Also, other people use similarly the word Ego Eimi. And, if it means God, then John 8:57-59, would say:
... I say unto you, Before Abraham was, God. Then they took up stones to stone him.
Which is not the same as saying “I am God”.
-
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!
Also, other people use similarly the word Ego Eimi. And, if it means God, then John 8:57-59, would say:
... I say unto you, Before Abraham was, God. Then they took up stones to stone him.
Which is not the same as saying “I am God”.
Teritos
Active Member
Ego Eimi ho Ego Eimi
Teritos
Active Member
Ego Eimi doesn't mean God, it means I AM. It's God's name.
firedragon
Veteran Member
So would you call God "Egw Eimi" instead? After all, the whole of the NT is in Koine Greek.
firedragon
Veteran Member
In your insistence on promoting the trinity, you keep ignoring what Jesus was saying in context....he was answering a question about his age....his reply was to tell those Jews that he was in existence before Abraham was even born.
He was not claiming to be God because he wasn’t God. He identified himself as “God’s son”. Never once did Jesus claim to be God or his equal.
The Jews did not believe in a triune God.....and neither did Jesus. After his return to heaven, Jesus still identified the Father as “my God” (Revelation 3:12) How can one part of God worship another part of himself...?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
They didn’t believe in Jesus, either. So what?
Hebrews says that the word is “living and active.” Faith is a living thing — not a museum piece. That means that it grows, expands, changes, because that’s what living things do. As Xy grew beyond a Judaic sect into it’s own religious expression among people who were predominantly not Jews, it’s possible that the understanding of who and what God is understood to be also grew beyond its narrow, Judaic understanding.
First, worship is nothing more or less than a study in how to be in right relationship with God (who is expressed in the physical world of all living things). Since we all come from God and are part of God, and indeed work to be in right relationship, it’s entirely understandable that the Son would also work to be in right relationship.
Second, since Jesus is both fully God and fully human, it’s also understandable that any full human being would work to be in right relationship with the divine, since that’s what we ultimately are.
Third, the Trinity is God-expressed-as-community, or as right relationship itself.
Christians ‘interpret’ Him to be God but He never actually says He is. He says
for the Father is greater than I.'” (John 14:28).
I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) is not saying He is God because we too can also be at one with the Father -
John 17:21
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
So what???? What an incredibly ignorant statement! The fact that the Jews did not accept Jesus as their Messiah led to their abandonment by God, according to Jesus himself. (Matthew 23:37-39) It left the promises to be fulfilled on people of the nations, (Acts 15: 14) who were God's second choice because of his promise to Abraham. (Genesis 22:18; Deuteronomy 28:1)As a nation, they missed out on becoming the "priesthood and a holy nation" in God's Kingdom because that required their strict obedience....they could never quite maintain their covenant, but God kept his end of the bargain through hundreds of years of absolute disobedience to God in all the important things. (Matthew 23:23-24) They left him no choice but to cast them off.
God does not change because he has no need to change.....humans change God to suit their own beliefs.
Paul wrote at Hebrews 4:12...
"For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints from the marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart."
How did you derive the meaning you personally put on those words? They are not even close. This is speaking about the God-inspired scriptures.
The one thing God demanded, and that Jesus expected of his disciples was unity of thought and purpose. Again as expressed by Paul...
1 Corinthians 1:10...
"Now I urge you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought."
Do we see this in Christendom?
Sadly the only unity they express is in all the false doctrines they adopted after Jesus died. The actual truths that Jesus taught are missing."Worship.....the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity." (dictionary definition)
Where did you get your definition? Did you make it up? No one quite trifles with the meaning of words like you do Sojourner.
You can turn words into complete meaningless scenarios.....what an imagination you have!Please provide scriptural evidence for Jesus being "fully God" and "fully man"......A direct statement from either God or Christ will suffice.
So God is in good company with the three of him.....
Why did Jesus never mention the fact that he was part of a triune deity all equal and eternal?And how fascinating that trinities of gods are found throughout the pagan world....
...but never in Judaism....and not in first century Christianity. It took centuries to graft it in.
Since Jesus was Jewish, that notion would never have entered his mind.
This is just plain creepy....
