Did Jesus say he was God???

[Hispriest]

Where?

Here is another verse that proves the Jesus call Himself God.​

​

Matthew 19:17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." ​

Also in: Mark 10:18; and Luke 18:19.​

​

Evidently the manner in which the young man addressed Jesus was quite unusual (cf. John 3:2). There seems to be no record in rabbinical literature that rabbis were ever addressed as “good.” On the contrary, in the Mishnah, God Himself is spoken of as “he that is good and bestows good” (Berakoth 9. 2, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 327).​

​

Supreme goodness is a characteristic of God alone (Ex. 34:6; Ps. 23:6; 27:13; 31:19; 52:1; Rom. 2:4; etc.). Jesus does not disavow His deity, as might at first appear, but rather clarifies and emphasizes the full significance of the young man’s statement.

 

[jasonwill2]

Sigh.

1. Once again, the name "I am" should be "I shall be as I shall be" in Exodus 3:14. This is how Jewish Septuagints rendered it before the Sinaiticus, Philo had it as "The one", the name "I am" seems to be a more Trinitarian adaption that arose from their quest to turn the OT in their favor.
2. Jesus never says that his name itself is "I am". Use of such in the grammar is a common Trinitarian abuse of context and grammar, don't fall into this same trap. Jesus was in no way referring to the Holy Name by merely saying "I am", he was making a statement in context that he was a divine being who had existed before Abraham. Don't be like Trinitarians who think anytime Jesus says "I am" that he can't just be saying "I am" like I would say "I am" in relation to a statement.
3. John 20:28, pretty much all after 20:12-18 appears to be interpolated and clashes with the endings of Luke and Matthew.

All this and more is covered like 20 times so far in the last 100 pages.

Jesus still didn't rebuke Thomas when he said "My Lord and My God!", implying that he was God...

but this isn't my argument my point was that even if the claim is canonical to the Bible it doesnt make it true

 

[Shermana]

That's why I said that John 20:28 might be an interpolation, part of a spurious passage altogether, verse 24-31. Some scholars think John's gospel ended around 20:10 originally. The ending clashes with Luke's and Matthew's. Where do the disciples first meet Jesus after his ressurrection?

It's very important for discussions addressing this, as John 20:28 inievitably gets brought up.

For this debate, the question is about using what is in the Christian's canonical scriptures to show that their views are wrong.

 

[look3467]

There are three distinct creations.
I will give you the three and after each one a verse or two to indicate it as such.
1. Adam (flesh) as the first creation and independent/separate from God as a god.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

2. Jesus the second Adam, of the first but as God incarnate.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Psa 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

3. New Adam or a new creation after the first
Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

With those three one has a completion.
The first was in creation of the soul, the second was in saving the soul and the third is the soul saved.

Now, all things can be argued as pros and cons, but those three are indisputable taking into account the three creations.

The first was saved by the second and the third is the finished product, "It is finished". Done!

God doubles things twice before He brings it to pass.
Gen 41:32 And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass.

If one uses this established formula, one will see why Jesus as the second Adam, as God can be mankind's only salvation.

Mankind was flawed from the get go, therefore incapable of saving itself by any means.

Which then means that only God alone can save mankind as a second creation and as a final product, the third creation is us in Jesus.

Whatever belief any one has other than, the belief that Jesus was God, will have to by personal merit attempt to enter God's Kingdom only to fall short.
Heb 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

Key word there is "Rest".

Define rest in light of the second Adam?

Blessings, AJ

 

[Dirty Penguin]

In one of the four gospels.

He said "I AM" when asked about it... which translated properly actually means "I AM GOD". cue they tried to stone him

that phrase "I am" is a reference to Exodus 3:14

" And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

This is all incorrect. John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14 have been covered extensively in this thread. The ("I am") statement at 8:58 is much different than 3:14.

In the Septuagint at Exodus 3:14 it reads "ego eimi ho on". Basically this means ("I am the being"). As you can see this is far different than 8:58 which means ("I am"). At 8:58 it's a statement and not used as a name. At 3:14 it's used as a name/description (see Exodus 3:15).

And it's been pointed out that Jews do not render their scripture the way we currently see them in most Christian bibles. Here's how it reads in the Torah.

