Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

John 8:58 - Revisited


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#61 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Upsilon

  • Forum Manager
  • 4,619 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 01:09 PM

Hello Matt,

You are being pendantic.....there are literally thousands of occasions where "I am" is used in the OT and the NT but none are structured like the ones in the Fourth Gospel. I quote from one of my previous posts:

[these are] absolute ‘I AM’ statement without the predicate. The absolute form, Egō eimi, does not occur in classical Greek literature and with the exception of the Greek Old Testament it is difficult to identify any use of the absolute form before it appeared in the New Testament writings.



This is not just my "opinion" but the evaluation of linguists and theologians of all denominations.


So, you can quote me every single occasion where "I am" is employed in ordinary dialogue but it will not substantiate what you are saying because the Fourth Gospel employs it a syntaticaly unusual and unique manner.

Besides which please explain Paul's use of "I AM THAT I AM" in the context of bearing the name



I thought we believed in God manifestation?


Maybe I am wrong


Oh, I believe in God Manifestation, but I also believe you are way overboard on your theory.

The "I am" statement by Jesus has nothing to do with the phrase in Exodus 3:14, but rather refers to his claim to be Messiah (the one prophesied since Genesis 3, long before Abraham).
Matt Smith
Arizona Christadelphians

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

#62 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Upsilon

  • Forum Manager
  • 4,619 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 01:11 PM

I think it's important to realise that most of the time when Jesus said something, he simply meant what he said and no more. Not all of his words have some deep and mysterious meaning that needs to be deciphered and decoded through "Bible code" type wordplay.


It is called interpretation and intertextuality.........just because you don't understand something does not mean that it is not present........the whole of John chapter 8 has Abraham as background context........

It is not "Bible Code" to suggest that Jesus is refering to Gen 22:14 when ABRAHAM named the place "Yah will be seen" and Jesus says says "Abraham saw my day"


Nope, it's called grasping at straws to support a pet theory.
Matt Smith
Arizona Christadelphians

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

#63 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 03:56 PM

Biblaridion (Paul),

This is supposed to be a discussion forum, and I hope we can all discuss reasonably, in the spirit of seeking truth. But in my understanding, "discussion" involves actually engaging with the things that others say, not just asserting one's own view and ignoring (or merely decrying) any opposing views.

So please will you actually address the specific and detailed objections raised against your argument? I don't see you actually doing that, despite several questions being asked of you. Absent your doing that, you are the one failing to work in the desired mode of this forum. Merely making assertions (including that your view constitutes good Bible exposition, and other's views do not) and complaining that other people do not simply accept your view without question, is not an acceptable way to behave. In this era, we are none of us inspired or perfect in understanding; we can all get things wrong. Therefore, we ought all to be willing to read carefully what others say, and provide a reasoned answer; we each also need to be willing to accept that we are wrong, and change our position, when argument based on Biblical evidence shows that we are wrong.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 20 July 2012 - 04:00 PM.


#64 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:03 PM

Paul,

I disagree with the following, and I will show why.

[4] Eve thought she had given birth to the Messiah: Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from (or, with) the LORD.”” (Gen.4:1NKJ). The transliterated Hebrew reads as follows (names in bold): ve.ha.a.dam ya.da et-kha.va ish.to va.ta.har va.te.led et-ka.yin va.to.mer ka.ni.ti ish et-YHWH ( הוהי-תא) The Hebrew kanitish (gotten or acquired) is a play on kayin (Cain) –the Canaanites were merchants and smiths. Note that the ‘et’ (תא) that proceeds each name is not translated with the exception of the last name where the participle is erroneously translated as ‘from’ or ‘with’ [the help of], however, it is a demonstrative pronoun similar to the Greek autos (self, this same) –according to Gesenius this primitive word lost its demonstrative power when set before nouns and pronouns that are already definite and thus became superfluous. It is the context which determines how the prefix is translated the phrase [with]….the help of is a translators guess. A more suitable translation would be: And the man knew (even or the same) Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore (even or the same) Cain, and said: ‘I have gotten a man (even or the same) YHWH.’ Eve had been promised that she would give birth to the Messiah (Gen.3:16) and therefore it was only natural that she would see her first child as a manifestation of the promised Yahweh. The Hebrew ‘et’ (תא) represents the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet (the Alpha and Omega of the Greek alphabet).


I recognise this idea: Harry Whittaker made the same claim, and perhaps you've picked it up from him. But the problem is that he failed to mention a critical fact: if Eve meant that the man she had gotten was (in some sense) Yahweh - "I have gotten a man (that is), Yahweh", she would not have said what she said, but something different. Picking up from your transliteration of the Hebrew of what Eve said in Gen 4:1:

ka.ni.ti ish et-YHWH


for Eve to mean that the man she had gotten and Yahweh were one and the same, she should have said:

ka.ni.ti et-ish et-YHWH


that is, she should also have prefixed the word 'ish' ("man") with 'et', as she did for the name Yahweh.

For proof of this, we only need to look to the very next verse, Gen 4:2, where we are told that she went on to bare "his brother, Abel". Now this statement of the narrative, just as in verse one, uses the 'et' object marker before "Abel", as in v1 it was used before "Cain". But it does so, not only there but also before the word for "his brother". It is this dual application that shows that "his brother" and "Abel" are one and the same, and if Eve had said 'et-ish et-yhwh' then what you claim about her statement in verse 1 would be true. But she didn't, and it isn't.

Some further examples where two or more apparently distinct objects of a verb are both/all prefixed by the 'et' object marker to show that they are one and the same include:

Ge 22:2 (AV) And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest ...


where the Hebrew terms for "thy son", "thine only son" and "Isaac" all have the object marker to show they are all the one thing that Abraham is to take. The same occurs in verse 12, for the first two of those phrases.

Ge 50:2 (AV) And Joseph commanded his servants the physicians to embalm his father:


where "his servants" and "the physicians" are both marked by 'et' to indicate a single group of people that fits both descriptions.