What Scripture gives you that idea?
Teritos
Active Member
It makes little sense for me to say to God, "I am" because the I is in the first person, and so it refers to me. I would say: "He is", because the HE does not refer to me.
In Hebrew, "He is" means YHWH.
The letter Y is a prefix in Hebrew which means "He", this would be in the third person. And HWH means "to be" So the name Yahweh means "He is".
When God speaks about Himself He says, I AM. When others speak about Him, they say, HE IS.
Ego Eimi = Ehyeh = I am
Autos Eimi = Yahweh = He is
Last edited:
Teritos
Active Member
"Ego Eimi ho on" is not a literal translation.
The Hebrew bible says Ehyeh and literally translated it means I AM. In koine greek: Ego Eimi.
But "ho on" means: "the one who is", in hebrew: "Hayeh"
"Ego Eimi ho on" means: "I am the one who is" This would be in Hebrew: "Ehyeh hayeh"
But the hebrew bible says: "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh", in english: "I am that I am" This would be in koine greek: "Ego Eimi ho Ego Eimi"
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
The meaning YHWH is not relevant here I think, though you got that. I am not a Hebrew expert. But I do know YHWH means he exists.
Nevertheless, what you are saying is that you will call God by the name "Autos Eimi". as in "He is"?
DO you even know that terribly bad? Absolutely.
If you want it so bad it should be epsilon, iota, nu, alpha, iota.
Seriously mate. Have a good day.
The Jesus of John, like the Jesus of Paul, pre-existed in heaven with God and (because God was too pure a spirit to do so) created the world (regardless of Genesis, I Corinthians 6 : John 1:3) in the role of the gnosic 'demiurge' ('craftsman').
Like the Jesuses of Paul, Mark, Matthew and Luke, John's Jesus states many times that he's not God. But like John's Jesus (and unlike the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew and Luke) he existed before Abraham, in heaven with God as I said (John 8:42 and more)..
WalterTrull
Godfella
Whoah, quite a trick. Be fun to converse with an ancient Jew, impossible, but fun. Putting aside the translation problems, context would be mind blowing.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You’re preaching that nefarious thing called “replacement theology.” It’s disingenuous and entitled. What an incredibly ignorant statement for you to make.
I notice you quote Matthew to make your “case.” Matthew purveys the “New Israel” to his community of disaffected Judaic Christians. This in no way need be misinterpreted as the “true Israel.” One denotes a natural progression, the other entitled usurpation.
But I suppose you would run to that interpretation, as it drives the “legitimacy” of your own sect.
The Jews are just fine with God.
2) Interesting that desolation/restoration appears to be a universal theological trope throughout religious thought. The Jews manifested it in exile and release. The Christians in the way you illustrate above. But the trope isn’t ontological — it’s theological. You all carry it out to a ridiculous ontological conclusion by claiming restoration for yourselves at the expense of the rest of us, claiming that we’ve “traveled far away from God’s precepts.” Well, aren’t you scawy! The trope isn’t designed to be fwightening, it’s designed to be reassuring. You’ve managed to turn it on its head.
Your first statement is correct. Your second, not so much. No one has a complete understanding of God. Therefore, different people understand God differently. Belief is a fluid intersect point, not a rigid set of facts. If you don’t want to think of God as a Trinity, that’s just dandy! But you don’t get to tell the rest of us that we’re just wrong because we understand and perceive God differently.
Another interesting tidbit: You don’t understand God in the same way that the ancient Jews did. You have <Ahem> ... “changed God to suit [your] own beliefs.” But somehow that change is OK; others are not. You believe in a Bible that has been <Ahem> ... changed from the original, by adding books that the original religion has not sanctioned. Then you use those books to superimpose an interpretation upon the original that also is not sanctioned by the original religion, thereby changing who God is. God did not need to change; your beliefs changed God. But that’s OK, because you’re “real believers,” and the ancient Jews were not... but yet they are... but they’re not ..........