Exodus - Chapter 3 (Parshah Shemot) - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"

The rendering in today's bibles are completely wrong. It's another one of the verses rendered that way to connect Yeshua with the weak notion that he is "God". Exodus 3:14 in the KJV bible and many others like it is the only place where you will find the words in Exodus 3:14 rendered as ("I am"). No other use of the verb anywhere else in the KJV uses (eyheh) to be rendered as ("I am").

John 8:58, in many bibles, as well as NT rendered in Aramaic or those that are from the Coptic to English render 8:58 as ("I was" or "I have been")

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)

And there are more......

"Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?"

It's (Anarthrous Theos). The context shows that they called him (a god) which is why he tried to deflect and say that the Law called all of them gods. The same can be found at Acts 28:6 but in the KJV and most bibles you won't find that John 10:33 is supposed to be expressed the same as Acts 28:6 due to bias translating.

A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John by trinitarians Newman and Nida insists that "a god" would not be "in keeping with the theology of John" and the charge of blasphemy by the Jews, but, nevertheless, also admits:

"Purely on the basis of the Greek text, therefore, it is possible to translate [John 10:33] 'a god,' as NEB does, rather than to translate God, as TEV and several other translations do. One might argue on the basis of both the Greek and the context, that the Jews were accusing Jesus of claiming to be `a god' rather than 'God.' "- p. 344, United Bible Societies, 1980.

John 10:34-36

"Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ,[Messiah] the Son of the Blessed One?"

"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Simply presenting places in the NT where Yeshua said ("I am") is not tantamount to him claiming to be "God". If you were to do this then you'd have to conclude that anyone using the phrase ("I am") was claiming to be "God" but I'm sure you're not ready to endorse such nonsense so why start with Yeshua?

He accepted this address by Thomas:

"A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Said in excitement because he doubted that others had seen Yeshua alive. He would not be convinced until he saw him and touched him. When he did he exclaimed "My lord and my god". Many today say it similarly..("Oh my lord"), ("Oh God") or ("Oh my god").

Both at His baptism and on the Mount of Transfiguration; the Father speaking from heaven declared Jesus to be his Beloved Son, to whom we should give heed.
He confirmed it again, by raising Him from the dead.

This is counter to him being "God". Why would "God" need to be baptized? If he is "God" then why the voice telling everyone that "this is my son"?

"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God

You only have Paul's word for this. His supposed experience on the road to Damascus has multiple "stories" as to how this happened and they're all told in his letters. Paul sounds like a TV evangelist who supposedly heard "God's" voice...and we all know how they usually end up.

He clearly claimed as such, but it doesn't make it true.

Actually it makes the claims untrue because he never claimed he was. In the very book of John all of chapter 17 is a prayer where Yeshua prayed to his god saying....

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know YOU the only true God, and Yeshua the Messiah, whom YOU HAVE SENT.

In order to be sent there must be a sender. 17:3 seems more straight to the point.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Here is another verse that proves the Jesus call Himself God.
Matthew 19:17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
Also in: Mark 10:18; and Luke 18:19.
Evidently the manner in which the young man addressed Jesus was quite unusual (cf. John 3:2). There seems to be no record in rabbinical literature that rabbis were ever addressed as “good.” On the contrary, in the Mishnah, God Himself is spoken of as “he that is good and bestows good” (Berakoth 9. 2, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 327).​

Supreme goodness is a characteristic of God alone (Ex. 34:6; Ps. 23:6; 27:13; 31:19; 52:1; Rom. 2:4; etc.). Jesus does not disavow His deity, as might at first appear, but rather clarifies and emphasizes the full significance of the young man’s statement.

How did any of this prove Yeshua called himself "God" especially in lieu of his prayer to his god in John 17:3.....;

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know YOU the only true God, and Yeshua the Messiah, whom YOU HAVE SENT.

 

[Hispriest]

How did any of this prove Yeshua called himself "God" especially in lieu of his prayer to his god in John 17:3.....;

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know YOU the only true God, and Yeshua the Messiah, whom YOU HAVE SENT.