De 26:15 (AV) Look down from thy holy habitation, from heaven, and bless thy people Israel,


where "thy people" and "Israel" both have the object marker because Israel is God's people - the two terms refer to the same thing.

(In fact it's not only repetition of the 'et' object marker prefix that shows two adjacent noun-terms to be parallel ways of speaking about the same thing: there are plenty of examples of this where a preposition is repeated in the same way. I can easily supply examples on request.)

The fact that Eve does not use the prefix 'et' before the word "man" ('ish'), yet it does come before "Yahweh", completely breaks this pattern, and requires that we see 'et' here as serving a different purpose. Eve is not saying she has gotten a man that is Yahweh. She is saying that she has gotten a man "with" or "by" Yahweh, a saying which does not equate Yahweh with Cain or consider Yahweh the father of Cain, but rather refers back to God's words to Eve (in context speaking also of her desire towards her husband) that he, Yahweh, would multiply her conception and she would bring forth children (Gen 3:16), the very thing that had just happened, for the first time ever.

Finally, to show that 'et-Yahweh', as it comes in Gen 4:1, does not require the 'et' to mean Eve thought she had given birth to Yahweh, or that the word 'et' is serving as an object marker at all, but can indeed perform a different purpose, consider these passages:

1Sa 25:29 (AV) Yet a man is risen to pursue thee, and to seek thy soul: but the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life with the LORD thy God; and the souls of thine enemies, them shall he sling out, as out of the middle of a sling.

Isa 49:4 (AV) Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God.


In both instances of 'with the LORD", the Hebrew is 'et-yhwh' - the 'et' is translated as "with" (as it is in plenty of other places, but these cases use it with Yahweh, hence the particular relevance). Quite clearly it does not serve as an object marker in either case. Additionally the phrase "with my God" at the end of the second example again has 'et' translated as - and clearly having the sense of - "with" .

Edited by Mark Taunton, 22 July 2012 - 12:29 AM.


#65 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:25 PM

Paul,

Hello Mark,

I am also rather busy so this will be my last post for now

Originally Aleph was placed at the end of words (See the Isaiah scroll for examples of this). Aleph was also added very regularly to conjunctions and prepositions and other negative particles for euphonic and not grammatical reasons. Diacritical marks were added many centuries later to aid pronunciation. The language has developed over time - Modern Hebrew (and we include the MT in this) is not the same as archaic Hebrew.

The longer form of Abraham is thought to be no more than a dialectical variant of the shorter form Abram, just as the only difference between Sarai and Sarah is that the former reflects an archaic feminine suffix, the latter, the normative feminine suffix, both versions carry the same meaning. However, many scholars fail to understand the significance of the name change (by one letter) lies in importance of r-h to the Abrahamic narrative.

Abram originated from a place (Ur) where the moon-god was worshipped, the Canaanites of Ugarit worshiped the moon as Prince Yarih (or Yerah). The Hebrews used a lunar calendar derived from Babylonian and Cananite models, the Hebrew word for month is yahreah. Franz Buhl and P. Lagarde suggest that the meaning of yareah is wanderer. Seventy-five percent of the roots with the elements ‘r’ and ‘h’ are related to movement of some sort. In this case the emphasis is on the moon moving through various phases.

The moon came to represent the idea of illuminating or showing as well as fertility (because of links with the menstrual cycle). Therefore Yahweh-Yireh is the one who will be seen and the addition of a ‘h’ to both Abram and Sarai’s names gives the desired ‘r-h’ combination. The ‘h’ is added to establish that Yahweh shows the future and no one else.

His name was changed from Abram to Abraham. It is hard to imagine how the addition of one letter can change the meaning of a name so radically. The name Abram is a cognate from Ab (father) and ram (high) and is usually understood as meaning “exalted father”, but might possibly be referring to a priestly function i.e. “father of a height.” Abram is informed that the reason for his name change to Abraham was because he would be the “father of many nations” (Gen.17: 4). The Hebrew for many (multitude) is hamon and therefore one would expect ab-hamon (father of multitudes). Abraham obviously plays on ab-hamon but also on ab-rah suggesting “father of multitudes (who shall be seen).”


Where do you get all these ideas from, please? As you clearly don't know Hebrew, you'll need to do more than just assert your own explanations about the spellings and meanings of Hebrew names. You'll need to provide some evidence for what you say, and it should come from actual scriptural usage, in the same way I provided scriptural examples to show why your view of what Eve said in Gen 4:1 is wrong.

But in any case, one of your central claims here is flat-out wrong. You say that the word for "month" is yareah. But it's not. The word for "month" or "moon" is not yareah but yareach - the last letter is a chet (the 8th letter of the Hebrew alphabet - see Psalm 119 headings). But the letter added to Abram to make "Abraham", and the end letter of "Sarah", is not chet, it's heh (the 5th Hebrew letter). So your explanation is entirely bogus.

Paul, please stop inventing this stuff - it's completely unjustified and unjustifiable. Let's all just stick to the details that scripture itself shows us!

Edited by Mark Taunton, 21 July 2012 - 10:02 PM.


#66 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 21 July 2012 - 11:37 PM

Paul, one last comment for now.

I do actually accept some of the points you make (and indeed I have indicated that on occasion in earlier posts). For example, I believe the events of Gen 22 are indeed pertinent to what Jesus said in John 8:56. And I certainly believe that Jesus came to fulfill his father's promise "I will be who I will be", and that this is "God-manifestation". Jesus confirmed his own central role in that promise, by declaring that he had manifested his father's name to his disciples (John 17:6).

