Do you have problems in understanding English too?
When I say there is or there isn't an implied predicate in the sentence, what has this got to do with the fact that someone answered or not?
-
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
When I say there is or there isn't an implied predicate in the sentence, what has this got to do with the fact that someone answered or not?
Grow up and stop posting the same useless words on both threads.
Muffled
Jesus in me
The context does not support that interpretation. He is just responding to an identification as Asahel.
Jesus was repsonding to a question of time and existence. The "I am " He expresses there is a testimony of His eternal existence, something that only God has.
When Jesus says "I am the good shepherd", He is not talking about time and existence but is simply describing an attribute of Himself. The context is entirely different.
When God says His name is "I am" it is appropriate because it describes the uniqueness of God as being timeless.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I appreciate the explication of the Greek. It certainly lends credence to the obvious meaning for those who have trouble understanding the obvious.
I am interested in your explication of John 13:19. It appears to me from the context that the "He" Jesus is referring to is God. The referent verse appears to be John 13:16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord; neither one that is sent greater than he that sent him.
It is the only reference to "he" in the passage and there is no doubt that Jesus is referring to the Father who sent Him since He has stated that earlier in John 5:37 And the Father that sent me, he hath borne witness of me. ......
(John 13:16 [NIV]) I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.
I think "messenger" here refers to the apostles, since Jesus sent them. It is the same Greek word (ἀπόστολος
.This is from Gill's exposition:
(John 13:19 [NIV]) I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He.
(John 13:19 [NA26]) ἀπ' ἄρτι λέγω ὑμῖν πρὸ τοῦ γενέσθαι, ἵνα πιστεύσητε ὅταν γένηται ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι.
From Gill's exposition:
Bernard, A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to St. John:
Concerning the same verse:
(John 13:19 [NIV]) I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He.
St. John Chrysostom says:
And Christ Himself after working so many signs saith that this was no small sign of His divinity: and continually adds, "But these things have I told you, that when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am He." (S. John xiii. 19; xiv. 29; xvi. 4.)
(John 13:19 [NIV]) I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He.
St. John Chrysostom says:
And Christ Himself after working so many signs saith that this was no small sign of His divinity: and continually adds, "But these things have I told you, that when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am He." (S. John xiii. 19; xiv. 29; xvi. 4.)
Shermana
Heretic
Not quite, Jesus is merely saying that he existed in the past tense, as many translations say "Before Abraham was, I was". Again, your "proof" is a Theological presumption of "context" that's not necessarily gramatically correct. Meahwhile, the actual context is Jesus saying that he "has been". The word "Am" is sometimes used in past tense, and by the indicator of Genesthai, we can see that he merely meant to say past tense.
Not only that, but the name itself as says Theodotions' and Aquila's Septuagint is not "i am" but "I shall be". Jesus did not say "I shall be". Neither did he state that it was his name.
So in the end, merely saying that "Ego Eimi" means "I am I am" (Yes, "I am I am" because "I am" is a name) is downright faulty. You will never find a Non-Trinitarian scholar who agrees with this interpretation. Mark2020 has turned down the challenge to find one.
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
Another verse that Trinitarians/Modalists love to mangle, talk about implied. The word 'He" isn't even there and the translations have to add it for contextual sense. Because Jesus can't possibly be saying "I am the one you speak of", he has to say "I am" as if he meant "I am I am", which makes absolutely no sense in this context. The use of this verse should be proof in the pudding that the Trinitarian will stretch and twist any possible use of "I am" to fit his attempt to say that Jesus declared to be he who was named "I shall be".
And again, no need for Jesus to actually say his name is "I am" like the Father does in Exodus 3:14, there's no difference between a statement and a name, and no need to keep it in grammatical context to the sentence.
Nothing to do with the quote.
As usual: useless...
lol
Someone who can't tell an infinitive from a present verb is speaking for scholars.
You're too amusing.
Muffled
Jesus in me
(John 13:16 [NIV]) I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.
I think "messenger" here refers to the apostles, since Jesus sent them. It is the same Greek word (ἀπόστολος
This is from Gill's exposition:
(John 13:19 [NIV]) I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He.
