• 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!

Did Jesus say he was God???

M

Mark2020

Well-Known Member
Greek:
(John 8:58 [NA26]) εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.

John 8:58 Bible Lexicon

I am." εἰμί eimi 1510 I exist, I am a prol. form of a prim. and defective verb

ειμι: verb - present indicative - first person singular
eimi i-mee': a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic) -- am, have been, it is I, was.
 
Last edited:
M

Mark2020

Well-Known Member
Coptic

(John 8:58 [Coptic Bohairic]) ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲓ̅ⲏ̅ⲥ ⲛⲱⲟⲩ ϫⲉ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ ϯϫⲱ `ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ⲛⲱⲧⲉⲛ ϫⲉ `ⲙⲡⲁⲧⲉ ⲁⲃⲣⲁⲁⲙ ϣⲱⲡⲓ `ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ
Horner's translation: ... before Abraham was, I am

(John 8:58 [Coptic Sahidic]) ΠΕϪΕ ΙΗСΟΥС ΝΑΥ ϪΕ ϨΑΜΗΝ ϨΑΜΗΝ ϮϪШ ΜΜΟС ΝΗΤΝ ϪΕ ΕΜΠΑΤΕ ΑΒΡΑϨΑΜ ϢШΠΕ ΑΝΟΚ ϮϢΟΟΠ.
Horner's translation: ... before Abraham became, I, I am being
 
Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, by G. B. Winer, seventh edition, Andover, 1897, p. 267, "Sometimes the
Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a
state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues,-a state in its
duration; as, John 15:27 [ap arkhes' met emou' este'], John 8:58 [prin
Abraam' gene'sthai ego' eimi]."


A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62, says: "The Present which indicates the
continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is
virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is
conceived as still in progress."


A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, by Dana and Mantey, MacMillan, 1927, p. 183, "Sometimes the progressive present is
retroactive in its application, denoting that which has begun in the past and
continues into the present. For the want of a better name, we may call it the
present of *duration.* This use is generally associated with an adverb of time,
and may best be rendered by the English perfect. "Ye have been (present tense)
with me from the beginning" John 15:27


The Brazilian Sacred Bible (Published by the Catholic Bible Center Of Sao Paulo)
2nd Edition of 1960, Biblia Sagrada, Editora "Ave Maria", Ltda.
"before Abraham existed I was existing"


"before Abraham existed, I was"
Syriac Pe****ta-Edition: The Syriac New Testament


"before Abraham was, I have been"
Syriac-Edition: A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the
Sinaitic Palimpsest


"before ever Abraham came to be, I was"
Curetonian Syriac-Edition: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels



"before Abraham came to be, I was"
Georgian-Edition: "The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John,"


"before Abraham was born, I was"
Ethiopic-Edition: Novum Testamentum . . . thiopice (The New Testament . . .in Ethiopic)
 
M

Mark2020

Well-Known Member
Dirty Penguin said:
A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, by G. B. Winer, seventh edition, Andover, 1897, p. 267, "Sometimes the
Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a
state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues,-a state in its
duration; as, John 15:27 [ap arkhes' met emou' este'], John 8:58 [prin
Abraam' gene'sthai ego' eimi]."


A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62, says: "The Present which indicates the
continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is
virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is
conceived as still in progress."


A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, by Dana and Mantey, MacMillan, 1927, p. 183, "Sometimes the progressive present is
retroactive in its application, denoting that which has begun in the past and
continues into the present. For the want of a better name, we may call it the
present of *duration.* This use is generally associated with an adverb of time,
and may best be rendered by the English perfect. "Ye have been (present tense)
with me from the beginning" John 15:27
Click to expand...

The point is that "Ego eimi" didn't commence and was used absolutely in John 8:58. No reference to its commencement is given.
If you compare John 15:27 to John 8:58, you'll see that in the former, there is a time period specified, and eimi has a predicate. It acts as a copula here.
However, in John 8:58 there is no time period (no reference to the commencement of 'eimi'). It is used in the absolute sense expressing timeless being.

But the argument that kills this all is the contrast between genesthai and eimi:

[FONT=&quot]The contrast between [/FONT]γενεσθαι[FONT=&quot][genesthai] (entrance into existence of Abraham) and [/FONT]εἰμι[FONT=&quot][eimi] (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between [/FONT]ἐν[FONT=&quot] [en] in 1:1 and [/FONT]ἐγενετο[FONT=&quot] [egeneto] in 1:14. See the contrast also in Psa. 90:2 between God ([/FONT]εἰ[FONT=&quot] [ei], art) and the mountains ([/FONT]γενηθηναι[FONT=&quot] [genēthēnai]). See the same use of [/FONT]εἰμι[FONT=&quot] [eimi] in John 6:20; 9:9; 8:24, 28; 18:6.[/FONT]

They are simply different verbs. If the meaning intended was that Jesus came into existence like Abraham, but before him, the same verb would have been used.

