• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Something about the trinity

SmartCat said:
Anyone can find something on the internet that they agree with. Please post passages from the New Testament outside of the Gospel of St. John that assert the divinity of Jesus. Present your arguments in your own words, like I do.
Click to expand...

I guess if you don't want to accept biblical sources on the Bible then that is not my problem.
I just did if you would have read the links. I guess you didn't read the links.

They contain plenty of cited verses. If you refuse to read information that people give you then you
Are going to never get any further than where you are now.

Mark
And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?”

But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”

And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.

Matthew 28:19
Matthew 14:33
Mark 2:5-12
Luke 2:48-49
 
ludin said:
I guess if you don't want to accept biblical sources on the Bible then that is not my problem.
I just did if you would have read the links. I guess you didn't read the links.

They contain plenty of cited verses. If you refuse to read information that people give you then you
Are going to never get any further than where you are now.

Mark
And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?”

But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”

And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.

Matthew 28:19
Matthew 14:33
Mark 2:5-12
Luke 2:48-49
Click to expand...


Well.. there is a problem about that. First of all, you have to understand the phrase 'Son of God' in context with Jewish socieity. A 'Son of God' was not God, nor a literal son of God, but rather someone who was favored. FOr example, King David was 'adopted' as a 'Son of God' when he became King. Psalm 2.7 is in reference to King David.

Using those terms in context with Jewish culture at the time does not make the "Son of God" god. You have to assume the trinity first.. and the people who assume the trinity point to that. It makes the evidence rather circular in nature.
 
ludin said:
I guess if you don't want to accept biblical sources on the Bible then that is not my problem.
I just did if you would have read the links. I guess you didn't read the links.

They contain plenty of cited verses. If you refuse to read information that people give you then you
Are going to never get any further than where you are now.

Mark
And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?”

But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”

And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.

Matthew 28:19
Matthew 14:33
Mark 2:5-12
Luke 2:48-49
Click to expand...

These passages say that Jesus is the Son of God. They do not say that he is God. That is an important distinction.

The pagan Greeks believed that many legendary heroes had a god or a goddess as a parent, but they did not believe that the legendary heroes were divine.
 
SmartCat said:
These passages say that Jesus is the Son of God. They do not say that he is God. That is an important distinction.

The pagan Greeks believed that many legendary heroes had a god or a goddess as a parent, but they did not believe that the legendary heroes were divine.
Click to expand...

He is part of the trinity and while he is the Son of God in that trinity He is still God.
Christ himself even said be as 1 as I am the Father are one.

When the 72 disciples he had sent out they were amazed at the miracles but Christ said.
I saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning.

When talking to Satan he said you shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
 
ludin said:
I guess if you don't want to accept biblical sources on the Bible then that is not my problem.
Click to expand...

"Biblical Sources on the Bible" What is that supposed to mean ? "Gotquestions" is not a Biblical Source ... it is an apologist nonsense site (as demonstrated to you on numerous occasions).

The NT does refer to Jesus as Divine.

What it does not do is refer to Jesus as "GOD - (God the Father - God of Abraham)

The Trinity is a man made idea from the 3rd century AD - first popularized by Tertullian - at which time the Church declared this doctrine heretical.
 
thinkagain said:
"Biblical Sources on the Bible" What is that supposed to mean ? "Gotquestions" is not a Biblical Source ... it is an apologist nonsense site (as demonstrated to you on numerous occasions).

The NT does refer to Jesus as Divine.

What it does not do is refer to Jesus as "GOD - (God the Father - God of Abraham)

The Trinity is a man made idea from the 3rd century AD - first popularized by Tertullian - at which time the Church declared this doctrine heretical.
Click to expand...

You really don't know your church history that well.

you also do not understand what apologetics is that is evident.
Actually it does. Christ refers or references back to the words "I Am" several times.

Actually the 1st century church and the council of Nicea adopted this as anything but heretical
in fact it was that was used to combat the heretical of the arians.

so I guess you are a believer in Arianism then.
 
ludin said:
You really don't know your church history that well.

you also do not understand what apologetics is that is evident.
Actually it does. Christ refers or references back to the words "I Am" several times.