Yes! Alive. Life means adaptation. How else can it remain relevant? Don't you see how the text places the Sabbath in a new light and a different interpretation? Revelation is an ongoing process, not a one-time lightning bolt from heaven. Understanding dawns slowly upon us. That’s why the same writer in a different letter says, “Now I understand in part, then I shall know fully.” Revelation is not now complete. The concept of the Trinity is a theological understanding that (as the Bible says) has been grafted onto the root. Instead of peaches and plums, now we have something called a “nectarine.” The Jews don’t understand it that way. The Pagans don’t understand it that way. but most Christians do.
And God’s inspiration comes about through human agency. And human agency (like God) is a multifaceted affair. The texts have lasted, not because they are true, but because they are multivalent — like God, and like those human agents.
“Unity” =/= uniformity. Never has. Jesus wasn’t concerned with micro-theological picayunism. He was concerned with the condition of the heart. IOW, with our relationship with God and with each other. How one builds that relationship, maintains that relationship, and plies that relationship is immaterial.
See above. You’re soooo concerned about “false doctrine,” that you completely forget about the honest give-and-take, consensus-building aspects of right relationship. To you, “right relationship” = “correct doctrine.” To the rest of us, “right relationship” = honest intercourse.Do we see this in Christendom?
Because I do my etymological and theological homework, O Best Beloved; it’s my job.
The English word “worship” derives from two Anglo-Saxon root words. The second root word — “ship” — means “shape.” The first root word, werden, is the same root for words like “witch” and “weird.” It means, “to become.” Put them together. “The becoming-shape.” God is Shaper, we are shaped. It’s a relationship between Creator and created — a living relationship, I might add, because God is still Creator, which means God is still creating. (God doesn’t change, remember?) <wink, wink>
We worship (the Hebrew term is avodah, meaning “service,” or “worship” [see Joshua, Ezekiel and Exodus]). In order to “do service” to God, in response for what God has done for us. In worship, we create a series of events — a shape of events — in which we open ourselves to God’s shaping of us. In turn, we shape relationships with others. It’s a reciprocal thing. IOW, it’s a forging of right relationship. In the end, we become the “image” of God (as the Bible says) by co-creating with God. We do what God does. God forges right relationship with us; we forge right relationship with others.
I suspect Jesus would also want to reflect — or become the image of — God in the same way. Jesus served (avodah) God by being the perfect reflection of God-in-relationship with the world.
Another anecdotal point. In his powerful poem The Creation, James Weldon Johnson, around the turn off the last century, said this:
“And God stepped out on space and said, “I’m lonely. I’ll make me a world.”
God made us for God’s Self — to love us. That’s relationship, and that’s what our avodah makes manifest in this world.
It doesn’t have to be a “direct statement.” You’re falling back into this picayune doctrine thing. The Bible does express Jesus as Divine, through examples from his life. One example: the miraculous birth is also a trope that’s found in many religions signifying deity. Resurrection is another such trope. Jesus didn’t have to “come right out and say it” because it’s implied in the very presentation of him.
He did mention the existence of right relationship with the Father and the Spirit, did he not?So God is in good company with the three of him.....
...And how fascinating that the theological concept of Trinity is also a universal, theological trope, just like the desolation/restoration trope. That the concept of Trinity appears in other religions doesn’t diminish its truth, just as the truth of the concept of desolation/restoration isn’t diminished by its appearance in other religions. The fact that both are universally represented lends credence to the truth of both tropes.
A lot of people have dropped hints that they are God. But it seems to matter what God thought. God said that only he (God) is God, and there shall be no other. In John, it is clear that God is the word and the word is God, and that Jesus is the witness of the word.
No Sojourner, I’m simply stating what Jesus taught. God himself, through the apostles, indicated that he was offering a ruling capacity in his Kingdom to non-fleshly “Jews” after the fleshly nation rejected Jesus as the Christ. The “Israel of God” then, were made up the of both Jews and Gentiles. (Galatians 6:16; Romans 2:29)
John the Baptist revealed that it was the Jews themselves who counted on their relationship with Abraham to save them (entitlement)....they were wrong. (Matthew 3:7-12; Jeremiah 4:4)
And what interpretation are you running to? What drives the legitimacy of your own sect? Pot...Kettle?
Tell me when God's people have ever been in the majority in this world?