We have to remember that Jesus had two natures the divine and the human nature (Jn. 1:1,14). So here Jesus was speaking as a man to His God, naturally He says that His Father was the only True God. He was not denying His own divinity, the other way around He was affirming the Trueness of God as was done in the OT; as a man He would be subject to God.​

John 17:3 must be examined in the light of the totality of scripture. We see that Jesus is called God in John 1:1,14; 8:58; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:8. Therefore, John 17:3 cannot be interpreted in a way that disagrees with other scriptures. Of course, some people simply state that John 17:3 cannot allow for Jesus being God. But the simple fact is that Jesus is called God by God and others. Therefore, the whole of scripture must be harmonized.
Fourth, this verse reflects the sonship of Jesus. The Father and the Son have a unique relationship. Jesus is the eternal Son. The terms Father and Son denote a relationship which is why God is called the God of the Son in 2 Cor. 11:31.
Fifth, Jesus identifies Himself with the Father. Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Jesus (John 10:38). Jesus is one with the Father (John 10:30). They are not divided in essence. So, in one sense Jesus is in the Father and if the Father is the only true God, then Jesus is the True God. Also, in 1 John 5:20, Jesus is called the only true God: "And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, in order that we might know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." Jesus is not contradicting the word.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

We have to remember that Jesus had two natures the divine and the human nature (Jn. 1:1,14).​

He didn't have two natures nor is this kind of thing found in the four gospels. And one can be "divine" without being deity. We can't attribute (John 1:1, 14) to what Yeshua said because this is the idea of the writer of the book of John and not the supposed words of Yeshua. Remember, these scriptures were written well after the death of Yeshua. Additionally John 1:1 is (Anarthrous Theos) just like what we find at Acts 28:6.

​

John 17:3 must be examined in the light of the totality of scripture. We see that Jesus is called God in John 1:1,14; 8:58; 20:28;

Wrong and it's already been shown that the translations and the interpretations don't hold up to scrutiny. John 17 is a prayer, amongst other areas of the gospel where Yeshua prayed to his god. John 1:1 should read as (a god). John 8:58 means that Yeshua existed before Abraham. He was not using (ego eimi) the way it is used in Ex. 3:14 (ego eimi ho on - I am the being) and that in of itself fails to compare to the Hebrew (ehyheh asher ehyheh - I shall be what I shall be). John 20:28 is an exclamation of a doubting man who did not believe Yeshua was alive and would only believe had he seen and touched Yeshua. Additionally your interpretation fails in comparison to John 20:17 (I ascend to my father and your father and to my god and your god)

Of course, some people simply state that John 17:3 cannot allow for Jesus being God. But the simple fact is that Jesus is called God by God and others.

Illogical and is not scripturally based.

 

[Shermana]

Don't you just hate having to address everything for the 30th time, DP? I really wish the John 1:1, 8:58, and Ex 3:14 things could be explained once and for all.

"A god", "I shall be", and "I have been".

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Don't you just hate having to address everything for the 30th time, DP? I really wish the John 1:1, 8:58, and Ex 3:14 things could be explained once and for all.

"A god", "I shall be", and "I have been".

I think it will be ongoing because every so often we some new trinitarian repeating the same mantra. I kind of understand it though. This thread is so long and it's hard trying to play catch up. I sort of welcome almost any change up from dealing with the book of Isaiah. I was starting to get bored with that subject.

 

[1robin]

I think it will be ongoing because every so often we some new trinitarian repeating the same mantra. I kind of understand it though. This thread is so long and it's hard trying to play catch up. I sort of welcome almost any change up from dealing with the book of Isaiah. I was starting to get bored with that subject.

Well how bout Mathew for a switch. I am not a die hard trinitarian even though I favor it. The more important question is the necessity of Christ for salvation regardless of trinitarian status.
New International Version (©1984)
"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."
New Living Translation (©2007)
"Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel, which means 'God is with us.'

I am sure it has been covered in this thread but I can't search 600 pages and I always thought this was a point blank statement of deity.

Thanks

 

[Shermana]

A hebrew name "God with us" or "God is with us" in no way means whatsoever that the person named such is God. Likewise, if I said someone's name was "Ezekiel" which means "God strengthens", does that mean the person named Ezekiel is G-d who is strengthening people? No, the name is merely an attribute of the title. "G-d is with us", is the same concept as other names that say things about G-d. With this idea that Immauel is different, you'd have to presume no one else was never named Immanuel before around 0 A.D. as well.

