not with you. I asked philomath why kept the sadhu avatar when he is not anymore.
-
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
not with you. I asked philomath why kept the sadhu avatar when he is not anymore.
speaking of "cop outs"
Is there a particular reason why you can't ever admit when you are wrong?
wrong of what?
You cant even tell the difference between the original septuagint from todays masoretic text.
I shouldnt say original septuagint because there is only one.
You are trying to insert todays translation into a timeline that happened 2000 years ago. You are mixing septuagint with masoretic text.
Try to understand this before making a claim that you knew the bible very well.
Philomath
Sadhaka
I never said I was a Sadhu.
captainbryce
Active Member
So many things at this point, it's hard to list them all. The first one that comes to mind is the Hebrew meaning of the word "bara". You keep arguing "language" when it's clear you don't really know much about Hebrew at all.
I CAN tell the difference between them. My point is that the difference between them is irrelevant because Jesus wasn't using either one. He was using Aramaic!
No, YOU are trying to claim that Jesus and his disciples were speaking Greek, and reading scriptures that were translated from Hebrew to Greek. That is ridiculous! Jesus didn't read the septuagint translation. He read BIBLICAL HEBREW!
There is no doubt in my mind at this point that I (not to mention a few others here) know it quite a bit more than you do!
kittyshen2013
New Member
Thanks for sharing, I think I will continue to pay attention. This is what I need.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe the problem is not with the Hebrew but with your understanding of English.
It wouldn't matter because I believe "I am" implies future existence.
I would like to see your logic to support that notion. However, I believe "I continue to be" would be the best translation from a literal standpoint but I beleive "I am" suffices for the same meaning.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe that we are not just animals but living souls. Is it plausible that incarnation into the body of an animal influenced the spirit to perform evil since that seems to be one of the states of nature? I believe it is possible but God doesn't really explain the origen of evil. Then there is the chiken and egg debate over whether nature would ever be evil in a perfect world.
I believe Jesus put it this way. If the devil works against himself how will he survive? However when healing is accomplished by evil spirits as in voodoo, I believe the intention is to fool people into thinking that the devil will always do good when that isn't reall the case.
Obviously one would wish for healers who do good but the lack of Christian belief does not mean the devil is directly involved. For instance a healer in my state managed to infect a whole bunch of people with a nasty disease because he had evil desires. A company in MA providing healing products managed to infect many people and many died because their greed superceded a desire to benefit patients.
Jesus speaks of the devil as a real person (spiritual definition of person not necessarily physical)
I believe this is not accidental. A person learns to do good somewhere in the traverse of many lives even if it doesn't show up as Christianity in this life.
I don't believe this can be ascertained except for the instance of voodoo where it is obvious.
Where do the choices come from? When I was a child I chose to watch relgious shows on TV. I wasn't taught to do that, so what was the basis for that choice? I chose to read science fiction books as a child but no one told me what kind of books I should read so what was the basis for that choice. People think choices are innate but the truth is not everyone watches religious shows on TV as a child or reads science fiction. Is there a religious gene or a science fiction gene? I don't believe so. I believe these are dispositions formed in a previous life.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I refuse to accept your understanding of things and believe my understanding is from God.
I believe this is the null hypothesis which is exremely difficult to prove and you have not proven it. Jesus does not have to say "my name" because the context supports the concept of Jesus identifying Himself with God.
READ AND UNDERSTAND IF YOU CAN
In Greek, the words recorded in John 8:58 are "'prin abraam genesthai ego eimi." Literally, this is "Before Abraham was existing, I am." "Ego eimi" is literally, "I am." This is the present tense. To say "I have been" is to use the perfect tense. In Greek, this would have been "aemane." But Jesus didn't use it here. He used the present tense, "ego eimi" which is "I am." CRAM
REMEMBER, THE TIMELINE [John 8:58] OF THE EVENTS WHERE THE Lord Jesus Christ AND THE Jews WERE DISCOURSING, AND DURING THAT TIME ONLY, THE ONLY SCRIPTURES WAS THE SEPTUAGINT, NO MASORETIC TEXT, NO TANAKH, NO KING JAMES, NO ASV, NO NWT, NO ARAMAIC. DURING AND AFTER Christ EARTLY MINISTRY, CHRIST and His Apostles wrote in Greek and quoted the Greek Septuagint. Philo and Josephus both used the Greek Septuagint. YOU CAN NOT INSERT YOUR OWN TRANSLATIONS/INTERPRETATIONS TODAY INTO THAT TIME FRAME.