Of course they are, but they must accept Christ as Messiah as Jesus said. (Matthew 23:37-39) God "abandoned" a wayward nation, but that did not preclude individuals like the apostles from divorcing themselves from those serial covenant breakers and accepting the Messiah that God sent.
It’s all in God’s word...you should try reading all of it instead of just the bits that prop up your own ideas. Your words here are very childish. I honestly don’t think you’d know a trope if it jumped up and bit you....you seem to make up your own as you go along...
LOL.....Classic misrepresentation of the person of God and an indication of where you glean your own skewed ideas.....to be sure, they do not come from scripture.
God was never "lonely"....that is not what motivated him to create intelligent human life endowed with his own attributes. We have a purpose here. If you knew your Bible, you would be aware of God’s dominant quality, which was his sole motivation for creation. We are to love him, not just that he loves us...it is impossible for God to force his free will children to love him and to serve his interests here. It is the only thing that we can give him that he cannot give himself....and it must be genuine in spite of the demonic propaganda and disinformation about God that dominates satan's world. (1 John 5:19)
There are many versions of God in the world...but only one is correct, and that is the one he gives of himself, along with the testimony of his son. He hasn't got three heads, and being created in his image would mean that multiple personality disorder would be the 'norm' in human society. It's classified as a "DISorder" for a reason.
For a doctrine, especially a foundational one...YES it does.
If you cannot provide a direct statement from either God or his Christ that the two share equality in the same "godhead" (whatever that means), then inference is a poor substitute for a fact, and hardly the basis for anything you build on it.
LOL again.....the fact that trinities are found in many other religions EXCEPT the one given to the Jews by the true God, is proof that it did NOT come from Him at all....but from the author of all false worship. The 'wannabe' god who tempted the woman in Eden...he was a pathological liar then.....and he still is....and those who are taken in by his deception become his minions....his ministers. (2 Cor 11: 14-15)
If it is your "job" to teach, then you'd better make sure that what you teach is correct because teachers are accountable. (Hebrews 13:17)
Last edited:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
1) Jesus didn’t teach this — the authors of Matthew, Romans, and Galatians did. And Jesus doesn’t even appear in Jeremiah.
2) What is being taught is what truly comprises a child of Israel — and it’s not a set of laws or a national border. What it doesn’t teach is some kind of twisted replacement theology, as you’re sitting here.
My sect doesn’t hinge upon everyone else being “wrong” and existing outside God’s grace. That’s because we espouse the “true” Israel, rather than the “replacement” Israel.And what interpretation are you running to? What drives the legitimacy of your own sect? Pot...Kettle?
Tell me when God's people have ever been in the majority in this world?
No they don’t. Just ask them. Or anyone else with a lick of theological sense.
And what made them “abandoned?” Answer: their hearts, not their beliefs.
You’re projecting. If you hadn’t been doing that exact thing, you wouldn’t be glomming all these disparate bits of scripture together, twisting their meaning. You obviously haven't studied theology, and your post is spouting rubbish.
I stated that God desires relationship. And somehow, that’s a “misrepresentation.”
It’s poetry. Your biggest tumbling block is your literalist mind set when it comes to things theological. It’s a classic trap of the fundamentalist.
Oh yes! “God wanted someone to dominate.” Never mind that the Law, the prophets, and the manifestation of God in human form was all about love.
See above. And I believe I said that in my post above. You’re simply choosing to ignore it so you can *appear* to be knowledgeable and superior.
Nope. All are facets of the same unknowable God.
Straw man. We’re talking about community, not personality disorders.
Obviously it doesn’t, or it wouldn’t be a doctrine. If you really knew the nature of the texts, you’d know that. A renowned Bible scholar is quoted as saying:
“My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.
Literalism is a recent phenomenon brought about by the Enlightenment. It’s a classic trap for the fundamentalist.
Nope. It shows that it’s a universal trope of religious thought the world over.
See above. No one is a “minion” of a snake. That’s not what Genesis is about. And, in fact, the serpent didn’t lie. If that’s the way you read it, you need to read it again.
Again, you misinterpret. I never said it was my job to teach. You said that — and you misrepresent me. I said that it’s my job to know ecclesiological language.
No man is the author of God-inspired scripture. Does Jesus need to appear in Jeremiah for his words to be true?