(John 13:19 [NA26]) ἀπ' ἄρτι λέγω ὑμῖν πρὸ τοῦ γενέσθαι, ἵνα πιστεύσητε ὅταν γένηται ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι.
From Gill's exposition:
Bernard, A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to St. John:
There is no doubt that a person sent is an apostle including Jesus. Paul and Barnabus are apostles of the church and of God. Peter was sent by God to Joppa.
Of course. Sometimes those who are sent are sent with a message and are therfore messengers. Jesus speaks the word of God directly but it is still a message to the hearers.
If a person speaks his opinion without proof it is not proof.
Muffled
Jesus in me
This is speculation on your part.
I will grant that the word "to be" can mean past present and future depending on context. There is the obvious context of the past before Abraham but there is also the context of the present with Jesus speaking. "I was" suggests that Jesus existed in the past but does not exist when He is speaking. That is toatlly illogical. "I am" denotes the onging existence of Jesus and in the context of saying by what authority He is speaking takes on the greater meaning of the name "I Am." The context evidently was understood by the hearers because they took up stones to stone Him.
I do not presume. The context is there for a person who has understanding of words.
The grammar appears to be correct to me.
A shcolar ought to be able to understand words. If he doesn't he isn't much of a scholar.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I agree since the context shows that he is equating Himself with the Father again without actually having to use the name.
No doubt we would use the word "He" in english so it is a good transaltion that way.
There is also no doubt that the "He" Jesus is referring to is He who is one with the Father. First by saying that He is Lord (since there is only one Lord). Second by saying that receiving Jesus is the same as recieving the Father in v20.
Shermana
Heretic
Are you saying this is my own interpretation? I guess James Moffat, professor of Greek at Oxford was speculating too, and Edgar Goodspeed, professor at Chicago.
The context is your speculation. Blasphemy can come from many reasons. Saying you're the Messiah can be seen as Blasphemy. They didn't necessarily think he was G-d, despite how Trinitarians translate John 10:33 without the Anarthrous taken into effect. You can tell what the context was by his actual charge, by declaring himself to be the son of god, and thus EQUAL, but not the same as.
You mean your context is there for one who has speculation and refuses to accept the possibility of any other context even though the actual charge in the end was NOT for declaring himself to be G-d but "A god", and "Son of G-d".
Good for you, I'll take the Professor of Greek at Oxford's opinion over yours.
So if a scholar doesn't agree with your opinion, he's wrong. To be fair, that's sort of how I see it in a way, except I actually look at other points of view with fair skepticism
Raymond Sheen
Member
Jesus was a god just as Moses and other men were gods, though not to be confused with Jehovah God.
The Greek word theos is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous theos. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ho theos, that is, theos preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular theos. The articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. John was saying that the Word or Logos was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" rather than that he was the God with whom he was.
There are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mark 6:49; 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. Where "a" or "an" is inserted "an appatition" or "a spirit" or "a liar" or "a prophet" or "a god."
In the article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner said about John 1:1: "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite." On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."
In other words Jesus was a god, which is completely in harmony with scripture. Jesus was prophetically called a mighty god (Hebrew El Gibbohr) at Isaiah 9:6.
John 1:14 - Jesus was the word, or spokesperson, of Jehovah God. He existed in heaven in spirit form before he came to earth. (John 3:13; 6:51; 17:5)
John 8:58 - Before Abraham came into existence is the first person singular present indicative and so properly translated with the perfect indicative. So from the fourth/fifth century the Syriac edition translates John 8:58 as "before Abraham was, I have been." (A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London, 1894.
From the fifth century the Curetonian Syriac Edition translates "before ever Abraham came to be, I was." (The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, by F. Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904)
The Syriac Pe****ta Edition, The Old Georgian Version, also from the fifth century and the Ethiopic Edition of the sixth century all do the same.
In an attempt to confuse Jesus as Jehovah some suggest that ego eimi is the same as the Hebrew expression ani hu, "I am he," which is used by God, but it is also used by man. (1 Chronicles 21:17)
Others try and use the Septuagint's reading of Exodus 3:14 which reads Ego eimi ho on meaning "I am The Being," or "I am The Existing One" which can't be sustained because the expression at Exodus 3:14 is different than John 8:58.