Actually the 1st century church and the council of Nicea adopted this as anything but heretical
in fact it was that was used to combat the heretical of the arians.

so I guess you are a believer in Arianism then.
Click to expand...

Jesus never says "I am God" The claim that someone saying "I am" is saying they are God is laughable. Just because someone says "I am" going shopping does not mean they are claiming to be God.

Jesus never says "Worship me"

On the other hand there are numerous places where Jesus does speak of God as other than himself- including in his dying breath as the God that has forsaken him.

Jesus talks about God as knowing things that he does not.

Jesus asks God to not make him go through with his crucifixion .... and so on.

Actually the 1st century church and the council of Nicea adopted this as anything but heretical
Click to expand...

What first century Church ... and where is your proof of claim.
 
thinkagain said:
Jesus never says "I am God" The claim that someone saying "I am" is saying they are God is laughable. Just because someone says "I am" going shopping does not mean they are claiming to be God.
Click to expand...
Again you don't understand context of passages. I am beginning to think you have a very limited knowledge of the actual bible.
That is when Christ said I Am the jewish people knew exactly what he was talking about because several times they went to stone him for blasphemy.
So I find it interesting that they knew what it means but you don't.

Jesus never says "Worship me"
Click to expand...

He never stopped anyone from worshipping Him.

On the other hand there are numerous places where Jesus does speak of God as other than himself- including in his dying breath as the God that has forsaken him.
Click to expand...

You forget Christ duel natured. He is the Son of God and the Son of Man. While on the cross Christ took the sin of the world on himself. God cannot associate with sin.

Jesus talks about God as knowing things that he does not.
Click to expand...

Which would make sense as they are 1 God but individual entities.

Jesus asks God to not make him go through with his crucifixion .... and so on.
Click to expand...

Yep and then if you actually read the rest of it He says not my will but yours.

What first century Church ... and where is your proof of claim.
Click to expand...

Read anything on the council of Nicea.

Council of Nicea - ReligionFacts

as I said you are a arianist which would be a modern day JW.
that explains a great deal.

The Trinity | Catholic Answers

catholics absolutely believe in the trinity so I don't know where you are getting
your information

So I guess you believe in Arianism then. now that was deemed heretical by the first century church.
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
You really don't know your church history that well.

you also do not understand what apologetics is that is evident.
Actually it does. Christ refers or references back to the words "I Am" several times.

Actually the 1st century church and the council of Nicea adopted this as anything but heretical
in fact it was that was used to combat the heretical of the arians.

so I guess you are a believer in Arianism then.
Click to expand...


The problem with using the phrase 'I am' to say that Jesus is saying he's God is 1) It's ignoring the differences in the Greek to the previous phrases , and 2) It's using a bad translation from the Hebrew that it is being compared with (The burning bush story). You have to assume that the phrase 'I am' is trying to have Jesus claim he is God to have it... and that 'evidence' becomes rather circular in nature.
 
RAMOSS said:
The problem with using the phrase 'I am' to say that Jesus is saying he's God is 1) It's ignoring the differences in the Greek to the previous phrases , and 2) It's using a bad translation from the Hebrew that it is being compared with (The burning bush story). You have to assume that the phrase 'I am' is trying to have Jesus claim he is God to have it... and that 'evidence' becomes rather circular in nature.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

The jews knew what he was referring to because they went to stone him.
 
ludin said:
*sigh*

The jews knew what he was referring to because they went to stone him.
Click to expand...

And, why did they want to stone him. Because he was 'Before Abraham' ... In priority. He claimed he was greater than the founder of Judaism. Not because he claimed to be God, but because he claimed he was greater than Abraham.
 
RAMOSS said:
And, why did they want to stone him. Because he was 'Before Abraham' ... In priority. He claimed he was greater than the founder of Judaism. Not because he claimed to be God, but because he claimed he was greater than Abraham.
Click to expand...

that would have been fine. They went to stone him because of what he said in the whole thing.

Before Abraham I am. they knew exactly what he was talking about.
 
ludin said:
that would have been fine. They went to stone him because of what he said in the whole thing.

Before Abraham I am. they knew exactly what he was talking about.
Click to expand...

