I already addressed this in #87. Let's just stop. Enjoy your day.
Did Jesus claim to be God?
- Thread starter TonyChanYT
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
You said you already dealt with the issue, but #87 (what you said that I quoted) doesn't address the issue, because the issue isn't "What does the Bible mean by 'husband' when it says God was 'husband' to His people? Is it a metaphor?", the issue is "Why was it that God was said to have been 'husband' to His people, and we see that Jesus is 'husband' to God's people today? Why is Jesus playing a role only meant for God?"
Last edited:
Then you should be familiar with Dr. Benjamin Sommer
Sources:
Found JS - All about Betting
Soccer Betting Analysis - Get The Chance to find How Handicap Betting works in soccer betting
podcast.foundjs.org
The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel - Dr. Benjamin Sommer and there are MORE than just Two Powers mentioned in ancient rabbinical writings in the kaballah.
Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary - Nahum Sarna
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus - Dr. Michael Brown
The Works of Philo - Translated by C. D. Yonge
Last edited by a moderator:
Johann, it's typical of you to response after the brunt of the argument has already been discussed or revealed with yet another empty long response, meant to seal the argument in your favor.
No, I cannot believe you believe there is scripture that proves the preexistence of Jesus. Your support material is as usual based of the abuse or misuse of scripture mixed in with false premises.....it is a soup of poison you tend to dish out.
Johann, there is no proof of Jesus' pre-existence before he was literally born. There is however plenty of scripture speaking of his future appearance, as even Abraham prophesized of his day and 'saw' (in spirit) the mission to the Cross and his resurrection of Christ.
I read scripture for meaning and context. You however misapply scripture and run from its context. Because if you ever had to appraise the surrounding context, your arguments would fall apart like the desert blowing sand leaving your hands.
And the Jews asked Jesus if he was more important than Abraham and who do you think you are? - John 8:53. Jesus finally answered them to their disgust. Did you read that verse Johann? I think not. It is all important you know to the entire discussion here. I did not see you remark on it in your response. And you wont' address it because you are preprogrammed and predisposed with a mindset to yet again become busy, importing or pasting poisoned meanings of parts of scripture as usual for your false advantage- AS YOUR TRUTH. Blinded by your trinity pagan doctrine that imposes this paganism and poison on the truth in scripture, every time! You 'kill' scripture Johann.
I suggest you go back and reread your responses and maybe start on trying to understand one major point as an anchor point, like
say..."before Abraham was born, I am"
Where from the Greek source do you get the word 'born' in your statement above? Or even 'existed.' Nowhere of course....and many translators were sloppy on purpose, and biased towards your same triad god religion, that does not help the search for the truth either. It only needlessly complicates, causes confusion and err.
Then ask questions like what is the intent and the closest meaning of the word 'before'? Is it for time position or in precedence, order, authority or importance position as the Jews asked 5 verses back..... and after the conversion with the Jews do you still believe that Jesus thought they were asking if he was born before Abraham, or that if he was more important than him?
Hint: if you read his previous communique with the Jews and summarized it all then you would conclude they wanted to see if he still held on to the title of the Son of God and would confess that he was not and that Abraham was still King.
They ever laughed and attempted to ridicule Jesus in verse 57, when they said he was not even 50 years old and that he literally saw Abraham.
No, Jesus addressed their question and said he was more important than Abraham. The better translation for meaning of verse 58 would be, "I am above Abraham in authority or importance that Abraham could ever be or attain." Because he was the Son of God.
This was the similar meaning that the Jews heard anyway, not that he was present with Abraham or even before him. At the latter they would yet again call him demon possessed and again laugh and leave him. They were not stupid, they knew Jesus was born in their time for the first time and that he was going around saying he was the Son of God; that utterly disturbed them to no end. They were under the Law and Abraham was still King in their eyes...And Jesus came to revolt with them and the people and turn their religion upside down.