 

[1robin]

A hebrew name "God with us" or "God is with us" in no way means whatsoever that the person named such is God. Likewise, if I said someone's name was "Ezekiel" which means "God strengthens", does that mean the person named Ezekiel is G-d who is strengthening people? No, the name is merely an attribute of the title. "G-d is with us", is the same concept as other names that say things about G-d. With this idea that Immauel is different, you'd have to presume no one else was never named Immanuel before around 0 A.D. as well.

Well that is a possible answer. I thought this was a title or descriptive title as it was obviously not his common name. Do you think the naming of Jesus was in no way more literal than any other case. I am not saying it is but it could have been if his status was taken into account. Don't you think it quite improbable that the only child that would someday be considered by many to be God would have been given this particular name.

 

[Shermana]

On this issue I may be on the same page as DP.

Let's look at Chapter 8 where Immanuel is referred to.

3Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the Lord said to me, “Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. 4Before the boy knows how to say ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria.”
5The Lord spoke to me again:
6“Because this people has rejected
the gently flowing waters of Shiloah
and rejoices over Rezin
and the son of Remaliah,

Who is the Immanuel in question in Chapter 8?

7therefore the Lord is about to bring against them
the mighty floodwaters of the Riverb—
the king of Assyria with all his pomp.
It will overflow all its channels,
run over all its banks
8and sweep on into Judah, swirling over it,
passing through it and reaching up to the neck.
Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land,
O Immanuelc!”
9Raise the war cry,d you nations, and be shattered!
Listen, all you distant lands.
Prepare for battle, and be shattered!
Prepare for battle, and be shattered!
10Devise your strategy, but it will be thwarted;
propose your plan, but it will not stand,
for God is with us.e

Why don't you explain what you think is going on in that passage?

When it says "O Immanuel", who is this Immanuel here? Who are the Assyrians fighting against him at what time?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well how bout Mathew for a switch. I am not a die hard trinitarian even though I favor it. The more important question is the necessity of Christ for salvation regardless of trinitarian status.
New International Version (©1984)
"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."
New Living Translation (©2007)
"Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel, which means 'God is with us.'

I am sure it has been covered in this thread but I can't search 600 pages and I always thought this was a point blank statement of deity.

Thanks

Just go back a few pages. You don't even need to search this whole thread. I have countered Matthew's (the writer of the book of Matthew). Matthew's interpretation of of Isaiah 7:14 was taken from the Septuagint. What this means is Matthew was reading a Greek translation of Isaiah when he (whomever the writer was) made this interpretation. He was not reading from a Hebrew source. He took the Greek word (parthenos), meaning virgin, and stopped there. Had the writer been reading from the Hebrew then he would have understood that the word (almah) does not always convey a young woman's virginity as the word (bethulah) does.

It is worth mentioning that no other occurrence in trinitarian translated bibles does the word (almah) read ("virgin"). It's only rendered as (virgin) at Isaiah 7:14. This is bias translating. Moreover the context of Isaiah has nothing to do with a supposed birth that would take place 700 years into the future. Such a prophecy meant nothing to King Ahaz. He wasn't even a believer in the Jewish god. He was a king about to go to war with two neighboring kingdoms and sought help from the Assyrians.

Additionally the expression of ('God being with the people') is not exclusive to Isaiah as some presume. While the word ("Immanuel"), in the Hebrew, is found at Isaiah 7:14 and 8:10 we do however find similar expressions elsewhere in the OT that carry equal weight.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15892
May the Lord our God be with us, as He was with our forefathers; let Him not leave us, nor forsake us.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16267
The Lord of Hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress forever.
(See also Psalms 46:11)

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16562
And behold, with us at the head are God and His priests and the sounding trumpets to sound over you. O Children of Israel, do not wage war with the Lord, the God of your forefathers, for you will not succeed."
(NOTE: The KJV renders it as such: "And, behold, God himself [is] with us")


http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16581
With him is an arm of flesh, and with us is the Lord our God to help us and to wage our wars," and the people relied on the words of Hezekiah, king of Judah.
(This is where the context of Isaiah is as well)

 

[LioneDea]

I'm not going to argue this with you any further. I'm going to simply state this because it is fact...NO Jewish or Christian theologian or scholar agrees with you. You can not find one that says "God" is talking directly to Ahaz. The reason why is because it's known from the context that Ahaz didn't believe in "God". He was a heathen. We know that 7:13-14 and 17 is Isaiah talking. "The Lord" is not speaking in the third person.