That is your interpretation, and that is the people who believe the Jesus was claiming to be God's interpretation. However, it is not clear cut, because those people who do NOT believe in the trinity have a totally different explanation. It can be interpreted in other ways , very logically at that. Like I said before, to assume that any passage in the Gospel of John is claiming Jesus is God, you have to assume that the trinity is what is being claimed. That makes the reasoning circular in nature. Those people who do not believe Jesus is claiming to be God have other interpretations of the same passages. The wording is vague enough neither side can disprove the other. You are assuming , without reason, that claiming to be a greater prophet than Abraham is ok. There are bible passages that say to kill false prophets,.. and claiming to be greater than Abraham is certainly a reason to consider someone a false prophet. (See Deut 13:5)

It all boils down to 'what are your assumptions'. The Gospel of John is written with enough vagueness it all depends on what you believe before hand. An interesting exercise is taking the concept of LOGOS from the writings of Philo of Alexander, and then reading the Gospel of John through the lens of the philosophy of Philo of Alexander... and looking out for key phrases and concepts from Philo. It reads quite differently, if you look at it from that perspective, and to me, it looks like that the writer of the Gospel of John was influenced to a large extent by Philo.

I can see, if you assume the trinity, and Jesus being God that the GOJ supports that. I can also see that if you assume that the concept of the Trinity is wrong, and Jesus is not God, that the GOJ can be used to support that, particularly if you read and understand the concept of LOGOS as Philo of Alexander used it. Since I come from a Jewish background, the ideas of Philo , while a bit strange, makes more sense in the context of the writing of the GOJ than trying to use it to support the Trinity.

The point I am making is that quite often, how a text gets interpreted is based on what your primary assumptions are.. and if people have different axioms, they will interpret the texts in an entirely different manner.
 
RAMOSS said:
That is your interpretation, and that is the people who believe the Jesus was claiming to be God's interpretation. However, it is not clear cut, because those people who do NOT believe in the trinity have a totally different explanation. It can be interpreted in other ways , very logically at that. Like I said before, to assume that any passage in the Gospel of John is claiming Jesus is God, you have to assume that the trinity is what is being claimed. That makes the reasoning circular in nature. Those people who do not believe Jesus is claiming to be God have other interpretations of the same passages. The wording is vague enough neither side can disprove the other. You are assuming , without reason, that claiming to be a greater prophet than Abraham is ok. There are bible passages that say to kill false prophets,.. and claiming to be greater than Abraham is certainly a reason to consider someone a false prophet. (See Deut 13:5)

It all boils down to 'what are your assumptions'. The Gospel of John is written with enough vagueness it all depends on what you believe before hand. An interesting exercise is taking the concept of LOGOS from the writings of Philo of Alexander, and then reading the Gospel of John through the lens of the philosophy of Philo of Alexander... and looking out for key phrases and concepts from Philo. It reads quite differently, if you look at it from that perspective, and to me, it looks like that the writer of the Gospel of John was influenced to a large extent by Philo.

I can see, if you assume the trinity, and Jesus being God that the GOJ supports that. I can also see that if you assume that the concept of the Trinity is wrong, and Jesus is not God, that the GOJ can be used to support that, particularly if you read and understand the concept of LOGOS as Philo of Alexander used it. Since I come from a Jewish background, the ideas of Philo , while a bit strange, makes more sense in the context of the writing of the GOJ than trying to use it to support the Trinity.

The point I am making is that quite often, how a text gets interpreted is based on what your primary assumptions are.. and if people have different axioms, they will interpret the texts in an entirely different manner.
Click to expand...

The LDS believe the word used many times for God in the Torah is the name for the Son of God. Jesus was telling the religious leaders in those verses that He is this Son of God. As far as the trinity, the LDS believe there is a head God who is the Father of all our spirits, a completely separate being than the Son. But they are one God in the sense the Son does only what the Father's will is. They are one in purpose. Jesus is the mediator for mankind to the Father. Before He was born on the earth He existed as a spirit Son of God, just as we all were spirit sons or daughters of God, and He was the God of the Torah under the guidance of the Father. I realize people have their own interpretations but that is the LDS perspective. And see ludin we kind of agree, you're brilliant.
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
Again you don't understand context of passages. I am beginning to think you have a very limited knowledge of the actual bible.
That is when Christ said I Am the jewish people knew exactly what he was talking about because several times they went to stone him for blasphemy.
So I find it interesting that they knew what it means but you don't..
Click to expand...