But the problem comes with the other claims that you mix in to your overall presentation, such as that the Hebrew for 'seeing' is based on the Hebrew letters correspondg to 'r' and 'h', that the names 'Abraham' and 'Sarah' include some sense of seeing/showing/manifestation, or that 'ego eimi' is Jesus quoting Exo 3:14 from the LXX, and thus in the eyes of Jews committing a shocking blasphemy. For the reasons that both others and I have given, these claims are faulty (e.g. your errors over Hebrew spelling), and nor do they make sense. For example, if that last claim were true, why was this not raised directly at his trial?

Morever, that claim implies a further supposition, which you assert but (again) provide no scriptural evidence for. This is that Jesus and the Jews who heard him both used the LXX, and conducted their conversations in Greek, for them to recognise 'ego eimi' as an appropriation by Jesus of Yahweh's declaration to Moses, in order to consider it as blasphemous at all. But scripture never says they spoke Greek, far less actually identifying the Greek LXX wording we know from the 4th C AD and later as the same form of the scriptures that Jesus - or anyone - used at that earlier time. Yes, the NT itself is written in Greek, but it never once mentions the existence of a Greek translation of the OT, far less does it describe Jesus or anyone else using such a thing. I know that many scholars simply take this for granted, but we have no scriptural reason to do so.

Lastly, your assertion about Jesus' use of 'ego eimi', as being unique and distinct from its use by anyone else, is just not logically sustainable. If that short phrase actually differs in meaning simply because it's Jesus saying it, not someone else, then how can we know what anything he said really means? We are doomed never truly to understand him. But that is clearly the very opposite of God's purpose. God sent his own son, his word made flesh, to speak the words of truth that bring eternal life to all who hear, believe and obey him. He told the disciples who were with Jesus to "hear him". Yet on the basis of your claim, we could invent a completely different gospel, simply by assigning to any words spoken by Jesus a different meaning from their sense when used by other people in the scriptural record. This simply won't do! God is not the author of confusion, and we can understand the meaning of Jesus' words from the context of the rest of scripture, just as we can do for any other prophet of God who spoke the word of God, impelled directly by the holy spirit sent down from heaven.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 22 July 2012 - 12:23 AM.


#67 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 22 July 2012 - 11:26 AM

First Post: The comment on Gen 4:1 was based on a footnote from the Netbible not HAW but if he suggested the same thing then credit where credit is due.

I agree that I am not good at Hebrew, or at Greek for that matter, (or even English) but I know someone who is, namely the five volumes of the Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE) which brings together various Hebrew linguistic experts and says of the Hebrew Particle ’êt (vol.4, page 1033):

“The acc. Case is not regularly marked by form in the BH, unlike the genitive, which is denoted by a preposition or a nom. in the construct. However, the particle ’êt is often employed to mark the acc. But only to a limited extent, and is not translatable. It is only employed with noms. that are definite (having the article ha[# 2021] prefixed, rendered definite by the addition of the pronominal suf., or being a proper nom.). Even so, its use is further limited in that it is rarely employed in poetry. This fact is evident from an examination of the poetical passages embedded in the historical narratives (cf. the song of Moses, Exod 15:1-18; Deborah’s and Barak’s song, Judg 5:2-31; Hannah’s prayer, 1 Sam 2:1-10). Moreover, the presence of ’êt does not always mark the acc. As it also occurs with the nom. Examples of nom.use of ’êt include ’êt-habbarzel, “the axe head” in 2 Kgs 6:5; et-šime, “your name” in Gen 17:5 and ’et-benêkem, “your children,” Deut 11:2. It is possible that the function of ’êt is to draw attention to the word to which it is attached, rather than to act as a syntactical marker. The presence of ’êt - in Gen 4:1 is a crux. It can be taken as marking the object, so that Eve expresses a confidence that the child she has borne is indeed the Lord, so fulfilling the promise of Gen 3:15. However, most translations and exegetes assume that the word is a preposition connected with the Akk. preposition itti, meaning “from.” Hence, many Eng. Translations accept this derivation and paraphrase “from” to mean “with the help of.”

So the suggestion that ’êt refers to Yahweh is a distinct possibility, especially as most translations offer a paraphrased translation based on a supposed Akkadian derivation.

Second Post:

The Hebrew word for moon is transliterated as yerah or yārēah (NIDOTTE: 3732), it is true that the last Hebrew letter is the much harsher sounding chet but both letters are phonetically and orthographically similar (often confused by scribes). The word for moon is not related to Abraham but it is very similar to the Ugaritic moon-god Yarih (see the Ugaritic text CAT 1.24.25) comparable to the Hebrew Yireh (“it shall be seen”, Gen 22:14) suggesting a relationship with the Hebrew yerah or yārēah. When this is coupled with the patriarchal origins from Ur (where the moon was worshiped) and the remarkable occurrences of r-h combinations in the patriarchal names (and placed alongside the observation by Professor of Oriental Languages Franz Buhl that the meaning of seventy-five percent of the roots with the elements ‘r’ and ‘h’ are related to movement of some sort.ie., moon phases) then it is not outrageous to suggest that the frequency of r-h in the patriarchal narratives (especially the names) is in some way associated with the moon.



Third Post:

I did not suggest that Jesus and the Jews that heard him used the LXX. Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic not in Greek. What I said was that first century Jews, particularly the Jews of the Diaspora (to whom John wrote in Greek), were Greek speakers and read the Greek LXX. The “I AM” of the LXX was familiar to them.


John/Jesus’ use of “I AM” was syntactically distinctive and unusual. He did not say “I was before Abraham” but “before Abraham, I AM”. The only comparable syntax occurs in the response of the blind man and Jesus explains the healing of the blind man in terms of manifestation – “that the works of God should be manifested (phaneroo) in him”.

Whether or not the LXX of Exodus 3:14 parallels the Hebrew chiasm etc is irrelevant, the stubborn fact is that it was translated as “I AM” in the Greek LXX and the stubborn fact remains that the Greek speaking Diaspora Jews to who John wrote were aware of that.