Lione D' ea: First of all does not mean you're holding the Bible you are Christians. Why, is because there are Bible reader which are not Christians like Atheists, Jews, Muslims, most of all protestant which not Biblical bases to precise saying pretender as Christians. The Bible says to us about that matter :

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.


Lione D' ea: The Bible said to us, IF any man do his will, he shall know the doctrine. so you have to follow what the Bible it says if not follow what the opinion of thew Bible says you are speaketh of yourself, and seeketh your own glory. That is why the Lord God command us to:

Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying,


Lione D' ea: That is what the Bible says to us, that is why I am asking a question if you are in God or not because the Lord God says:

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Lione D' ea: This is the fact why I am asking each question in previous because there are reader have own opinion like you do which Bible reject it, for example:

Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, (Isaiah 7:10 of King James Version)

Lione D' ea: The verse is very clear that the Lord was saying to Ahaz and not even once because the passage says the Lord spake AGAIN to Ahaz it is very clear, there is no mystery in that passage because it is very lesser spoken in that passage. So it is not true that Ahaz is Pagan which he did not believe in God you wan to imply, the only which I know to Ahaz is he do a sin also in the Lord God. You cannot prove in the Bible he is heathen there despite of doing a sin in the eyes of the Lord God the Bible will reject you brother because you above what is written state to us that is my answer.

The KJV is wrong and I've shown plenty of times why it is.

Lione D' ea: I not refute the fact there are some verses in King James Version are wrong to translate. But implying in a young woman she is not virgin there is wrong because the woman in that passage is young and inexperience mean to say she hadn't husband there. The passage there tells the young woman will conceive she will pregnant she hadn't intercourse nor husband and she is not the wife of Isaiah nor Ahaz that is my answer.

(almah) appears only 7 times in the OT and none of them mean virgin in the sense that a young girl has never had sex. It can be implied by the use of the word but it's not strictly used to mean virginity. Every instance you've pointed to that actually focuses on the sexual purity of a young girl has referred to her as a (bethulah). You can't point to one of those 7 instances to say the young woman was regarded as a virgin. Your only hope is to hold onto the KJV as it rendered the word (parthenos) from the Greek into English. Out of all 7 in the OT the KJV uses (almah) at 7:14 to mean virgin but doesn't do so any other place.

Lione D' ea: You cannot separate the word virginity in the young woman, girl, maiden etc. if you have a sense brother because it is nature in them especially in the people of God. Doesn't meant the passage you are referring did not LETTER as virgin you are concluding they are not virgin. Speaking nature can you separate the word virgin in the sense of young woman, girl brother?

I'm not disagreeing that she was. I agree that she was a (bethulah). That is virgin in the explicit sense. She didn't have sex with Adam until (after) their expulsion from the Garden. If you're holding to the notion that Eve was a "woman" and not a "young woman" then she wasn't an (almah). She was a (bethulah). So trying to use her to prove any point you're trying to make about the word (almah) doesn't work.

Lione D' ea: That is why I am trying to inputting in you if did not LETTER in that passage as (bethulah) concluding she is not virgin that is wrong. So not because it did not state there as (bethulah) meaning she is not virgin that is wrong I hope you understand.

I don't think you know what ("with child") really means. When it is laid out like that then the term means the woman IS (pregnant). When it says (shall) then this means that the woman is pregnant and the gender of the child is already known before the birth of the child....see (Gen. 16:11). In fact, as I can tell, every instance of (with child) in the OT meant the woman was already pregnant.

Lione D' ea: Let us read what the verse tells us where is that WITH CHILD means in TCJB:

Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.


Lione D' ea: What with referring in us. The passage says she shall bear a son meaning in her bosom before she bear that is the passage referring, she is with child she is conceiving in the middle of her pregnant. There is nature in that event, what is the nature in that event. Before she bear her first-born child she must wait 9 months to brought out the child speaking of nature that is my answer I hope you understand my simple English Carabao brother.


(end.)

 

[LioneDea]

This is all incorrect. John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14 have been covered extensively in this thread. The ("I am") statement at 8:58 is much different than 3:14.

