναι[FONT="]; see also on 1:1. It has been pointed out already that[/FONT]ἐγὼ εἰμί[FONT="] used absolutely, where no predicate is expressed or implied, is the equivalent of the solemn [/FONT][FONT="]אֲנִי־הוּא[/FONT][FONT="], I (am) He, which is the self-designation of Yahweh in the prophets. A similar use of the phrase is found at 13:19. It is clear that Jn. means to represent Jesus as thus claiming for Himself the timeless being of Deity, as distinct from the temporal existence of man. This is the teaching of the Prologue to the Gospel about Jesus (1:1, 18); but here (and at 13:19) Jesus Himself is reported as having said I (am) He, which is a definite assertion of His Godhead, and was so understood by the Jews. They had listened to His argument up to this point; but they could bear with it no longer. These words of mystery were rank blasphemy (see 10:33), and they proceeded to stone Him.[/FONT]
Because a predicate is implied in the case of Asahels.
Shermana
Heretic
I don't see what there is to reply to here. All they're doing is re-hashing the same old thing without getting into the grammar but relying on Theological presuppositions, and the thing on John 10:33 has been debunked already it is "a god", the same kind of "A god" in Acts 12:22.
The thing on John 1:1 has already been covered, it's "a god", whether you link to your defeated "Anarthrous: The big lie" thread or not, and John 1:18 is as well saying that he's the "Only begotten god".
Now why don't you link to some non-Trinitarian scholars who back your position.
The thing on John 1:1 has already been covered, it's "a god", whether you link to your defeated "Anarthrous: The big lie" thread or not, and John 1:18 is as well saying that he's the "Only begotten god".
Now why don't you link to some non-Trinitarian scholars who back your position.
Shermana
Heretic
Where's the implication?
Still too poor at reading.
And repeating the word "defeated thread" only shows your poor case.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/121296-john-1-1-anarthrous-theos-big.html
To be poor at Greek grammar is understandable, but English too?!
So I think you need English classes too.
Fill in the spaces:
Is that you, Asahel?” And he answered, "I am ____
Maybe you'll have an idea!
You know you can' t defeat something by saying it's defeated.
So you don't know what "implied" means.
The predicate implied is "Asahel"
Doesn't really take a university professor to figure it out.
Shermana
Heretic
Ummm, "implied" means something that's not there that you're supposed to read into the text, and it clearly says "he answered". You're the one who doesn't know. Why don't you explain how exactly Jesus used it in the "Absolute sense" so differently from how Asahel did, using a non-Trinitarian scholar to back your claim.
Last edited:
That's poor again.
I already said the predicate "Asahel" is implied or understood from the context. It doesn't refer to eternal existence.
Shermana
Heretic
What part about "he answered" is "Implied"? And "I am" as stated, is about past existence in this case, not future and eternal existence, otherwise you're changing the context of Jesus's response to begin with. And again as we see in Theodotion's and Aquila's Septuagints, the name is "I shall be", not "I am".
Thanks for quoting the entirety of my post this time though. Now perhaps you'd like to get a non-Trinitarian scholar who agrees with your "Absolute sense" argument.
Thanks for quoting the entirety of my post this time though. Now perhaps you'd like to get a non-Trinitarian scholar who agrees with your "Absolute sense" argument.