Final Comment:

I do not expect anything I propose to be accepted uncritically and am quite prepared to review, retract or revise exposition or suggestions that require correction. However, my experience of the forum has been disappointing. When I suggested that the Harlot in the OT referred to the whole nation of Israel the counterpoint was argued ad infinitum despite the presentation of copious biblical evidence contra (see the article in the current issue of the eJournal). Similarly, when I pointed out that the fig tree in the Olivet Prophecy was Israel the same sort of reaction occurred, the same can be said about virtually any comment that I have made.

The responses have either misrepresented what I said, been tendentious, facile or deliberately obtuse (some may say intellectually dishonest). So, if you want to increase my “warn status” feel free but I suggest that the moderators should lift the tone of their own responses which are not conducive to exploring the Scriptures in a beneficial manner.

So no further comments from me…..maybe I will try again in the future and see if the mindset has changed, who knows?

#68 LioneDea

LioneDea

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 22 July 2012 - 01:28 PM



I didn't say he sinned. I said he was tempted to sin.



Lione D' ea: Therefore He was sin because he was tempted to sin, as thechristadelphians claims, are you confuse?


Being tempted to sin is not sin. Acting on the temptations is sin. Are you confused?


But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Lione D' ea: All men are tempted to sin according of this passage, How can you tell to me tempted to sin is not sin...are confused?

Disclaimer: We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)


#69 LioneDea

LioneDea

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 22 July 2012 - 02:00 PM


It doesn't make sense at face value - you have to take it metaphorically or translate it different.



Lione D' ea: Maybe for you it doesn't make sense but not in the Bible because if you value your salvation the need there is zealous in reading. Take for example if you are doubt in the passage of King James Version, there is other translation we can read aside of King James Version take a look in NIV 1984

I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I AM! (New Living Translation)
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (English Standard Version)

Lione D' ea: It is the same in referred, and if you have doubt the Bible which you are reading, you can go back in old manuscript of the Bible to assure but I guarantee to you as Jesus Christ said: Before Abraham was, He was existed. Read meticulously what Jesus Christ answered to the Jews in verse 56 He said:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Lione D' ea: See that Abraham glad because he saw the Christ therefore Christ is existed, that's why Jews reply to Him:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Lione D' ea: Therefore it is not talking about how Abraham was made.

I don't think you (like the Pharisees) understood what Jesus was talking about. Regardless, Jesus' response doesn't make grammatical sense based on any English I'm familiar with. Unless you understand Jesus to be speaking metaphorically (claiming to be eternally existing or claiming to be the messiah in God's plan), then this translation is not grammatically correct. If you think "I am" is the divine name, then what sense is it to say "before Abraham was made, Yahweh?"



Lione D' ea: You are totally incorrect there because the answer of Jesus Christ to the Jews is very clear and no metaphorically, I'll read the verse it stated:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ did not speak metaphorically and literally here because at this particular verse Jesus Christ speak spiritual side remember He said: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad., therefore Abraham see Jesus, that's why Jews are confused what He meant because they literal what Jesus said:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Lione D' ea: Did you see Jews take literal of what Jesus Christ said therefore Jesus Christ answered to them again:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Lione D' ea: Therefore according to Jesus Christ Himself, before Abraham was born nor saw Him, He was existed to precise He is God, so Jews took up stones to throw to Him because they don't acknowledge Him as God

Disclaimer: We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)


#70 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Upsilon

  • Forum Manager
  • 4,619 posts

Posted 22 July 2012 - 02:09 PM




I didn't say he sinned. I said he was tempted to sin.



Lione D' ea: Therefore He was sin because he was tempted to sin, as thechristadelphians claims, are you confuse?


Being tempted to sin is not sin. Acting on the temptations is sin. Are you confused?


But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Lione D' ea: All men are tempted to sin according of this passage, How can you tell to me tempted to sin is not sin...are confused?


Look at the passage. A person temped to sin by their own lusts (desires) and if they give into that lust it is sin. The ultimate reward for sin is death.

A person does not have to give into the specific temptation, but may fall to another the next day (or hour). Jesus was the exception.
Matt Smith
Arizona Christadelphians

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

#71 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Upsilon

  • Forum Manager
  • 4,619 posts

Posted 22 July 2012 - 02:14 PM



It doesn't make sense at face value - you have to take it metaphorically or translate it different.



Lione D' ea: Maybe for you it doesn't make sense but not in the Bible because if you value your salvation the need there is zealous in reading. Take for example if you are doubt in the passage of King James Version, there is other translation we can read aside of King James Version take a look in NIV 1984

I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I AM! (New Living Translation)
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (English Standard Version)

Lione D' ea: It is the same in referred, and if you have doubt the Bible which you are reading, you can go back in old manuscript of the Bible to assure but I guarantee to you as Jesus Christ said: Before Abraham was, He was existed. Read meticulously what Jesus Christ answered to the Jews in verse 56 He said:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Lione D' ea: See that Abraham glad because he saw the Christ therefore Christ is existed, that's why Jews reply to Him:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Lione D' ea: Therefore it is not talking about how Abraham was made.

I don't think you (like the Pharisees) understood what Jesus was talking about. Regardless, Jesus' response doesn't make grammatical sense based on any English I'm familiar with. Unless you understand Jesus to be speaking metaphorically (claiming to be eternally existing or claiming to be the messiah in God's plan), then this translation is not grammatically correct. If you think "I am" is the divine name, then what sense is it to say "before Abraham was made, Yahweh?"



Lione D' ea: You are totally incorrect there because the answer of Jesus Christ to the Jews is very clear and no metaphorically, I'll read the verse it stated:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.



What did Abraham see?

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ did not speak metaphorically and literally here because at this particular verse Jesus Christ speak spiritual side remember He said: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad., therefore Abraham see Jesus, that's why Jews are confused what He meant because they literal what Jesus said:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?



Yes, the Jews twisted his words just like you are doing. What did Abraham see?