The Brazilian Sacred Bible ...
Click to expand...
I told you there are much more translations for "I am" which makes it irrelevant.

I already replied to the Syriac translations.

For old translations, the most important one by far would be Coptic, and I already showed its translation:

"I am" or "I am being"
 
Last edited:
waitasec

waitasec

Veteran Member
so did jesus say he was god or was he pussyfooting around the notion in order to keep from being killed for blasphemy?
 
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
waitasec said:
so did jesus say he was god or was he pussyfooting around the notion in order to keep from being killed for blasphemy?
Click to expand...

Neither, he was saying he was the Son of G-d and thus "a god".

And there is no "absolute sense" that Mark2020 speaks of, there's a reason he has denied the request multiple times for a Non-Trinitarian Greek Scholar to back his claim on this so-called use of "absolute sens", and he claims that Asahel's use of Ego Eimi is somehow "implied" with "he answered" but Jesus isn't with "Jesus said", and then bases his argument on Theological presumption.

Now you'd think such a grammatical concept would have many links and websites discussing it, but lo and behold...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Absolute+sense

We get this at best, from Gospelpedlar.

http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Christ/liddon3.html

So, if anyone besides Mark2020 can explain why Asahel's "he answered" is "implied" but Jesus's "Jesus said" is not, that would be great. Interesting how they have to resort to concepts like "Absolute sense" which don't exactly have many sites discussing it besides Gospelpedlar.
 
Last edited:
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
Neither, he was saying he was the Son of G-d and thus "a god".
Click to expand...

WRONG

In my opinion, He was a mortal man who followed yahweh so closely he felt like he was one of gods children thus a son of god and not a deity.

Back then self proclaimed deities were on ever corner including positions of power.



Since no one alive ever wrote about yeshua who ever knew or met him and we know the movement he started snowballed and grew, the later writers expanded their own theology into the yeshua idea. Its also why we have so much contradiction in the legends
 
idav

idav

Being
Premium Member
waitasec said:
so did jesus say he was god or was he pussyfooting around the notion in order to keep from being killed for blasphemy?
Click to expand...
No he didn't say he was god. If he was trying to make it so it wasn't blasphemous he wasn't convincing enough because they still wanted to stone him. He used the OT to show that "ye are gods" but they still weren't happy. So even if he was saying he was a "god" he wasn't making the claim for himself only but for all potential sons of God.
 
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
outhouse said:
WRONG

In my opinion, He was a mortal man who followed yahweh so closely he felt like he was one of gods children thus a son of god and not a deity.

Back then self proclaimed deities were on ever corner including positions of power.



Since no one alive ever wrote about yeshua who ever knew or met him and we know the movement he started snowballed and grew, the later writers expanded their own theology into the yeshua idea. Its also why we have so much contradiction in the legends
Click to expand...

Please keep the argument to the actual text and not your ideas of what you think was added later unless you're referring to manuscript issues like 1 John 5:7.
 
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
Mark2020 said:
Your arguments keep getting poorer, and poorer...

Instead of discussing an issue, you just claim it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why you said that I'm claiming the issue doesn't exist. But I appreciate you showing your desparate argument tactics now. I guess you were hoping by snipping my reply no one would read what I said?
 
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
So that's a refusal to say what issue you're claiming that i deny exists?

If you're referring to the "Absolute sense", I didn't say the issue doesn't exist, I said the CONCEPT doesn't exist, and I showed that there's no non-Trinitarian links that actually discuss it. It appears the concept is....made up. I'm not saying the issue itself doesn't exist, I'm saying that the issue exists but is only existent in the writings of Trinitarian scholars, similar to Colwell's rule.

As anyone can see for themselves, there's no definition of "Absolute sense" you can get from any dictionary.

It is thus, a purely Theological presumption without any grammatical precedent. You have yet to explain why Asahel's "He answered" is implied as well.

You may have provided links, but so have we. And I showed with a quick google search, the words "Absolute sense" only lead to one Christian site that doesn't even get into the grammar.

Your issue is purely a Theological presumption that brushes off all the non-Trinitarian scholars who say otherwise. That's what I'm saying. Hopefully this gets through.
 
Last edited:
idav

idav

Being
Premium Member
It is interesting how trinitarians say god created us through jesus. Jesus was merely a tool not a creator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top