This is so much mindless tripe ... The Jewish people did not believe Jesus was God and nor did they believe he said this and this was not was this why he was crucified. You are just making things up as you go and have no clue about what the Bible means. You really need to stop gulping down man made fundamentalist dogma and try to think for yourself for a change.


He never stopped anyone from worshipping Him.
Click to expand...

Jesus never said he was the tooth fairy either but that does not mean he was the tooth fairy. What irrational fallacious nonsense.

Jesus did not allow people to call him good never mind worship him as God.

Mark 10 17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

You forget Christ duel natured. He is the Son of God and the Son of Man. While on the cross Christ took the sin of the world on himself. God cannot associate with sin.
Click to expand...

What a pathetic joke of a response. The Son of God is not the God of Abraham and neither is the son of Man. See above (No one is good except God alone) Jesus is claiming he is not God and he does this numerous times.

Read anything on the council of Nicea.
Click to expand...

What does the council of Nicea have to do with the first century Church ? Are you completely lost ? The Council of Nicea was in the 4th century - 300 years after the first century.

You are clueless beyond clueless and you have the nerve to say that I have limited knowledge of the Bible.

Are you a member of a cult ? .. something is seriously out of whack.
 
thinkagain said:
This is so much mindless tripe ... The Jewish people did not believe Jesus was God and nor did they believe he said this and this was not was this why he was crucified. You are just making things up as you go and have no clue about what the Bible means. You really need to stop gulping down man made fundamentalist dogma and try to think for yourself for a change.
Click to expand...
whe
You evidently cannot read bible verses.
Christ said and I quote before Abraham was born I AM. he was specifically referring back to when God told Moses when he asked "who shall I say sent me?" God replied "tell them I Am sent you".
It was a direct link back to that.

That is why they went to stone him. Again you should probably study the bible a bit more you seem to not understand things.


Jesus never said he was the tooth fairy either but that does not mean he was the tooth fairy. What irrational fallacious nonsense.
Jesus did not allow people to call him good never mind worship him as God.
Mark 10 17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.
Click to expand...

Matthew 2:11
Matthew 21:9
Matthew 14:33
Matthew 21:1
Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10
John 20:28

all verses contain where people worshipped Jesus Christ and he did not stop them.
Unlike other angels or messengers in the bible that did stop people.

What a pathetic joke of a response. The Son of God is not the God of Abraham and neither is the son of Man. See above (No one is good except God alone) Jesus is claiming he is not God and he does this numerous times.
Click to expand...

Actually he is. In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.
Jesus prays that God makes him and the Disciples 1 as He and the Father are One.

Hebrews 1:8-9
But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

Several Verses in Revelation also has Christ saying that He is the alpha and Omega the beginning and the end.

John 14:9-11.

There are many more verses that give similar discriptions even in the old testament.

Isaiah 43:10-11
I could go on but then again you won't have a valid response just more insults that you can't support.

What does the council of Nicea have to do with the first century Church ? Are you completely lost ? The Council of Nicea was in the 4th century - 300 years after the first century.
Click to expand...

I posted you a direct link regarding the council of Nicea. It was the council that handled this very question. I even posted
the catholic information that upholds that Jesus and God are the same and one God along with the Holy Spirit.

You are clueless beyond clueless and you have the nerve to say that I have limited knowledge of the Bible.
Click to expand...

Then how come I have sources that support what I say and you have nothing but insults and provide nothing?
you also have avoided my questions.

If you do not believe that Jesus is God then you who was he?

it seems to me that you are polytheistic if you think that Jesus was anything other than God himself made flesh.

Are you a member of a cult ? .. something is seriously out of whack.
Click to expand...

Considering that you have yet to refute anything that I have said to be true then it would appear that you bring a different message.

YOu seem to not believe that Christ is God which is one of the main tenant of Christian Faith.
Everyone form the disciples believe that Jesus was God.