Lione D' ea: Did you see Jews take literal of what Jesus Christ said therefore Jesus Christ answered to them again:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Lione D' ea: Therefore according to Jesus Christ Himself, before Abraham was born nor saw Him, He was existed to precise He is God, so Jews took up stones to throw to Him because they don't acknowledge Him as God


No. Look further in the context of the passage. Jesus is saying that he is the one preferred before Abraham, the one prophesied in Genesis 3:15, the Messiah. The Jews, like you, did not understand his saying and tried to kill him.
Matt Smith
Arizona Christadelphians

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

#72 LioneDea

LioneDea

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 22 July 2012 - 02:27 PM

Hello,

Small note on the................ "not yet 50 years old"

Jesus was about 30 not 50, so why would John record this? Obviously his enemies thought he looked older...........perhaps the stress had prematurely aged him..........but I believe that John is establishing a theological point.

Ealier (John chapter 2) , Jesus had talked about his body being the temple...........John records that the actual temple (at that point) had taken 46 years to build............now at the end of the ministry (some three-and-a-half-years later) Jesus seems to be 50 years old. Do you get it? He is the new temple about to replace the old one.

So many "Christians" do not understand how to read the 4G



Lione D' ea: because that is what Jews reply to Christ...Read:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Lione D' ea: The passage did not stated it was John it says Jews, the truth is when Jesus Christ answer them, they twist what Christ said, read meticulously what it says:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Lione D' ea: So how come you are telling John is establishing a theological point?

Disclaimer: We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)


#73 LioneDea

LioneDea

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 22 July 2012 - 02:34 PM





I didn't say he sinned. I said he was tempted to sin.



Lione D' ea: Therefore He was sin because he was tempted to sin, as thechristadelphians claims, are you confuse?


Being tempted to sin is not sin. Acting on the temptations is sin. Are you confused?


But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Lione D' ea: All men are tempted to sin according of this passage, How can you tell to me tempted to sin is not sin...are confused?


Look at the passage. A person temped to sin by their own lusts (desires) and if they give into that lust it is sin. The ultimate reward for sin is death.

A person does not have to give into the specific temptation, but may fall to another the next day (or hour). Jesus was the exception.



Lione D' ea: According to you tempted is to sin, so are you telling to me you withdraw your answer?

Disclaimer: We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)


#74 LioneDea

LioneDea

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 22 July 2012 - 02:42 PM




It doesn't make sense at face value - you have to take it metaphorically or translate it different.



Lione D' ea: Maybe for you it doesn't make sense but not in the Bible because if you value your salvation the need there is zealous in reading. Take for example if you are doubt in the passage of King James Version, there is other translation we can read aside of King James Version take a look in NIV 1984

I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I AM! (New Living Translation)
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (English Standard Version)

Lione D' ea: It is the same in referred, and if you have doubt the Bible which you are reading, you can go back in old manuscript of the Bible to assure but I guarantee to you as Jesus Christ said: Before Abraham was, He was existed. Read meticulously what Jesus Christ answered to the Jews in verse 56 He said:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Lione D' ea: See that Abraham glad because he saw the Christ therefore Christ is existed, that's why Jews reply to Him:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Lione D' ea: Therefore it is not talking about how Abraham was made.

I don't think you (like the Pharisees) understood what Jesus was talking about. Regardless, Jesus' response doesn't make grammatical sense based on any English I'm familiar with. Unless you understand Jesus to be speaking metaphorically (claiming to be eternally existing or claiming to be the messiah in God's plan), then this translation is not grammatically correct. If you think "I am" is the divine name, then what sense is it to say "before Abraham was made, Yahweh?"



Lione D' ea: You are totally incorrect there because the answer of Jesus Christ to the Jews is very clear and no metaphorically, I'll read the verse it stated:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.



What did Abraham see?

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ did not speak metaphorically and literally here because at this particular verse Jesus Christ speak spiritual side remember He said: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad., therefore Abraham see Jesus, that's why Jews are confused what He meant because they literal what Jesus said:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?



Yes, the Jews twisted his words just like you are doing. What did Abraham see?

Lione D' ea: Did you see Jews take literal of what Jesus Christ said therefore Jesus Christ answered to them again:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Lione D' ea: Therefore according to Jesus Christ Himself, before Abraham was born nor saw Him, He was existed to precise He is God, so Jews took up stones to throw to Him because they don't acknowledge Him as God


No. Look further in the context of the passage. Jesus is saying that he is the one preferred before Abraham, the one prophesied in Genesis 3:15, the Messiah. The Jews, like you, did not understand his saying and tried to kill him.


Lione D' ea: That is not what the verse stated, Ill read: :ok:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Lione D' ea: The passage did not telling us about preferred, hows that?

Disclaimer: We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)


#75 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Upsilon

  • Forum Manager
  • 4,619 posts

Posted 22 July 2012 - 02:57 PM






I didn't say he sinned. I said he was tempted to sin.



Lione D' ea: Therefore He was sin because he was tempted to sin, as thechristadelphians claims, are you confuse?


Being tempted to sin is not sin. Acting on the temptations is sin. Are you confused?


But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Lione D' ea: All men are tempted to sin according of this passage, How can you tell to me tempted to sin is not sin...are confused?


Look at the passage. A person temped to sin by their own lusts (desires) and if they give into that lust it is sin. The ultimate reward for sin is death.

A person does not have to give into the specific temptation, but may fall to another the next day (or hour). Jesus was the exception.



Lione D' ea: According to you tempted is to sin, so are you telling to me you withdraw your answer?


No according to the Bible, temptation leads to sin if not rejected.
Matt Smith
Arizona Christadelphians

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

#76 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Upsilon

  • Forum Manager
  • 4,619 posts

Posted 22 July 2012 - 02:58 PM





It doesn't make sense at face value - you have to take it metaphorically or translate it different.