At Exodus 3:14 the Hebrew Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be" is God's self designation. Leeser reads "I will be that I will be;" Rotherham reads "I Will Become whatsoever I please." Latin ego sum qui sum "I am Who I am." Ehyeh comes from a verb hayah which means to "become; prove to be" and at 3:14 is in the imperfect state, first person singular meaning "I shall become" or "I shall prove to be." It isn't a comment on God's self existence but a statement about what he intends to become towards others.
John 10:30-31 - Novatian (c. 200-258 C.E.) wrote: "Since He said 'one' thing, let the heretics understand that He did not say 'one' person. For one placed in the neuter, intimates the social concord, not the personal unity. . . . Moreover, that He says one, has reference to the agreement, and to the identity of judgment, and to the loving association itself, as reasonably the Father and Son are one in agreement, in love, and in affection." - Treatise Concerning the Trinity, chapter 27.
What Havatian meant is that the word for "one" in the verse is in the neuter gender. So its actual meaning is "one thing." John 17:21 uses the exact same syntax. This would mean that if Jesus and the Father were one in as the same one in the same then those to whom Jesus spoke of at John 17:21 were God as well.
John 10:38-39 - The Catholic Jerusalem Bible reads: "Jesus said to them, 'I have done many good works for you to see, works from my Father; for which of these are you stoning me?' The Jews answered him, 'We are not stoning you for doing a good work but for blasphemy: you are only a man and you claim to be God'. Jesus answered: 'Is it not written in your Law: I said, you are gods? So the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed, and scripture cannot be rejected. Yet you say to someone the Father has consecrated and sent into the world, "You are blaspheming", because he says, "I am the Son of God". If I am not doing my Father's work, there is no need to believe me; but if I am doing it, then even if you refuse to believe in me, at least believe in the work I do; then you will know for sure that the Father is in me and I am in the Father'" - John 10:32-38
Notice that Jesus wasn't claiming to be the God, the Father or even be equal but rather the Son of God.
John 14:9 - Jesus wasn't saying that he was God, so that anyone seeing him would be seeing God. For no man has seen God. Jesus was the image of as well as the representative of God. (Genesis 1:26 / Exodus 33:20 / John 1:1, 18 / Colossians 1:15)
John 20:28 - A god is anything that anyone attributes might or venerates. The Bible calls Moses, Jesus, the judges of Israel, Tammuz - all mortal men who are called gods. It also calls angels, including Satan and Michael as gods. Also pagan Gods like Dagon, Molech, Baal, Bel, Astarte. Carved idols. The dictionary definition agrees.
Atheists don't agree because they are influenced by the apostate and uninformed teachings of Christianity and because, really, the very definition of atheism is a belief that there are no gods, and if anything, whether or not it exists, can be a god, that makes their position sort of silly and obviously influenced by the inaccurate teachings of modern day Christianity.
The very Hebrew word translated god is El and various forms of El (Elohim for example, applied to Jehovah, men and pagan gods and goddesses) which means simply "mighty" or "strong one." It is a similar title as Lord, which usually signifies authority over something or someone. Land lord, for example. God father.
As indicated earlier in this response the scriptures teach that Jesus, like other men, are gods, but not that he is the same as Jehovah God. This is evident only three verses after the Thomas account given where John writes that these things were written down so that we would believe that Jesus was the Christ, Son of God. Not that he was God. (Isaiah 9:6 / John 1:18; 20:30)
Acts 20:28 - The Jerusalem Bible, Douay, and NAB all use similar wording in translation of Acts 20:28. The NWT and TEV reads to the effect of "the blood of his own [Son."] The RS 1953 reads "with his own blood," but the 1971 edition reads "with the blood of his own son."
J. H. Moulton in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90, says: "Before leaving idios something should be said about the use of ho idios without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1:11 1:31, Ac 4:23; 24:23. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations . . . . In Expos. VI. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 20:28 'the blood of one who was his own.'"