So you seem to carry the same view as the Arians did. which was deemed heretical. They have no become the modern day JW.
 
RAMOSS said:
That is your interpretation, and that is the people who believe the Jesus was claiming to be God's interpretation. However, it is not clear cut, because those people who do NOT believe in the trinity have a totally different explanation. It can be interpreted in other ways , very logically at that. Like I said before, to assume that any passage in the Gospel of John is claiming Jesus is God, you have to assume that the trinity is what is being claimed. That makes the reasoning circular in nature. Those people who do not believe Jesus is claiming to be God have other interpretations of the same passages. The wording is vague enough neither side can disprove the other. You are assuming , without reason, that claiming to be a greater prophet than Abraham is ok. There are bible passages that say to kill false prophets,.. and claiming to be greater than Abraham is certainly a reason to consider someone a false prophet. (See Deut 13:5)
Click to expand...

There is no assumption.

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”[d] 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple

There are a couple of groups that claim Jesus was not God, but they are not considered Christian religions either.
Jesus is the Great prophet.

There are 7 times in the gospels that Christ uses the phrase I am to declare who he was.

It all boils down to 'what are your assumptions'. The Gospel of John is written with enough vagueness it all depends on what you believe before hand. An interesting exercise is taking the concept of LOGOS from the writings of Philo of Alexander, and then reading the Gospel of John through the lens of the philosophy of Philo of Alexander... and looking out for key phrases and concepts from Philo. It reads quite differently, if you look at it from that perspective, and to me, it looks like that the writer of the Gospel of John was influenced to a large extent by Philo.
Click to expand...

YOu are assuming that it is vague. JOhn is very detailed and from the outset of the entire book he declares exactly who Christ is and was. There is 0 assumption and 0 ambiguity in the first like 25 verses of John.

I can see, if you assume the trinity, and Jesus being God that the GOJ supports that. I can also see that if you assume that the concept of the Trinity is wrong, and Jesus is not God, that the GOJ can be used to support that, particularly if you read and understand the concept of LOGOS as Philo of Alexander used it. Since I come from a Jewish background, the ideas of Philo , while a bit strange, makes more sense in the context of the writing of the GOJ than trying to use it to support the Trinity.
Click to expand...

There is no assumption the entire bible proves and shows that Jesus and Christ are one. Even verse from the Old testament go back and reference the coming of Christ and that He and God are one being.

The point I am making is that quite often, how a text gets interpreted is based on what your primary assumptions are.. and if people have different axioms, they will interpret the texts in an entirely different manner.
Click to expand...

If people want to make assumption they are free to do so that does not mean that their assumptions are correct more so when they ignore other evidences that support the facts that are being stated.
this is why context of scripture is more important than what a single verse says. The bible can be made to say anything if you ignore the context in which it was written.

the entire bible is in fact in context the logos of God. The gosphel is the Logos of Christ who was God and became flesh.
 
ludin said:
There is no assumption.

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”[d] 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple

There are a couple of groups that claim Jesus was not God, but they are not considered Christian religions either.
Jesus is the Great prophet.

There are 7 times in the gospels that Christ uses the phrase I am to declare who he was.



YOu are assuming that it is vague. JOhn is very detailed and from the outset of the entire book he declares exactly who Christ is and was. There is 0 assumption and 0 ambiguity in the first like 25 verses of John.



There is no assumption the entire bible proves and shows that Jesus and Christ are one. Even verse from the Old testament go back and reference the coming of Christ and that He and God are one being.



If people want to make assumption they are free to do so that does not mean that their assumptions are correct more so when they ignore other evidences that support the facts that are being stated.
this is why context of scripture is more important than what a single verse says. The bible can be made to say anything if you ignore thsay 'e context in which it was written.

the entire bible is in fact in context the logos of God. The gosphel is the Logos of Christ who was God and became flesh.
Click to expand...

YOu say 'there is no assumption', yet you give one interpretation of many. And, for that matter, the point of 'if you ignore the context' is exactly what can be said about the people who claim the trinity too. Your assumption is meaning of LOGOS. Sorry, but this seems to be a huge case of projection, where you are projecting what you are doing on others.

You too are doing the exact same thing you are accusing others of doing.
 