Last edited:
Friend-I can spend the whole day and go through the text with you and prove that what I have posted is biblical accurate and true and not my bias.
But you need to have a basic understanding in Hebrew and Greek-not as to the MEANING of words but the Grammars/Syntax/Morphologies IN these verses you have quoted.
I love apologetic's-exegetical and the hermeneutical approach to Scripture-but my guess is that it would be futile to have a decent, edifying discussion with you.
Have a good day.
J.
Last edited by a moderator:
See and observe how you have "missed it" You ask "Where do I get "born from?" Right here!--BEFORE Abraham was born--I was/Haya-the timeless Present-Verb - Present Indicative Active - 1st Person Singular.
2. ego eimi as a self-designation of Jesus in Joh_8:58 (cf. 8:24; 13:19) stands in contrast to the genesthai applied to Abraham.
Jesus thus claims eternity. As he is equal to the Father (5:18ff.), what is ascribed to the Father is attributed to him too (cf. Isa_43:10 LXX). The context and the ego formulation are both Jewish. The point is not Jesus' self-identification as the Messiah ("I am he") but his supratemporal being.
3. For ego eimi with nouns of predication, see ego.
[F. BUCHSEL]
Was, I am (γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι)
It is important to observe the distinction between the two verbs. Abraham's life was under the conditions of time, and therefore had a temporal beginning. Hence, Abraham came into being, or was born (γενέσθαι). Jesus' life was from and to eternity. Hence the formula for absolute, timeless existence, I am (ἐγώ εἰμι). See on Joh_1:3; see on Joh_7:34.
I am (egō eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesthai (entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between en in Joh_1:1 and egeneto in Joh_1:14. See the contrast also in Psa_90:2 between God (ei, art) and the mountains (genēthēnai). See the same use of eimi in Joh_6:20; Joh_9:9; Joh_8:24, Joh_8:28; Joh_18:6.
was = came into existence: i.e. was born.
ginomai G1096 [to be born]
genesis G1078 [birth]
genos G1085 [kind, family]
genema [fruit]
apoginomai [to die]
palingenesia G3824 [rebirth, renewal]
3) "Before Abraham was, I am." (prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi) "Before Abraham came to be(to exist) I am," I existed as the self-existing "I am," the preexisting one, Joh_1:1-2; Col_1:17; Rev_1:8; Joh_17:5; Joh_17:24.
Adv|before Ἀβραὰμ Abraam|G11|N-AMS|Abraham γενέσθαι genesthai|G1096|V-ANM|was, ἐγὼ egō|G1473|PPro-N1S|I εἰμί. eimi|G1510|V-PIA-1S|am.
Gospel 101. @APAK
Shalom
J.
Last edited by a moderator:
I will suppose that not many of you would want to be identified with the Gnostics of the first years of the church. Yet, it appears that the Gnostic idea of the trinity has not only come to be accepted then, it is used as a demarcation point that folks use to identify "true believers" and "heretics." I can only pray that some of us allow ourselves to doubt that error long enough to search out the truth. I realize that most will not, because that dogma has become the badge of the "true Christian."
But, it is not to late to become a modern day Berean. Actually, it is easier to do now than it has been in the past.
Jesus was born to Mary with Yahweh as His Father. He was flesh with God's DNA as well as Mary's. Any existence He had before that was only as a prophecy of His Father.
Mt 1:20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit
Lk 1:35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God
1 Jn 1:1–3 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ
1 Jn 4:2–3 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already
1 Jn 5:18 We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him
From: Why Preexistence Does Matter - 21st Century Reformation
There is a perfectly good Greek word for “preexist” in the New Testament (prouparchein). It is never, ever used of Jesus. There is a perfectly good word for “transform,” but no text ever says that Jesus was transformed from pre-human to human.