Lione D' ea: Maybe for you it doesn't make sense but not in the Bible because if you value your salvation the need there is zealous in reading. Take for example if you are doubt in the passage of King James Version, there is other translation we can read aside of King James Version take a look in NIV 1984

I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I AM! (New Living Translation)
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (English Standard Version)

Lione D' ea: It is the same in referred, and if you have doubt the Bible which you are reading, you can go back in old manuscript of the Bible to assure but I guarantee to you as Jesus Christ said: Before Abraham was, He was existed. Read meticulously what Jesus Christ answered to the Jews in verse 56 He said:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Lione D' ea: See that Abraham glad because he saw the Christ therefore Christ is existed, that's why Jews reply to Him:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Lione D' ea: Therefore it is not talking about how Abraham was made.

I don't think you (like the Pharisees) understood what Jesus was talking about. Regardless, Jesus' response doesn't make grammatical sense based on any English I'm familiar with. Unless you understand Jesus to be speaking metaphorically (claiming to be eternally existing or claiming to be the messiah in God's plan), then this translation is not grammatically correct. If you think "I am" is the divine name, then what sense is it to say "before Abraham was made, Yahweh?"



Lione D' ea: You are totally incorrect there because the answer of Jesus Christ to the Jews is very clear and no metaphorically, I'll read the verse it stated:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.



What did Abraham see?

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ did not speak metaphorically and literally here because at this particular verse Jesus Christ speak spiritual side remember He said: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad., therefore Abraham see Jesus, that's why Jews are confused what He meant because they literal what Jesus said:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?



Yes, the Jews twisted his words just like you are doing. What did Abraham see?

Lione D' ea: Did you see Jews take literal of what Jesus Christ said therefore Jesus Christ answered to them again:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Lione D' ea: Therefore according to Jesus Christ Himself, before Abraham was born nor saw Him, He was existed to precise He is God, so Jews took up stones to throw to Him because they don't acknowledge Him as God


No. Look further in the context of the passage. Jesus is saying that he is the one preferred before Abraham, the one prophesied in Genesis 3:15, the Messiah. The Jews, like you, did not understand his saying and tried to kill him.


Lione D' ea: That is not what the verse stated, Ill read: :ok:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Lione D' ea: The passage did not telling us about preferred, hows that?


Context... Everything must be in context. If you take any verse in the Bible (or any other book for that matter) out of context you can make it say anything you want. Read the context.
Matt Smith
Arizona Christadelphians

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

#77 LioneDea

LioneDea

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:10 PM







I didn't say he sinned. I said he was tempted to sin.



Lione D' ea: Therefore He was sin because he was tempted to sin, as thechristadelphians claims, are you confuse?


Being tempted to sin is not sin. Acting on the temptations is sin. Are you confused?


But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Lione D' ea: All men are tempted to sin according of this passage, How can you tell to me tempted to sin is not sin...are confused?


Look at the passage. A person temped to sin by their own lusts (desires) and if they give into that lust it is sin. The ultimate reward for sin is death.

A person does not have to give into the specific temptation, but may fall to another the next day (or hour). Jesus was the exception.



Lione D' ea: According to you tempted is to sin, so are you telling to me you withdraw your answer?


No according to the Bible, temptation leads to sin if not rejected.



Lione D' ea: Number 14:20-22 Read:

And the LORD said, I have pardoned according to thy word:

21But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD.

22Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice;

Lione D' ea: If the temptation leads to sin if not reject therefore do you accept the God of the Bible was sin according in the passage above?

Disclaimer: We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)


#78 LioneDea

LioneDea

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:16 PM






It doesn't make sense at face value - you have to take it metaphorically or translate it different.



Lione D' ea: Maybe for you it doesn't make sense but not in the Bible because if you value your salvation the need there is zealous in reading. Take for example if you are doubt in the passage of King James Version, there is other translation we can read aside of King James Version take a look in NIV 1984

I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I AM! (New Living Translation)
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (English Standard Version)

Lione D' ea: It is the same in referred, and if you have doubt the Bible which you are reading, you can go back in old manuscript of the Bible to assure but I guarantee to you as Jesus Christ said: Before Abraham was, He was existed. Read meticulously what Jesus Christ answered to the Jews in verse 56 He said:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Lione D' ea: See that Abraham glad because he saw the Christ therefore Christ is existed, that's why Jews reply to Him:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Lione D' ea: Therefore it is not talking about how Abraham was made.

I don't think you (like the Pharisees) understood what Jesus was talking about. Regardless, Jesus' response doesn't make grammatical sense based on any English I'm familiar with. Unless you understand Jesus to be speaking metaphorically (claiming to be eternally existing or claiming to be the messiah in God's plan), then this translation is not grammatically correct. If you think "I am" is the divine name, then what sense is it to say "before Abraham was made, Yahweh?"



Lione D' ea: You are totally incorrect there because the answer of Jesus Christ to the Jews is very clear and no metaphorically, I'll read the verse it stated:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.



What did Abraham see?

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ did not speak metaphorically and literally here because at this particular verse Jesus Christ speak spiritual side remember He said: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad., therefore Abraham see Jesus, that's why Jews are confused what He meant because they literal what Jesus said:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?



Yes, the Jews twisted his words just like you are doing. What did Abraham see?

Lione D' ea: Did you see Jews take literal of what Jesus Christ said therefore Jesus Christ answered to them again:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Lione D' ea: Therefore according to Jesus Christ Himself, before Abraham was born nor saw Him, He was existed to precise He is God, so Jews took up stones to throw to Him because they don't acknowledge Him as God


No. Look further in the context of the passage. Jesus is saying that he is the one preferred before Abraham, the one prophesied in Genesis 3:15, the Messiah. The Jews, like you, did not understand his saying and tried to kill him.


Lione D' ea: That is not what the verse stated, Ill read: :ok:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Lione D' ea: The passage did not telling us about preferred, hows that?