In the Septuagint at Exodus 3:14 it reads "ego eimi ho on". Basically this means ("I am the being"). As you can see this is far different than 8:58 which means ("I am"). At 8:58 it's a statement and not used as a name. At 3:14 it's used as a name/description (see Exodus 3:15).

And it's been pointed out that Jews do not render their scripture the way we currently see them in most Christian bibles. Here's how it reads in the Torah.

Exodus - Chapter 3 (Parshah Shemot) - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"

The rendering in today's bibles are completely wrong. It's another one of the verses rendered that way to connect Yeshua with the weak notion that he is "God". Exodus 3:14 in the KJV bible and many others like it is the only place where you will find the words in Exodus 3:14 rendered as ("I am"). No other use of the verb anywhere else in the KJV uses (eyheh) to be rendered as ("I am").

John 8:58, in many bibles, as well as NT rendered in Aramaic or those that are from the Coptic to English render 8:58 as ("I was" or "I have been")

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)

And there are more......




It's (Anarthrous Theos). The context shows that they called him (a god) which is why he tried to deflect and say that the Law called all of them gods. The same can be found at Acts 28:6 but in the KJV and most bibles you won't find that John 10:33 is supposed to be expressed the same as Acts 28:6 due to bias translating.

A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John by trinitarians Newman and Nida insists that "a god" would not be "in keeping with the theology of John" and the charge of blasphemy by the Jews, but, nevertheless, also admits:

"Purely on the basis of the Greek text, therefore, it is possible to translate [John 10:33] 'a god,' as NEB does, rather than to translate God, as TEV and several other translations do. One might argue on the basis of both the Greek and the context, that the Jews were accusing Jesus of claiming to be `a god' rather than 'God.' "- p. 344, United Bible Societies, 1980.




Simply presenting places in the NT where Yeshua said ("I am") is not tantamount to him claiming to be "God". If you were to do this then you'd have to conclude that anyone using the phrase ("I am") was claiming to be "God" but I'm sure you're not ready to endorse such nonsense so why start with Yeshua?





Said in excitement because he doubted that others had seen Yeshua alive. He would not be convinced until he saw him and touched him. When he did he exclaimed "My lord and my god". Many today say it similarly..("Oh my lord"), ("Oh God") or ("Oh my god").




This is counter to him being "God". Why would "God" need to be baptized? If he is "God" then why the voice telling everyone that "this is my son"?




You only have Paul's word for this. His supposed experience on the road to Damascus has multiple "stories" as to how this happened and they're all told in his letters. Paul sounds like a TV evangelist who supposedly heard "God's" voice...and we all know how they usually end up.




Actually it makes the claims untrue because he never claimed he was. In the very book of John all of chapter 17 is a prayer where Yeshua prayed to his god saying....

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know YOU the only true God, and Yeshua the Messiah, whom YOU HAVE SENT.

In order to be sent there must be a sender. 17:3 seems more straight to the point.

Lione D' ea: May I ask. What is the difference between I am in I Shall be and I will be?

(end.)

 

[LioneDea]

Originally Posted by jasonwill2
Technically speaking Jesus claimed to be God...

Where?

Lione D' ea: Let us read John 10:30-31, 33 it say's:

I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: If it does not mean that Christ said I am not God, why is he stoned by the Jews and said in being a man, makest thyself God.?


(end.)

 

[Breathe]

If it does not mean that Christ said I am not God, why is he stoned by the Jews and said in being a man, makest thyself God.?

Should one take their theological position from Jesus' opponents?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Lione D' ea: This is the fact why I am asking each question in previous because there are reader have own opinion.....

Understandable but as I've said....the thought that "God" himself is talking to Ahaz is incorrect. The context tells you "God" is not speaking in the third person.

Lione D' ea: This is the fact why I am asking each question in previous because there are reader have own opinion like you do which Bible reject it,

Actually what you're saying is that every theologian and biblical scholar including laymen such as myself has it all wrong and Isaiah is not the one talking on behalf of "God". See your own example below and my response.....:sarcastic

for example:

Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, (Isaiah 7:10 of King James Version)

Lione D' ea: The verse is very clear that the Lord was saying to Ahaz and not even once because the passage says the Lord spake AGAIN to Ahaz it is very clear, there is no mystery in that passage because it is very lesser spoken in that passage.