There is a perfectly good Greek word for “return, go back” but Jesus is nowhere said to “return” or “go back” to the Father. See John 13:1, 3; 16:28; 20:17. That is simply because Jesus had not been there before! But there is a “crime scene” in some modern versions (including NIV), which do say that Jesus “went back” to the Father. This should alert us to the tendency to want to make Jesus fit with the later error of preexistence, which was the first step towards the Trinity!
The term "I am" is not a confirmation of divinity. It is a common term.
I am the Bread of Life (John 6:35)
I am the Light of the World (John 8:12)
I am the Door (John 10:9)
I am the Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14)
I am the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25)
I am the Way and the Truth and the Life (John 14:6)
I am the Vine (John 15:1,5)
But, it is not to late to become a modern day Berean. Actually, it is easier to do now than it has been in the past.
Jesus was born to Mary with Yahweh as His Father. He was flesh with God's DNA as well as Mary's. Any existence He had before that was only as a prophecy of His Father.
Mt 1:20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit
Lk 1:35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God
1 Jn 1:1–3 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ
1 Jn 4:2–3 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already
1 Jn 5:18 We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him
From: Why Preexistence Does Matter - 21st Century Reformation
There is a perfectly good Greek word for “preexist” in the New Testament (prouparchein). It is never, ever used of Jesus. There is a perfectly good word for “transform,” but no text ever says that Jesus was transformed from pre-human to human.
There is a perfectly good Greek word for “return, go back” but Jesus is nowhere said to “return” or “go back” to the Father. See John 13:1, 3; 16:28; 20:17. That is simply because Jesus had not been there before! But there is a “crime scene” in some modern versions (including NIV), which do say that Jesus “went back” to the Father. This should alert us to the tendency to want to make Jesus fit with the later error of preexistence, which was the first step towards the Trinity!
The term "I am" is not a confirmation of divinity. It is a common term.
I am the Bread of Life (John 6:35)
I am the Light of the World (John 8:12)
I am the Door (John 10:9)
I am the Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14)
I am the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25)
I am the Way and the Truth and the Life (John 14:6)
I am the Vine (John 15:1,5)
John 1:1 and 1 John 1
“The word” (not Word), John 1:1c said, “was God.” But note that it is illegitimate to start with a huge preconception that word is really Word (capital W)! John was well aware of how his gospel could be confused and abused. In his first epistle, John countered the errors already being made out of his own gospel of John! John said six times that he had not said that the Son of God had pre-existed, but that “eternal life” had preexisted with the Father. It was “eternal life which was with God” (1 John 1:2). He called this a “that which,” a “what” six times! It was “eternal life,” not the Messiah pre-existing with the father. This is John’s own inspired and clarifying and corrective comment on his earlier words in the Gospel of John. What preexisted was the word (not Word) which, not who, was God in John 1:1c. Jesus is what the word became in John 1:14.
This from 21 Century Reformation--do you endorse what they are selling?
That's good.
One way to resolve this is to turn it into a wager. See e.g., If you think that Mary is a perpetual virgin and wish to wager on it, I am taking wagers here
My post was not addressed to you @TonyChanYT and as to the answer to Mary's perpetual virginity-an emphatic negative.
You'll need to study the words, and their differences, for yourself, apparently.
Much love!
You spoke gems of truth here that I would to go further into them. The warning you gave is so true and even more appropriate today, that all should note; concerning 'their' forefathers and philosophers. As you said, "This should alert us to the tendency to want to make Jesus fit with the later error of preexistence, which was the first step towards the Trinity!"
Good job Spyder, as you are apparently a serious study of the Holy writ. Not too many can speak/write like you on these serious subjects and you blessed and are then a blessing to me and to many others on this site. Keep sounding off, it may change hearts and minds.
If you know what you are looking at, @Johann brings in a lot of good material. If you aren't familiar with KG grammar and such, it won't be as meaningful. But thre is no need to belittle the information. I for one enjoy reading his posts, I always seem to get a deeper look at the passage under discussion.
Much love!