Context... Everything must be in context. If you take any verse in the Bible (or any other book for that matter) out of context you can make it say anything you want. Read the context.



Lione D' ea: Then let us read again:

our father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

57Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Lione D' ea: The verse was talking about the existence of both subject, the question is when Jesus Christ say before Abraham was born did He really existed, let us read what Jesus Christ itself saying in verse 23 Read:

And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

Lione D' ea: Then where is Jesus Christ ORIGINATE from in verse 42 Read:

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ is came from God therefore He is God.

Disclaimer: We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)


#79 nsr

nsr

    Order of the Golden Pedant 2nd Class

  • Forum Manager
  • 6,370 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:23 PM








I didn't say he sinned. I said he was tempted to sin.



Lione D' ea: Therefore He was sin because he was tempted to sin, as thechristadelphians claims, are you confuse?


Being tempted to sin is not sin. Acting on the temptations is sin. Are you confused?


But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Lione D' ea: All men are tempted to sin according of this passage, How can you tell to me tempted to sin is not sin...are confused?


Look at the passage. A person temped to sin by their own lusts (desires) and if they give into that lust it is sin. The ultimate reward for sin is death.

A person does not have to give into the specific temptation, but may fall to another the next day (or hour). Jesus was the exception.



Lione D' ea: According to you tempted is to sin, so are you telling to me you withdraw your answer?


No according to the Bible, temptation leads to sin if not rejected.



Lione D' ea: Number 14:20-22 Read:

And the LORD said, I have pardoned according to thy word:

21But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD.

22Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice;

Lione D' ea: If the temptation leads to sin if not reject therefore do you accept the God of the Bible was sin according in the passage above?

Try reading it in a better translation.
"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect..." (Heb 12:22-23)

#80 nsr

nsr

    Order of the Golden Pedant 2nd Class

  • Forum Manager
  • 6,370 posts

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:25 PM

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ is came from God therefore He is God.

Is John the Baptist also God? He was sent from God.
"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect..." (Heb 12:22-23)

#81 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Upsilon

  • Forum Manager
  • 4,619 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 01:55 AM







It doesn't make sense at face value - you have to take it metaphorically or translate it different.



Lione D' ea: Maybe for you it doesn't make sense but not in the Bible because if you value your salvation the need there is zealous in reading. Take for example if you are doubt in the passage of King James Version, there is other translation we can read aside of King James Version take a look in NIV 1984

I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I AM! (New Living Translation)
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (English Standard Version)

Lione D' ea: It is the same in referred, and if you have doubt the Bible which you are reading, you can go back in old manuscript of the Bible to assure but I guarantee to you as Jesus Christ said: Before Abraham was, He was existed. Read meticulously what Jesus Christ answered to the Jews in verse 56 He said:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Lione D' ea: See that Abraham glad because he saw the Christ therefore Christ is existed, that's why Jews reply to Him:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Lione D' ea: Therefore it is not talking about how Abraham was made.

I don't think you (like the Pharisees) understood what Jesus was talking about. Regardless, Jesus' response doesn't make grammatical sense based on any English I'm familiar with. Unless you understand Jesus to be speaking metaphorically (claiming to be eternally existing or claiming to be the messiah in God's plan), then this translation is not grammatically correct. If you think "I am" is the divine name, then what sense is it to say "before Abraham was made, Yahweh?"



Lione D' ea: You are totally incorrect there because the answer of Jesus Christ to the Jews is very clear and no metaphorically, I'll read the verse it stated:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.



What did Abraham see?

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ did not speak metaphorically and literally here because at this particular verse Jesus Christ speak spiritual side remember He said: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad., therefore Abraham see Jesus, that's why Jews are confused what He meant because they literal what Jesus said:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?



Yes, the Jews twisted his words just like you are doing. What did Abraham see?

Lione D' ea: Did you see Jews take literal of what Jesus Christ said therefore Jesus Christ answered to them again:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Lione D' ea: Therefore according to Jesus Christ Himself, before Abraham was born nor saw Him, He was existed to precise He is God, so Jews took up stones to throw to Him because they don't acknowledge Him as God


No. Look further in the context of the passage. Jesus is saying that he is the one preferred before Abraham, the one prophesied in Genesis 3:15, the Messiah. The Jews, like you, did not understand his saying and tried to kill him.


Lione D' ea: That is not what the verse stated, Ill read: :ok:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Lione D' ea: The passage did not telling us about preferred, hows that?


Context... Everything must be in context. If you take any verse in the Bible (or any other book for that matter) out of context you can make it say anything you want. Read the context.



Lione D' ea: Then let us read again:

our father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.


That's right. Abraham say Jesus' day. Abraham did not see Jesus.

57Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?


Yes, the Jews twisted Jesus' words, just like you are doing. Jesus said "Abraham saw my day", he did not say "I saw Abraham".

58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.


What did Abraham see? Abraham saw Jesus' day (not Jesus) in prospect in the sacrifice of his own son. He realized at that point that "God will provide himself a lamb" and that the promised Messiah would be that sacrificial lamb at some point in the future, all according to God's plan. And Abraham rejoiced that there would be deliverance from the bondage of sin and death.

Lione D' ea: The verse was talking about the existence of both subject, the question is when Jesus Christ say before Abraham was born did He really existed, let us read what Jesus Christ itself saying in verse 23 Read:

And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.



This refers not to his origins but his mind set and words. Look at the context.

Lione D' ea: Then where is Jesus Christ ORIGINATE from in verse 42 Read:

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ is came from God therefore He is God.


By your logic, if being sent by God makes a person God then John the Baptist is also God (John 1:6). Unfortunately for you the one sent is subject to the sender, and therefore cannot be God.

This verse tells us of Jesus' origin, which perfectly matches what we read in Luke 1:26-38.
Matt Smith
Arizona Christadelphians

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

#82 LioneDea

LioneDea

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 02:02 PM








It doesn't make sense at face value - you have to take it metaphorically or translate it different.