WHAT IS IT THAT YOU CAN NOT UNDERSTAND.
THE ONLY REASON WHY YOU WANT THIS INTERPRETATION IS BECAUSE YOU NEVER BELIEVE THAT JESUS WAS THE MESSIAH.
Jn 5:39 Ye search the scriptures/SEPTUAGINT, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me;
IN THE SEPTUAGINT IT SAYS, EXODUS 3:14 I AM/EGO EIMI AND IN John 8:58 I AM/EGO EIMI
IN THE MASORETIC TEXT IT SAYS, EXODUS 3:14 I AM AND IT DID NOT SAY I SHALL BE.
WHERE DID IT SAY I SHALL BE? NOWHERE TO BE FOUND, PERHAPS FROM THE TANAKH VERSION WHERE IT SAYS, *"Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be),
AND THE NWT I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE
TANAKS VERSION CAME FROM THE MASORETIC TEXT.
WHERE DID THE MASORETIC TEXT COME FROM? 1000 AD
HOW ABOUT THE SEPTUAGINT?
The story of the origin of the Septuagint is told in the Letter of Aristeas, a pseudepigraphical book written in the second half of the second century B.C. It states that Ptolemy II (called Philadelphus, the king of Egypt, 285-247) wished to have a translation of the Jewish law for his famous library in Alexandria. At his request the high priest Eleazer of Jerusalem sent 72 men, 6 from each tribe, to Egypt with a scroll of the Law. In 72 days they translated one section each from this scroll and afterward decided on the wording together. So the version was called the Septuagint (the translation of the 70, abbreviated LXX). Later writers elaborated on this story to the effect that the 72 had translated the whole OT (not the Pentateuch only), each independently of the other, in seclusion. The exact agreement of the 72 copies proved the work's inspiration.
The Jews of Alexandria, on hearing the Law read in Greek, request copies and lay a curse on anyone who would change the translation.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CAN NOT BE UNDERSTOOD WITHOUT THE SEPTUAGINT. ALL OLD TESTAMENTS TODAY ARE BASED FROM THE MASORETIC TEXT AND NOT FROM THE SEPTUAGINT.
READ THIS AND UNDERSTAND:
ONLY THEM, THE Jews AND THE Lord Jesus Christ IN John 8:58, AND ONLY AT THAT TIME FRAME, KNEW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT.
THEY CLEARY UNDERSTOOD EACH OTHER, ESPECIALLY THE Jews, BASE ON THE SCRIPTURES/ORIGINAL SEPTUAGINT THAT WHAT THE Lord Jesus Christ WAS TALKING ABOUT IS THE SAME I AM/EGO EIMI AS THE ONE IN EXODUS 3:14.
Christ declared this I AM/EGO EIMI as a self-designation of His deity in John 8:58 the same as Gods self-designation of I AM/EGO EIMI in Exo. 3:14.
Ur right
You meant, you can practice sadhu within yourself, meaning you do not have to practice it physically like the real sadhu/your avatar?
But you said,
“But the values, the attitude, and the way that Sadhu's live I can still practice.”
This is where it really confuses me.
For a person to become sadhu needs vairagya/not misspelled. Vairagya means desire to achieve something by leaving the world (cutting familial, societal and earthly attachments).
Do you practice this?
Last edited:
You got nothing but fragments.
Your interpretation is JUST ANOTHER theory OF YOURS LIKE YOUR TWISTED DELUSIONAL ANGEL‘S THEORY THAT I DISPROVED OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER, AGAIN!.
The masoretic does not support this "i shall be" theory of yours. so, what did you do? of course, change it from "I AM/EGO EIMI/SEPTUAGINT/MASORETIC" TO "i shall be/WHERE EVER THAT CAME FROM" to support your twisted delusion theory AGAIN! SO THAT YOU CAN deny AGAIN! the deity of The Lord Jesus Christ that you people been denying since the 4 GOSPELS AND ACTS AND THE WRITINGS OF THE APOSTLES AND THRU THE 1ST CENTURY AD TILL YOU GOT YOUR MASORETIC IN THE 1000 AD.
BUT THE THING IS, YOU GUYS FORGOT TO CHANGE THE "I AM" IN EXODUS 3:14/MASORETIC TO "I SHALL BE" WHICH YOU ARE NOW TWISTING AND SELLING TO CHRISTIANS AGAIN! LIKE YOU PEOPLE DID IN THE FIRST CENTURY AD WHEN YOU/Jews ABANDONED THE SEPTUAGINT. AGAIN!, YOU ARE DOING THIS FOR ONE REASON ONLY AND THAT IS, DISPROVING FROM THE SEPTUAGINT AND NOW FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT THE Lord Jesus Christ WAS THE TRUE MESSIAH.