Now there Johann, show some class and a little kindness. Why attempt to label him so quickly and with the truth he speaks to squelch it. Whether he's a 21stCR, a Church of God member or a Christadelphian. Even if he was of one of the MS religious members. It makes little difference in matters of the heart and the truth Johann.
Your attempt to discredit him and his words and my indirectly is in vain and originates right out of the devils' handbook. His words are truth in the main and should not be hidden.
You character thus is starting to reveal itself on public display...
Oh, did I hear a comment from marks lurking about in the background again.
Have a great week marks and I guess you have a mirror...and of Hamlet...to thy own self be true, indeed....it works for me
I don't see how your conclusion follows from the absence of use of a particular word. It strikes me as perfectly plausible to infer Christ's "return" to the Father from the context of a verse, even if the word you have in mind (is it ἐπιστρέφω ?) isn't used. And I think John 16:28 is an example of this.
To be clear -- because every time I fail to offer such a disclaimer people make assumptions as to what I think -- I am not saying Christ did "return" to the Father. I am saying only that drawing the contrary conclusion from failure to use a particular word is a stretch.
Not trying to discredit him-but have asked him IF he read what he has posted-since it is diametrically opposed to the Scriptures and what stands written.
Lampe: Wise Words from Cambridge
The late Regius Professor of Theology at Cambridge, Geoffrey Lampe, was one of many who are critical of the Chalcedonian, Trinitarian definition of Jesus. He argued that if Jesus preexisted his human life as God, and was therefore fully God, then he could not also be fully human. This, as we have seen, is admitted by the writers quoted above. They confirm that a person who is not a human person cannot be fully man! Lampe describes the unfortunate and confusing implications of the traditional dogma that Jesus is God possessing “impersonal human nature.” What Lampe says applies equally to any form of preexistence, Trinitarian or Jehovah’s Witness/Arian:Not going back
There is a perfectly good Greek word for “preexist” in the NT (prouparchein). It is never, ever used of Jesus. There is a perfectly good word for “transform,” but no text ever says that Jesus was transformed from pre-human to human.
There is a perfectly good Greek word for “return, go back” but Jesus is nowhere said to “return” or “go back” to the Father. See John 13:1, 3; 16:28; 20:17. That is simply because Jesus had not been there before! But there is a “crime scene” in some modern versions (including NIV), which do say that Jesus “went back” to the Father. This should alert us to the tendency to want to make Jesus fit with the later error of preexistence, which was the first step towards the Trinity!
How do you know that a preexisting, pre-human Jesus is not a different and false Jesus, to be exposed as antichristian and to be avoided as such?
All the Bible writers were obviously Socinian, i.e., non-literal preexistence unitarians. The later move away from Jesus to an alien definition of God as triune is one of the most remarkable shifts away from and loss of essential information, in the history of (mis)communication. Jesus expressed his unitarian confession of faith as we know by asserting that the “Father is the only one who is true God” (John 17:3; 5:44). He told the Jews that his God was the same one Person whom the Jews claimed as their God.
These unitarian texts merely repeat the 1300 NT references to GOD as the equivalent of the Father. Jesus declares himself to be not GOD, which would make two Gods, but God’s unique human agent.
To me-the above is absolute nonsense
Truth is what matters-not opinions such as that of Lampe and others holding to this form of teaching.
J.
Last edited by a moderator:
I do not know of your previous comments with Spyder and I have never read the article you posted here until now. And as I scan it I do agree with it on my first go-around.Not trying to discredit him-but have asked him IF he read what he has posted-since it is diametrically opposed to the Scriptures and what stands written.