The New Testament in the Original Greek, by Westcott and Hort, Vol., 2, London, 1881, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix, Hort stated: "it is by no means impossible that huiou, "of the Son" [dropped out after tou idiou, "of his own"] at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind."
The KJV and others are not grammatically incorrect in the way they translate "with his own blood." However the Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi rescriptus (5th century), Bezae Codices (Greek and Latin 5th / 6th Century) and the Philozenian-Harclean Syriac Version (6th / 7th century) and thus Moffat's translation all contain a marginal reading of "the congregation of the Lord" instead of "the congregation of God" to avoid confusion. The Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) Vatican ms 1209 (4th century) and Latin Vulgate all read God (articulate) and so translate 'God's blood."
With the Greek tou idiou which follows the phrase "with the blood" the expression conveys the notion that it was "with the blood of his own." The noun in the singular being God's closest relative, his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
Colossians 1:16 - This text speaks nothing of Jesus as being God or being equal to Jehovah God, it is in harmony with scripture in that Jesus was the master worker of God. (Proverbs 8:27-30 / John 1:3)
Colossians 2:9 - From the Greek theotetos and Latin divinitatis comes the term "godhead" or "divine quality," "godship."
2 Peter 1:4 uses the same "divine quality" or "godship" in application to the first century Christians he was addressing. Just as the Christian can be of "divine nature" through the decision of God and not being God or being equal to God so was Jesus. (Colossians 2:9)
The Greek word theos is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous theos. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ho theos, that is, theos preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular theos. The articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. John was saying that the Word or Logos was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" rather than that he was the God with whom he was.
There are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mark 6:49; 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. Where "a" or "an" is inserted "an appatition" or "a spirit" or "a liar" or "a prophet" or "a god."
In the article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner said about John 1:1: "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite." On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."
In other words Jesus was a god, which is completely in harmony with scripture. Jesus was prophetically called a mighty god (Hebrew El Gibbohr) at Isaiah 9:6.
John 1:14 - Jesus was the word, or spokesperson, of Jehovah God. He existed in heaven in spirit form before he came to earth. (John 3:13; 6:51; 17:5)
John 8:58 - Before Abraham came into existence is the first person singular present indicative and so properly translated with the perfect indicative. So from the fourth/fifth century the Syriac edition translates John 8:58 as "before Abraham was, I have been." (A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London, 1894.
From the fifth century the Curetonian Syriac Edition translates "before ever Abraham came to be, I was." (The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, by F. Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904)
The Syriac Pe****ta Edition, The Old Georgian Version, also from the fifth century and the Ethiopic Edition of the sixth century all do the same.
In an attempt to confuse Jesus as Jehovah some suggest that ego eimi is the same as the Hebrew expression ani hu, "I am he," which is used by God, but it is also used by man. (1 Chronicles 21:17)
Others try and use the Septuagint's reading of Exodus 3:14 which reads Ego eimi ho on meaning "I am The Being," or "I am The Existing One" which can't be sustained because the expression at Exodus 3:14 is different than John 8:58.
At Exodus 3:14 the Hebrew Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be" is God's self designation. Leeser reads "I will be that I will be;" Rotherham reads "I Will Become whatsoever I please." Latin ego sum qui sum "I am Who I am." Ehyeh comes from a verb hayah which means to "become; prove to be" and at 3:14 is in the imperfect state, first person singular meaning "I shall become" or "I shall prove to be." It isn't a comment on God's self existence but a statement about what he intends to become towards others.
John 10:30-31 - Novatian (c. 200-258 C.E.) wrote: "Since He said 'one' thing, let the heretics understand that He did not say 'one' person. For one placed in the neuter, intimates the social concord, not the personal unity. . . . Moreover, that He says one, has reference to the agreement, and to the identity of judgment, and to the loving association itself, as reasonably the Father and Son are one in agreement, in love, and in affection." - Treatise Concerning the Trinity, chapter 27.
What Havatian meant is that the word for "one" in the verse is in the neuter gender. So its actual meaning is "one thing." John 17:21 uses the exact same syntax. This would mean that if Jesus and the Father were one in as the same one in the same then those to whom Jesus spoke of at John 17:21 were God as well.