Last time I looked Jesus was Jewish.
Replacement is exactly what it teaches.
John the Baptist's words to the Pharisees were uttered under inspiration of the holy spirit....
Matthew 3:7-10....
"When he caught sight of many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to the baptism, he said to them: “You offspring of vipers, who has warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Therefore, produce fruit that befits repentance. 9 Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones. 10 The ax is already lying at the root of the trees. Every tree, then, that does not produce fine fruit is to be cut down and thrown into the fire."
The ax was swung.....the tree was cut down...because these did not produce the fruits of repentance.
The definition of a Jew was redefined by God so that his covenant with Abraham could still be valid. (Romans 2:28-29) God wanted to exterminate his people for their stiff-necked attitude, and when they orchestrated the murder of their Messiah, he had no reason to keep them as his own, so he cast them off as a nation, cursed by their own words. (Matthew 27:24-25) He then turned to the nations to "take out of them a people for his name" (Acts 15:14)
There were no sects in first century Christianity because that is what undid Judaism. They could not be disunited in their beliefs and practices. (1 Corinthians 1:10) There cannot be more than one truth.....and no one comes to the son without an invitation from the Father. (John 6:65) This is what keeps the "wheat" separated from the "weeds".
Ah....theological sense.....what the heck is that? Theology is taught in universities and seminaries....but none of Jesus apostles were educated men....why? Because the religious education taught at those institutions was not according to God's word. Jesus said that they "teach the commands of men as doctrines" .....Christendom's religious credentials only impress men, not God. We don't get to make up our own version of things based on what we think the Bible says....certainly a lot of your beliefs are clearly just your own made up ideas. Since you seem to embrace Christendom, who else shares your beliefs outside of your sect?
If you read the scriptures you will find that it was poor leadership that led the whole nation to sin. When the Kings in Israel were sinful, so were the people. (Ecclesiastes 8:11) In the first century poor leadership was still taking the nation in the wrong direction. Which is why Jesus was not sent to the Jewish leaders but to the "lost sheep" whom the shepherds had neglected. Tax collectors and sinners heard Jesus' message and responded, but not the devout Jews who couldn't see past the end of their bigoted noses.....so busy being the learned ones. Jesus put them in their place. (Matthew 23)
Christendom's theology is the rubbish.....the "weeds" of Jesus' parable...all you have to do is see their fruitage to know that Christ was never part of their religious system. (Matthew 7:21-23)
No, that is not what you said.....you supported the notion that God was somehow lonely and that he created us for himself. That is a load of garbage.
Poetry is not God's word. It is the words of men and has nothing to do with anything.
Read what I wrote, not what you think I said.....God was never about domination, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't demand order. You missed the point about God's dominant quality...which is LOVE. Hello....
Sorry, I know that that you like that position....please forgive me for making you think that anyone could be superior to your learned self.
Is your God unknowable? You poor thing...no wonder you are lost...I found him about 50 years ago.....I'll introduce you if you like.
Or that all outside of God's truth collectively believe the same lies. (1 John 5:19)
So Jesus is the liar then....?
He said to the Jews..."I know that you are Abraham’s offspring. But you are seeking to kill me, because my word makes no progress among you. 38 I speak the things I have seen while with my Father, but you do the things you have heard from your father.” 39 In answer they said to him: “Our father is Abraham.” Jesus said to them: “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works of Abraham. 40 But now you are seeking to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. 41 You are doing the works of your father.”. . . . .Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot listen to my word. 44 You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie."
Who is Jesus saying is the "father" of these wicked men, if not the Devil...the first liar in Eden?
How did the serpent tell the truth and make God a liar? How do you spin that one and come out still claiming to be a "Christian"?
You have identified yourself in the past as 'clergy' with 'credentials'....clergy are teachers, are they not? Isn't that their purpose? Are you the leader of your own sect?
How does "ecclesiological language" lead you to the rather fanciful conclusions that you have reached? You are certainly not a promoter of all of Christendom's doctrines, you seem to have created your own version of everything. Would any of Christendom's churches accept your teachings? I'd be very surprised if they didn't boot you out the door as a heretic.