Lampe: Wise Words from Cambridge
The late Regius Professor of Theology at Cambridge, Geoffrey Lampe, was one of many who are critical of the Chalcedonian, Trinitarian definition of Jesus. He argued that if Jesus preexisted his human life as God, and was therefore fully God, then he could not also be fully human. This, as we have seen, is admitted by the writers quoted above. They confirm that a person who is not a human person cannot be fully man! Lampe describes the unfortunate and confusing implications of the traditional dogma that Jesus is God possessing “impersonal human nature.” What Lampe says applies equally to any form of preexistence, Trinitarian or Jehovah’s Witness/Arian:
Not going back
There is a perfectly good Greek word for “preexist” in the NT (prouparchein). It is never, ever used of Jesus. There is a perfectly good word for “transform,” but no text ever says that Jesus was transformed from pre-human to human.
There is a perfectly good Greek word for “return, go back” but Jesus is nowhere said to “return” or “go back” to the Father. See John 13:1, 3; 16:28; 20:17. That is simply because Jesus had not been there before! But there is a “crime scene” in some modern versions (including NIV), which do say that Jesus “went back” to the Father. This should alert us to the tendency to want to make Jesus fit with the later error of preexistence, which was the first step towards the Trinity!
How do you know that a preexisting, pre-human Jesus is not a different and false Jesus, to be exposed as antichristian and to be avoided as such?
All the Bible writers were obviously Socinian, i.e., non-literal preexistence unitarians. The later move away from Jesus to an alien definition of God as triune is one of the most remarkable shifts away from and loss of essential information, in the history of (mis)communication. Jesus expressed his unitarian confession of faith as we know by asserting that the “Father is the only one who is true God” (John 17:3; 5:44). He told the Jews that his God was the same one Person whom the Jews claimed as their God.
These unitarian texts merely repeat the 1300 NT references to GOD as the equivalent of the Father. Jesus declares himself to be not GOD, which would make two Gods, but God’s unique human agent.
To me-the above is absolute nonsense
Truth is what matters-not opinions such as that of Lampe and others holding to this form of teaching.
J.
One thing I've been saying since nearly I began on this site was and still holds true today. If Jesus the Christ was not a human being and person then he cannot be the Jesus of John's writings at least.
There is nowhere in scripture that says that Jesus is a godman with dual natures and only being a divine person. No reference to the anhypostasis or enhypostasis of Jesus. These are ideas were invented centuries after the death of Jesus Christ.
John 8:40 - Yahshua says he is a man, that is, a human individual or person, and that they wanted to kill him because he told them the truth he heard and spoke from God. 1 Cor 15:21 and 1 Tim 2:5
Yahshua is a human man, who is a human person! The Bible never says Yahshua is a divine man or a divine person ever!
The human person Yahshua gave his life for us not that a divine person gave his life for us. A truly natural divine person or a deity cannot die, only a human person can die!
So, at Christ's death and resurrection, his human nature must have vanished somewhere separated from his 'new' existence? Did he reincarnate to his previous state of divine nature and divine person before he supposedly preexisted?
This Trinity dogma is kept intact because they believe that Yahshua was and still is a deity as the 2nd person of a triune god today. They had to minimize the human nature part and say he was also never a human person because their dogma must always say that there are three divine persons in one essence and not 4 persons (3 divine and 1 human) of 2 essence.
The evil one tells gullible people another lie, there cannot be just a man sitting at the right of God.
And eventhough this man is now immortal as a god.
The lie is that a man is not or never worthy of God's presence and became the first of a new creation of saved men and women.
1 John 4:2-3 - Jesus is the name of a human person as Messiah and Savior are titles although hold important meanings. Yahshua the Messiah is not a pre-existing divine person.
1 John 4:2 - Does every spirit of God say or claim that:
1. Yahshua has come in the flesh and yet is fully God?
2. God or one divine person of God has come in the flesh as Yahshua the Messiah?
3. God or one divine person of God took on human flesh?
4. Yahshua Christ came from some pre-existence of divine state and came into the flesh?
5. God added human flesh to his divine nature, thus becoming two natures?
6. God or one divine person of God has taken on a non-personal human nature?
- Status
Similar threads