John 10:38-39 - The Catholic Jerusalem Bible reads: "Jesus said to them, 'I have done many good works for you to see, works from my Father; for which of these are you stoning me?' The Jews answered him, 'We are not stoning you for doing a good work but for blasphemy: you are only a man and you claim to be God'. Jesus answered: 'Is it not written in your Law: I said, you are gods? So the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed, and scripture cannot be rejected. Yet you say to someone the Father has consecrated and sent into the world, "You are blaspheming", because he says, "I am the Son of God". If I am not doing my Father's work, there is no need to believe me; but if I am doing it, then even if you refuse to believe in me, at least believe in the work I do; then you will know for sure that the Father is in me and I am in the Father'" - John 10:32-38
Notice that Jesus wasn't claiming to be the God, the Father or even be equal but rather the Son of God.
John 14:9 - Jesus wasn't saying that he was God, so that anyone seeing him would be seeing God. For no man has seen God. Jesus was the image of as well as the representative of God. (Genesis 1:26 / Exodus 33:20 / John 1:1, 18 / Colossians 1:15)
John 20:28 - A god is anything that anyone attributes might or venerates. The Bible calls Moses, Jesus, the judges of Israel, Tammuz - all mortal men who are called gods. It also calls angels, including Satan and Michael as gods. Also pagan Gods like Dagon, Molech, Baal, Bel, Astarte. Carved idols. The dictionary definition agrees.
Atheists don't agree because they are influenced by the apostate and uninformed teachings of Christianity and because, really, the very definition of atheism is a belief that there are no gods, and if anything, whether or not it exists, can be a god, that makes their position sort of silly and obviously influenced by the inaccurate teachings of modern day Christianity.
The very Hebrew word translated god is El and various forms of El (Elohim for example, applied to Jehovah, men and pagan gods and goddesses) which means simply "mighty" or "strong one." It is a similar title as Lord, which usually signifies authority over something or someone. Land lord, for example. God father.
As indicated earlier in this response the scriptures teach that Jesus, like other men, are gods, but not that he is the same as Jehovah God. This is evident only three verses after the Thomas account given where John writes that these things were written down so that we would believe that Jesus was the Christ, Son of God. Not that he was God. (Isaiah 9:6 / John 1:18; 20:30)
Acts 20:28 - The Jerusalem Bible, Douay, and NAB all use similar wording in translation of Acts 20:28. The NWT and TEV reads to the effect of "the blood of his own [Son."] The RS 1953 reads "with his own blood," but the 1971 edition reads "with the blood of his own son."
J. H. Moulton in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90, says: "Before leaving idios something should be said about the use of ho idios without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1:11 1:31, Ac 4:23; 24:23. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations . . . . In Expos. VI. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 20:28 'the blood of one who was his own.'"
The New Testament in the Original Greek, by Westcott and Hort, Vol., 2, London, 1881, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix, Hort stated: "it is by no means impossible that huiou, "of the Son" [dropped out after tou idiou, "of his own"] at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind."
The KJV and others are not grammatically incorrect in the way they translate "with his own blood." However the Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi rescriptus (5th century), Bezae Codices (Greek and Latin 5th / 6th Century) and the Philozenian-Harclean Syriac Version (6th / 7th century) and thus Moffat's translation all contain a marginal reading of "the congregation of the Lord" instead of "the congregation of God" to avoid confusion. The Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) Vatican ms 1209 (4th century) and Latin Vulgate all read God (articulate) and so translate 'God's blood."
With the Greek tou idiou which follows the phrase "with the blood" the expression conveys the notion that it was "with the blood of his own." The noun in the singular being God's closest relative, his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
Colossians 1:16 - This text speaks nothing of Jesus as being God or being equal to Jehovah God, it is in harmony with scripture in that Jesus was the master worker of God. (Proverbs 8:27-30 / John 1:3)
Colossians 2:9 - From the Greek theotetos and Latin divinitatis comes the term "godhead" or "divine quality," "godship."
2 Peter 1:4 uses the same "divine quality" or "godship" in application to the first century Christians he was addressing. Just as the Christian can be of "divine nature" through the decision of God and not being God or being equal to God so was Jesus. (Colossians 2:9)