The following is from the New Testament student manual of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.


John 8:53–58. “Before Abraham Was, I Am”

When the Lord appeared to Moses in the burning bush, He used the name “I Am” to identify Himself as the God of Israel (see Exodus 3:13–14). When the Savior said to the Jews, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58), He was referring to Himself by this same title. By using this name, He declared to the Jews that He was Jehovah, the same Being who spoke to Moses from the burning bush and who has communed with prophets in all ages, including in our dispensation (see D&C 29:1; 38:1)

sacrifice-of-isaac-jerry-harston_1165004_inl.webp

Jesus told the Jews that Abraham had seen His day and been glad (see John 8:56). One occasion when this may have occurred is when Abraham saw Jesus Christ on a mountain before He was born (see Genesis 22:14). Christ was crucified on the mount of Golgotha, making Himself an offering in place of all of us, just as a ram was offered in place of Isaac (see Genesis 22:13).

John recorded a number of occasions when Jesus declared, “I am …” The following chart provides some of the Savior’s significant “I am” statements found in the Gospel of John:6:35, 48, 51, 8:12; 9:5, 8:58,10:11, 14,10:36,11:25,14:6,15:1, 5.

John 8:59. They Sought to Stone Him

The Jews Jesus spoke to obviously understood what He was saying—that He was God—for they sought to stone him. They believed that His claims were blasphemous, and this was the prescribed penalty for blasphemy according to the Mosaic law (see Leviticus 24:16).

https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-student-manual/introduction-to-the-gospel-according-to-st-john/chapter-24-john-8-10?lang=eng
 
laska said:
The following is from the New Testament student manual of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.


John 8:53–58. “Before Abraham Was, I Am”

When the Lord appeared to Moses in the burning bush, He used the name “I Am” to identify Himself as the God of Israel (see Exodus 3:13–14). When the Savior said to the Jews, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58), He was referring to Himself by this same title. By using this name, He declared to the Jews that He was Jehovah, the same Being who spoke to Moses from the burning bush and who has communed with prophets in all ages, including in our dispensation (see D&C 29:1; 38:1)

View attachment 67209532

Jesus told the Jews that Abraham had seen His day and been glad (see John 8:56). One occasion when this may have occurred is when Abraham saw Jesus Christ on a mountain before He was born (see Genesis 22:14). Christ was crucified on the mount of Golgotha, making Himself an offering in place of all of us, just as a ram was offered in place of Isaac (see Genesis 22:13).

John recorded a number of occasions when Jesus declared, “I am …” The following chart provides some of the Savior’s significant “I am” statements found in the Gospel of John:6:35, 48, 51, 8:12; 9:5, 8:58,10:11, 14,10:36,11:25,14:6,15:1, 5.

John 8:59. They Sought to Stone Him

The Jews Jesus spoke to obviously understood what He was saying—that He was God—for they sought to stone him. They believed that His claims were blasphemous, and this was the prescribed penalty for blasphemy according to the Mosaic law (see Leviticus 24:16).

https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-student-manual/introduction-to-the-gospel-according-to-st-john/chapter-24-john-8-10?lang=eng
Click to expand...

Now, this is exactly the issue I am talking about. It is totally misinterpreting the whole business of Exodus, and using a bad translation to boot. The story in Genesis that is quoted as 'I AM' is actually a pun which does not translate out of the original Hebrew. The original hebrew is ehyeh ašer ehyeh...which is an approximation of how the tetragammon would have been pronounced. Remember, it was custom that pronouncing the name of God was forbidden, so this was a pun to 'get around it' so to speak. A better translation would be 'I will be what I will be'... and it basically is a way of telling Moses to 'Mind you own business, stop asking questions and obey'. THat is because the word Eyheh is in first person sigular imperfect tense.

The text has nothing to do with Jesus, unless you try to impose it later on, and put meaning into the text that is not there. What can be noted is that the writer of the Gospel of John didn't really know Hebrew, because of the way the phrase is misused.