YOU ARE THE ONLY Jew THAT I KNOW THAT IS DOING THESE THINGS.
YOU KNOW WHY OTHER Jews TODAY DO NOT CARE ABOUT WHAT Christians BELIEVE?
BECAUSE THEY/JEWS BELIEVE THAT WHAT THEY ARE WORSHIPPING IS THE TRUE God OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB AND NOTHING ELSE MATTER AND THAT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THEM.
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I am not judging your conclusions, I have no idea what they are, but your posts seem to present more scholastic arguments than his. However his have not been too shabby either. BTW many Jews not only care what Christians think (their nations existence has kind of depended on it) but many have become Christians.
Shermana
Heretic
What do fragments have anything to do with it? We know what they said. YOu got nothing but something written 200+ years after those "Fragments".
Now you reveal what is either blatant dishonesty or total ignorance when you say that my goal is to disprove Jesus as Messiah. I believe he was Messiah. You don't even know what it means to be Messiah. You just assume that in order to be Messiah, he has to be God.
You don't even know basic Hebrew grammar. Your claim would have to be that the Masoretic changed it. But we have the Dead Sea Scrolls which has Ehyeh in it. If you took the time to research this you would know this basic fact but you are too busy in a screaming antagonistic rage to bother learning basic facts. Ehyeh is not Present Tense. This is an example of why Jews are so loathe to accept Jesus as Messiah, because of so-called Christians representing him and the grammar to suit their doctrines.
I can just as easily turn it around, and more accurately, say that because YOU believe you are worshiping Jesus in his correct Christology, that nothing else matters. Facts bounce off you like rubber. You have absolutely no argument except to scream and call me a liar and accuse me of not accepting Jesus as Messiah. This is not what this debate forum is for.
Now by all means please explain why my "Fragments" are somehow less worthy than the fuller text that dates 200 years later.
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
Please show a single argument of his that you think is "more scholastic", I'd like to see your criteria, thanks.
Shermana
Heretic
By all means, explain in detail what you think is wrong with my understanding of English.
I believe the problem is not with the Greek but your understanding that the Bible is not written in English. "Ego Eimi" can imply past existence, same with French. "Je suis" for example is how certain verbs are made in Past tense. In the same way, Abraham "Genesthai" which means "Was" in this tense.
[/QUOTE]
I have been waiting VERSUS I am waiting
Besides, none of you are addressing the fact that "I am" is a name. Not a statement. Jesus would have to say "I am I am" for your illogical logic to be logical. But he doesn't. So obviously it's yet another attempt by Trinitarians to warp and distort the grammar to suit their doctrine into what is otherwise completely preposterous interpretations of the text.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
He uses more big words. Just kidding, but I just do not want to get to personal with you as your posts have been scholarly as well, but IMO not as much as his. Let me also say I have only back tracking your recent debate so the reverse could have been true a few days ago. There was no reason for me to post my original opinion and so I will not add to a discussion of relative scholasticism at this time.
Shermana
Heretic
I'd like to see why you consider his posts more scholarly, if you don't mind. Show me a single post of his that you consider scholarly.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Ok, but only for courtesy. I am not getting hung up in an additional argument. However I have asked you several times to give your take on an argument a friend suggested to me I thought was interesting and you have never done so. I am not looking it up again but it was my comment on the dogs and the girl at the well discussion we had in this thread a while back.
His post #76854 was a response to an argument you had made that I thought he would not be able to answer. His answer surprised me in it's capacity to refute your assertions that his original point was inaccurate. Don't get to flattered as I feel your worship argument with me was way off base, but your recent posts impressed me. It was like watching foreman hit Muhammad Ali with a punch that I thought would have KO'd him but instead he was able to hit back harder just when I thought it was over. BTW have you ever seen that fight? It is the most impressive act in sports history IMO.
Shermana
Heretic
If you actually read the post, that's more like spinning violently in a punch drunk state, he posted CARM ("CRAM")'s erroneous response and then went off about the Septuagint in a manner that didn't refute what I said whatsoever. Especially since the Dead Sea Scrolls specifically have it as "Ehyeh". Apparently he didn't take the time to look that basic fact up.