It's without a doubt that you're under the misguided impression that ("God" - "The Lord") is speaking to Ahaz and since you think this you'll have to explain the following....

Yeshayahu - Chapter 7 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
And the Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying,

"Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God: ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above."

And Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord."


And he said, "Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well?

If this is "God" speaking to Ahaz directly then it would make no sense because at the end here it says...."is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well?"


This can't be "God" speaking because "God" doesn't have a god. So we know from the context here it is some one else speaking. Since Isaiah was the one charged with delivering the prophecy we know it is Isaiah speaking continuously on behalf of "God"


Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

"God" is not speaking in the third person to Ahaz. If "God" was speaking here it wouldn't say "The Lord of His own shall give you a sign." It would say something such as ('Behold, I give you a sign')...similar to what we see at (Gen. 1:29, 6:13, 17:20...etc...etc....)

So it is not true that Ahaz is Pagan which he did not believe in God you wan to imply, the only which I know to Ahaz is he do a sin also in the Lord God. You cannot prove in the Bible he is heathen there despite of doing a sin in the eyes of the Lord God the Bible will reject you brother because you above what is written state to us that is my answer.

STOP IT..!!! STOP IT....Right now. You frustrate me so much I want to scream because you're a typical Christian who has no idea what his bible says. It is without ANY doubt Ahaz was a heathen.


Divrei Hayamim II - Chapter 28 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
Ahaz was twenty years old when he became king, and he reigned for sixteen years in Jerusalem, and he did not do that which was proper in the eyes of the Lord like his father David.

And he went in the ways of the kings of Israel, and he also made molten images for the baalim.

And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places and on the hills and under every leafy tree.

And he burnt incense in the valley of Ben Hinnom, and he burnt his sons in fire, like the abominations of the nations whom the Lord had driven out from before the Children of Israel.

So YES...He was a Heathen, pagan worshiping, non-believing king.

Lione D' ea: I not refute the fact there are some verses in King James Version are wrong to translate. But implying in a young woman she is not virgin there is wrong because the woman in that passage is young and inexperience mean to say she hadn't husband there. The passage there tells the young woman will conceive she will pregnant she hadn't intercourse nor husband and she is not the wife of Isaiah nor Ahaz that is my answer.

Like I said....even if I concede and say "the young woman will become pregnant" it does not refute Isaiah 8:1-4 where the child that was to be born was the son of Isaiah. You have failed to address why this son was so important to the prophecy.

Lione D' ea: You cannot separate the word virginity in the young woman, girl, maiden etc. if you have a sense brother because it is nature in them especially in the people of God.

Yes you can. You opened the door on this previously. Eve wasn't a young woman, she wasn't a maiden, she wasn't a girl.....and yet she was a virgin. She was a virgin in the explicit sense. She was a (bethulah) and not an (almah). The reason why is as I just stated and the fact that the word (almah) does not fully convey virginity.

Lione D' ea: That is why I am trying to inputting in you if did not LETTER in that passage as (bethulah) concluding she is not virgin that is wrong. So not because it did not state there as (bethulah) meaning she is not virgin that is wrong I hope you understand.

Actually you're not making yourself clear here. Eve is either and (almah) or a (bethulah). I think we can agree she was not a (girl, young woman or maiden) considering you said she was a (ishsha - woman). Since she was a (ishsha - woman) and not and (young woman - almah) but still a virgin then she was a (bethulah).

Lione D' ea: Let us read what the verse tells us where is that WITH CHILD means in TCJB:

Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.


Lione D' ea: What with referring in us. The passage says she shall bear a son meaning in her bosom before she bear that is the passage referring, she is with child she is conceiving in the middle of her pregnant. There is nature in that event, what is the nature in that event. Before she bear her first-born child she must wait 9 months to brought out the child speaking of nature that is my answer I hope you understand my simple English Carabao brother.

And all of this is wrong. There is no scriptural precedent set that agrees with this. The majority of the areas in the bible where (with child) is used expresses the fact that the woman is pregnant. Example: Gen. 16:11, 19:36, 38:25, Ex. 21:22, 1Sam. 4:19...etc....etc).