Muffled
Jesus in me
for clarification i have to reiterate this excellent point of yours...
i don't understand how anyone can argue with this...
He knows better because anyone with Hebrew text knows that it says AHYH not JHVH.
-
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
He knows better because anyone with Hebrew text knows that it says AHYH not JHVH.
waitasec
Veteran Member
you are right it doesn't but it implies that the may be
all of them may be one, Father, just
Last edited:
waitasec
Veteran Member
nice back flip...
why have you forsaken me?
is a question right?
when one questions they don't know the answer because they either
1 thought they knew
2 they just don't know
waitasec
Veteran Member
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Not only did I list the verse and the translation I gave you all the link to the online Torah where I got it. It's not my translation and it if directly from the Jews. It's not from Christians translating Jewish scriptures. This is the most direct one can get. It is from those who read these scriptures in temple everyday. While Exodus 3:14 is a good one it is obvious that "God" told Moses what his name was and what he should tell the people in 3:15.
(Exodus 3:14)
http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp?action=displaypage&book=2&chapter=3&verse=14&portion=13
Vayomer Elohim el-Moshe eheyeh asher eheyeh vayomer koh tomar livney Yisra'el eheyeh shlachani aleychem.
'I Will Be Who I Will Be,' replied God to Moses. [God then] explained, 'This is what you must say to the Israelites: 'I Will Be sent me to you.' '
Exodus 3:15
http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp?action=displaypage&book=2&chapter=3&verse=15&portion=13
Vayomer od Elohim el-Moshe koh tomar el-beney Yisra'el Adonay Elohey avoteychem Elohey Avraham Elohey Yitschak ve'Elohey Ya'akov shlachani aleychem zeh-shemi le'olam vezeh zichri ledor dor.
God then said to Moses, 'You must [then] say to the Israelites, 'YHVH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, sent me to you.' This is My eternal name, and this is how I am to be recalled for all generations.
This is how the Jews render their scripture. Don't confuse the Septuagaint rendering with how the Jews understand their own scripture. As you can plainly see.....They render 3:14 as (I will be). Even in the Septuagint this is consistent throughout the OT...UNTIL you get to 3:14 where THEY conveniently render it as "I AM".....This is theological bias on their part and it's deceptive, dishonest and inconsistent translating.
The "I am" expressed by Yeshua in the Greek NT has absolutely nothing to do with the Hebrew OT rendering regardless of what some apologists would have you to believe. The context of John 8 has nothing to do with Exodus.
Last edited:
Archie00000
Member
The only way to prove the bible is by referencing the bible. If a loving caring god dropped off the only keys to the kingdom with a mob of ignorant stone age pilgrims who believed in witchcraft and thought the earth was flat he has an unbelievable sense of humor.
Shermana
Heretic
If you don't believe witchcraft is real, go do something to severely anger someone into it and see what happens.
Blackheart
Active Member
I dont mean to be difficult but which one of those scriptures is Jesus saying that he is God? I can see him saying that he is the true messenger but I cant see him claiming to be God anywhere in this.
I think we should stick to what Jesus actually said rather than what we want him to have said.
Shermana
Heretic
The only one they actually have a somewhat debatable claim of Jesus saying he's G-d is in John 8:58, the gramatically incorrect "I am" statement, but as me and DP have shown, the word in Exodus 3:14 is actually "I shall be".
outhouse
Atheistically
And none of thi smatters at all because yeshua spoke aramaic and translations are a science all in there own, and no scripture has ever been found written in aramaic.
the fact the multiple authors of J never knew or met yeshua there is ZERO historicity in the statements in question.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
I agree with one side note to add to this. If we look at the NT in Aramaic you will find that non-biased scholars agree that linguistically and lexicographically that John 8:58 can be rendered as (I have been, I was)....whereas Exodus 3:14, according to scholars and grammarians as well as the Jews who read their scripture daily, render 3:14 as (I will be). These two statements have nothing to do with each other. Most of us here realize this but as we can see we have a few trinitarians holding on to such notions and basing their presupposition on the Septuagint translations.
outhouse
Atheistically
definately, theres no way you can attribute the phrase the same as 500-800 years previous unless it plays out the same.
Because of the two different camps involved this would make a good one hour tv show as they went through on how exactly historical Yeshua loooked at himself.
javajo
Well-Known Member
Y'all still haven't figured out that Jesus is God yet? 
I believe the Bible says Jesus is called Immanuel which means, "God with us". He is God Incarnate, that is, God in the flesh who came here to die for me and you. Why did he have to do that? Because we sinned, the penalty for sin is death, so he died thus paying the penalty for us. All who trust him for that are freely saved. If one rejects him, does not repent, that is change their mind about how they think they can save themselves by dead works, works of the law, rituals, ceremonies, baptisms and other sacraments, attending church, giving, etc or anything else they do to earn salvation and repent of their own self-righteous works and simply trust Christ for the free gift of salvation then they have eternal life. They have the eternal and they have the life.