You are also reading the GOJ in English, and looking at a Greek Lexicon and the various phrases would also give indications that what you are claiming is incorrect .
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
Now, this is exactly the issue I am talking about. It is totally misinterpreting the whole business of Exodus, and using a bad translation to boot. The story in Genesis that is quoted as 'I AM' is actually a pun which does not translate out of the original Hebrew. The original hebrew is ehyeh ašer ehyeh...which is an approximation of how the tetragammon would have been pronounced. Remember, it was custom that pronouncing the name of God was forbidden, so this was a pun to 'get around it' so to speak. A better translation would be 'I will be what I will be'... and it basically is a way of telling Moses to 'Mind you own business, stop asking questions and obey'. THat is because the word Eyheh is in first person sigular imperfect tense.

The text has nothing to do with Jesus, unless you try to impose it later on, and put meaning into the text that is not there. What can be noted is that the writer of the Gospel of John didn't really know Hebrew, because of the way the phrase is misused.
Click to expand...

This comes from a Jewish site Judaism 101:
"The most important of God's Names is the four-letter Name represented by the Hebrew letters Yod-Hei-Vav-Hei (YHVH). It is often referred to as the Ineffable Name, the Unutterable Name or the Distinctive Name. Linguistically, it is related to the Hebrew root Hei-Yod-Hei (to be), and reflects the fact that God's existence is eternal. In scripture, this Name is used when discussing God's relation with human beings, and when emphasizing his qualities of loving kindness and mercy."

The author above uses "to be" in the context with a name for God that reflects God's existence as eternal.
 
RAMOSS said:
YOu say 'there is no assumption', yet you give one interpretation of many. And, for that matter, the point of 'if you ignore the context' is exactly what can be said about the people who claim the trinity too. Your assumption is meaning of LOGOS. Sorry, but this seems to be a huge case of projection, where you are projecting what you are doing on others.

You too are doing the exact same thing you are accusing others of doing.
Click to expand...

there isn't an assumption. They went to stone him for blasphemy. it is pretty plain and simple given the context.

There is no assumption in the meaning of logos because JOhn went on further to not only describe what the LOGOS was but what He did.
The and Word became flesh and dealt among men.

actually no I am not. The scripture is clear and precise. there is no ambiguity about it. there is little room for assumption.
the only people that are assuming are people that wish to distort and take away from the Gospel.
 
RAMOSS said:
Now, this is exactly the issue I am talking about. It is totally misinterpreting the whole business of Exodus, and using a bad translation to boot. The story in Genesis that is quoted as 'I AM' is actually a pun which does not translate out of the original Hebrew. The original hebrew is ehyeh ašer ehyeh...which is an approximation of how the tetragammon would have been pronounced. Remember, it was custom that pronouncing the name of God was forbidden, so this was a pun to 'get around it' so to speak. A better translation would be 'I will be what I will be'... and it basically is a way of telling Moses to 'Mind you own business, stop asking questions and obey'. THat is because the word Eyheh is in first person sigular imperfect tense.

The text has nothing to do with Jesus, unless you try to impose it later on, and put meaning into the text that is not there. What can be noted is that the writer of the Gospel of John didn't really know Hebrew, because of the way the phrase is misused.

You are also reading the GOJ in English, and looking at a Greek Lexicon and the various phrases would also give indications that what you are claiming is incorrect .
Click to expand...

In the passage in exodus moses asks God who shall I say sent me.
God replies I am who I am.

tell them that I AM sent you.

Christ refers back to that reference in the scripture above which is why they went to stone him for blasphemy.
He was associating himself with God or in fact saying that he was God.

It was crystal clear that they understood what he was referring to it had nothing to do with Abraham.
 
laska said:
This comes from a Jewish site Judaism 101:
"The most important of God's Names is the four-letter Name represented by the Hebrew letters Yod-Hei-Vav-Hei (YHVH). It is often referred to as the Ineffable Name, the Unutterable Name or the Distinctive Name. Linguistically, it is related to the Hebrew root Hei-Yod-Hei (to be), and reflects the fact that God's existence is eternal. In scripture, this Name is used when discussing God's relation with human beings, and when emphasizing his qualities of loving kindness and mercy."

The author above uses "to be" in the context with a name for God that reflects God's existence as eternal.
Click to expand...

Yes, he was referring to the pun there. That does not refute, and actually reinforces my point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom