I had explained it before.
I already quoted many lies by him, that's why I regard his opinion as worthless.
-
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???
- Thread starter Muffled
- Start date
I already quoted many lies by him, that's why I regard his opinion as worthless.
If you are going to use the Gospel of John, you might as well use this:
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
For the rest of your questions, if you are really interested in knowing the answers, you could check commentaries at Biblos:
John 1:1 Bible Commentary
specially Gill's exposition.
If you have further questions, you can ask me.
But if you're just throwing them trying to disprove the divinity of Jesus, I don't think this is going to be useful, since every time I explain something to you, you'll just say it was myth, like you did before.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
You're welcome...
waitasec
Veteran Member
you expect me to accept your unsupported claim supports your claim?
:sorry1: it ain't gonna happen...
Shermana
Heretic
Too bad the Anarthrous Theos of John 1:1 should read as "a god".
And I know you're going to link to your Anarthrous thread again, which you never actually really addressed my questions at the end except to add your usual "useless" type comments.
I'm not the only person who says that reading John 1:1 as "God was the word" is a Modalistic interpretation.
And I know you're going to link to your Anarthrous thread again, which you never actually really addressed my questions at the end except to add your usual "useless" type comments.
I'm not the only person who says that reading John 1:1 as "God was the word" is a Modalistic interpretation.
If John 1v1 'big lie', then are Acts [12v22] and [Acts 28v6 B] also a lie because they all follow the same Greek grammar rule ?
Why wasn't the 'a' omitted at Acts ?
Looks like you don't know what you're talking about.
Better read the topic before trying to comment.
No such thing as "same Greek grammar rule".
They aren't even the same case.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/121296-john-1-1-anarthrous-theos-big.html
Last edited:
At John [8v58 KJV] the 'I am' has the Greek root in the present tense as: 'am'.
Grammar books do acknowledge that where an expression of past time appears in the sentence, [Before Abraham was I am.]
the present tense verb can sometime be translated as if it has begun in the past time and continues up to the present time.
That would mean translating in Greek can be meaning instead of 'I am' present tense to be 'I have been'. [Before Abraham was I have been.]
Before God, who had No beginning, who sent Jesus to earth, Jesus would have been existing in heaven [before Abraham] in his pre-human existence as in the heavenly beginning, but Not before the beginning.
[Rev 3v14 B]
Anarthrous Theo [no article] ....be a god. Acts 12v22.
John 1v1 one predicate noun is nominative, other noun is accusative.
Scott is THE man. Scott is A man.
Jesus is THE Word. Jesus is A god.
What has this got to do with anything?
John 8:58
"before Abraham was born, I am!"
πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί
The same contrast is very clear here:
Psalm 90:2
Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
πρὸ τοῦ ὄρη γενηθῆναι καὶ πλασθῆναι τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν οἰκουμένην καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος σὺ εἶ
Even the NWT renders this "you are God", not "you have been God"
Obviously it is a deliberate mistranslation by the NWT in John 8:58, like many others.
σὺ εἶ: you are (You are God)
ἐγὼ εἰμί: I am
The same verb ειμι, used absolutely, Present active indicative.
So by comparison, not only does it mean "I am", it means "I am God"
[FONT="]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]
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.
I already asked you to read the topic before posting such meaningless comments.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/121296-john-1-1-anarthrous-theos-big.html
But if this is too hard, check this:
[FONT="](Isaiah 41:4[/FONT][FONT="]b[/FONT][FONT="] [NIV]) [/FONT][FONT="]I, the [/FONT][FONT="]LORD[/FONT][FONT="]--with the first of them and with the last--I am he."[/FONT]
[FONT="](Isaiah 41:4[/FONT][FONT="]b[/FONT][FONT="] [LXX]) [/FONT][FONT="]εγω [/FONT][FONT="]θεος [/FONT][FONT="]πρωτος και εις τα επερχομενα εγω ειμι[/FONT][FONT="]
(Isaiah 41:4[/FONT][FONT="]b[/FONT][FONT="] [HiSB]) [/FONT]אֲנִ֤י יְהוָה֙ רִאשׁ֔וֹן וְאֶת־ אַחֲרֹנִ֖ים אֲנִי־ הֽוּא׃
[FONT="](Isaiah 41:4[/FONT][FONT="]b[/FONT][FONT="] [NWT]) [/FONT][FONT="]"I, [/FONT][FONT="]Jehovah[/FONT][FONT="], the First One; and with the last ones I am the same."[/FONT]
Notice how Jehovah/the LORD correspond to theos (without definite article or anarthrous)
If you want to apply your rule (which isn't even a rule in the Greek language), you should replace Jehovah with "a god".
You are being deceived my friend.
I ignored the verse from Revelation, since I replied to you many times about it already:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/biblical-debates/18474-jesus-god-88.html
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
So when the Head Professor of Greek at Oxford, James Moffat, rendered Ego Eimi to "I have been", he was doing it for no reason? Along with Biblical professor at Chicago, Edgar Goodspeed? I guess we should trust Trinitarian biased translations over the Greek Professor at Oxford now. What do you suppose was there reasoning?
waitasec
Veteran Member
why is that a poor argument?
Moffatt was not "the Head Professor of Greek at Oxford". He's being deceptive as usual.
Anyway, to say someone says something, and then blindly copy their opinion, calling the rest "trinitarians", you couldn't be more desperate.
Shermana
Heretic
I must have been mistaken, I thought "The Yates Professor" meant the highest authority at Mansfield, Oxford and others. What exactly do you think someone who is the "Yates" professor means?
Dictionary of major biblical ... - Donald K. McKim - Google Books
http://lmgtfy.com/?q="The+Yates+Professor"
Dictionary of major biblical ... - Donald K. McKim - Google Books
http://lmgtfy.com/?q="The+Yates+Professor"
Last edited:
waitasec
Veteran Member
who are the rest, your sources?
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
opcorn:I already quoted some in this thread, and there are many others.
But this should be clear enough:
waitasec
Veteran Member
are your sources trinitarians?