When God made a blood covenant with Abraham, Abe fell asleep and God walked between the sacrifices alone so when Abe and us fell short, as it was a blood covenant and God walked alone, he was the guilty party and had to die. He died for us, in our place so we may live eternally with him forevermore and be freely adopted into his family with all its inheritance for free, if we simply trust Jesus, who is God, that he came to fulfill the Law, and he did indeed by his death on the cross for you and me. That is what I believe and I believe it is the Gospel Truth!
I believe the Bible says Jesus is called Immanuel which means, "God with us". He is God Incarnate, that is, God in the flesh who came here to die for me and you. Why did he have to do that? Because we sinned, the penalty for sin is death, so he died thus paying the penalty for us. All who trust him for that are freely saved. If one rejects him, does not repent, that is change their mind about how they think they can save themselves by dead works, works of the law, rituals, ceremonies, baptisms and other sacraments, attending church, giving, etc or anything else they do to earn salvation and repent of their own self-righteous works and simply trust Christ for the free gift of salvation then they have eternal life. They have the eternal and they have the life.
When God made a blood covenant with Abraham, Abe fell asleep and God walked between the sacrifices alone so when Abe and us fell short, as it was a blood covenant and God walked alone, he was the guilty party and had to die. He died for us, in our place so we may live eternally with him forevermore and be freely adopted into his family with all its inheritance for free, if we simply trust Jesus, who is God, that he came to fulfill the Law, and he did indeed by his death on the cross for you and me. That is what I believe and I believe it is the Gospel Truth!
Bob Dixon
>implying
Y'all still haven't figured out that Jesus is God yet?
I've only "figured out" what's backed up by the Hebrew Bible and the sayings of Jesus himself! If he was God, he would've said it plain and simple and this thread wouldn't exist!
horizon_mj1
Well-Known Member
No offense to anyone reading this, but this one especially goes to the one using so much? Really!? "Will be and Are" do not have the same definition as far as I know:sorry1: Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
so much? Really!? "Will be and Are" do not have the same definition as far as I know:sorry1: Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
javajo
Well-Known Member
Eh, he's God, its already been proven. People just won't admit it. Its all about elevating themselves and lowering Christ who gets all the glory for the salvation of any and all who will trust him. Only an infinitely holy God could suffer a finite amount of time for the infinitely offensive sins of us finite creatures.
I believe that is the very first time I have ever used it. Perhaps I should have used :sarcastic.No offense to anyone reading this, but this one especially goes to the one using
Bob Dixon
>implying
It's been proven, eh?
Well, why don't you submit some of these proofs for peer-review here, whilst I brandish quotes such as ""my Father is greater than I" "and don't call me good; only God is good", both from the Jee-man himself.
javajo
Well-Known Member
Yes, at least to my satisfaction :sarcastic. If you look through the posts, there have been some very good defenses with many reasons why Jesus is God. Like I said, folks just don't want to admit it because it takes glory from them and gives it to Christ.
I will briefly answer your two quotes:
While the Son is subordinate and obedient to the Father he is still no less God, he is just in a different role and still equal to God. Like a human father and son, one is father, one is son, but both are human. So God the Father and Son are both still God.
Jesus asked why do you call me good, only God is good in reply to the man who said he kept the Law from his youth up but who ended up leaving sadly when asked to give up his possessions. Jesus was not saying he himself was not good but asked why he would call another mere man good (though of course Jesus wasn't another mere man but the sinless Son of God). He was trying to show him that he was not good either and needed Jesus as Savior. Jesus, of course is God and therefore is good and lived a sinless life and is the lamb without spot or blemish who knew no sin but became sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. The man was trying to be saved by his self effort and obeying the Law, which he really did not do. All have sinned, and he knew he had at least been disobedient as a child and whatnot. The dead works of the Law do not save, but only faith in Christ saves and Christ was trying to point out that the man did have sin-covetousness, and had not kept the law and needed Christ. Got it?
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
This is a common argument for use of the word "greater". Unfortunately (for the argument), John the Baptist refers to Jesus as someone "Greater", and Jesus uses "greater" as "someone greater than Solomon is here". As for "roles", it appears you are taking on a Modalistic theology, not a Trinitarian one. Perhaps you'd like to join the Oneness Pentecostals if this is your Theology? And even then, you contradict your own argument by saying that the human Father and Son are still humans though both are "god", as this would mean they are both "gods" (and hence agreeing with our interpretation of John 1:1's anarthrous Theos).
And no, there has been NO good defenses on this post whatsoever, perhaps you can find one and link to it that you feel is a "good defense".