Lione D' ea: Maybe for you it doesn't make sense but not in the Bible because if you value your salvation the need there is zealous in reading. Take for example if you are doubt in the passage of King James Version, there is other translation we can read aside of King James Version take a look in NIV 1984

I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I AM! (New Living Translation)
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (English Standard Version)

Lione D' ea: It is the same in referred, and if you have doubt the Bible which you are reading, you can go back in old manuscript of the Bible to assure but I guarantee to you as Jesus Christ said: Before Abraham was, He was existed. Read meticulously what Jesus Christ answered to the Jews in verse 56 He said:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Lione D' ea: See that Abraham glad because he saw the Christ therefore Christ is existed, that's why Jews reply to Him:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Lione D' ea: Therefore it is not talking about how Abraham was made.

I don't think you (like the Pharisees) understood what Jesus was talking about. Regardless, Jesus' response doesn't make grammatical sense based on any English I'm familiar with. Unless you understand Jesus to be speaking metaphorically (claiming to be eternally existing or claiming to be the messiah in God's plan), then this translation is not grammatically correct. If you think "I am" is the divine name, then what sense is it to say "before Abraham was made, Yahweh?"



Lione D' ea: You are totally incorrect there because the answer of Jesus Christ to the Jews is very clear and no metaphorically, I'll read the verse it stated:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.



What did Abraham see?

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ did not speak metaphorically and literally here because at this particular verse Jesus Christ speak spiritual side remember He said: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad., therefore Abraham see Jesus, that's why Jews are confused what He meant because they literal what Jesus said:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?



Yes, the Jews twisted his words just like you are doing. What did Abraham see?

Lione D' ea: Did you see Jews take literal of what Jesus Christ said therefore Jesus Christ answered to them again:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Lione D' ea: Therefore according to Jesus Christ Himself, before Abraham was born nor saw Him, He was existed to precise He is God, so Jews took up stones to throw to Him because they don't acknowledge Him as God


No. Look further in the context of the passage. Jesus is saying that he is the one preferred before Abraham, the one prophesied in Genesis 3:15, the Messiah. The Jews, like you, did not understand his saying and tried to kill him.


Lione D' ea: That is not what the verse stated, Ill read: :ok:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Lione D' ea: The passage did not telling us about preferred, hows that?


Context... Everything must be in context. If you take any verse in the Bible (or any other book for that matter) out of context you can make it say anything you want. Read the context.



Lione D' ea: Then let us read again:

our father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.


That's right. Abraham say Jesus' day. Abraham did not see Jesus.

57Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?


Yes, the Jews twisted Jesus' words, just like you are doing. Jesus said "Abraham saw my day", he did not say "I saw Abraham".

58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.


What did Abraham see? Abraham saw Jesus' day (not Jesus) in prospect in the sacrifice of his own son. He realized at that point that "God will provide himself a lamb" and that the promised Messiah would be that sacrificial lamb at some point in the future, all according to God's plan. And Abraham rejoiced that there would be deliverance from the bondage of sin and death.

Lione D' ea: The verse was talking about the existence of both subject, the question is when Jesus Christ say before Abraham was born did He really existed, let us read what Jesus Christ itself saying in verse 23 Read:

And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.



This refers not to his origins but his mind set and words. Look at the context.

Lione D' ea: Then where is Jesus Christ ORIGINATE from in verse 42 Read:

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ is came from God therefore He is God.


By your logic, if being sent by God makes a person God then John the Baptist is also God (John 1:6). Unfortunately for you the one sent is subject to the sender, and therefore cannot be God.

This verse tells us of Jesus' origin, which perfectly matches what we read in Luke 1:26-38.



Lione D' ea: 1.) Wrong again...Jesus Christ tells to the Jews that Abraham see His day. What is the Day which Abraham saw...in Psalms 118:20-24 Read:

This gate of the LORD, into which the righteous shall enter.
21I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation.

22The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.

23This is the LORD'S doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.

24This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.


Lione D' ea: Who is the Day that we will rejoice and be glad in it, in Hebrews 13:8 Read:

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ is the Day that Abraham see and rejoice it so how can you say he is not God that in eternal He was existed, that is why He said in John 8:58 He said:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,Before Abraham was, I am.

Lione D' ea: How can you say Abraham did not see Jesus Christ? , 2.) If speaking the Jews twisted the words of Christ is yes indeed, but doesn't mean Jesus did not stated in the passage He did not see Abraham you are incorrect there because I have bases to testify Jesus Christ appeared to Abraham when Abraham sacrifice his begotten son Isaac? 3.) Then who is the Day which Jesus Christ saying, let us read first John 8:56 stated:

our father Abraham rejoiced to see my day:

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ did not say the day but MY DAY, who is day...in Psalms 18:24 Read:

This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.

Lione D' ea: Who is the Day that Abraham see in Hebrews 13:18 Read:

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and the day and forever which Abraham see it...so how come He is not God? 4.) Let us read in John 10:30 stated:

I and my Father are one.

Lione D' ea: It came from God the Father and to His begotten Son who brought forth to Him that is why He said to them in John 8:42 Read:

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Lione D' ea: So how come he is not God that He is came from God which He was originate according to Him? 5.) What is sent ...John 3:34 Read:

For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.


Lione D' ea: The definition of sent is not Man but speaketh the words of God, concern of Luke 1:26-38 the flesh were talking about there is the son of man not the spirit of God that God beget it in John 1:18 Read:

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Lione D' ea: The spirit of Christ is the Son of God not the Flesh because it is beget by man, and what was happened in verse 14 Read:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Lione D' ea: The Son which is the Word was manifested in the flesh according in this verse therefore there is within Jesus Christ is not Man and what is that in Colossians 2:9 Read:

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Lione D' ea: The spirit of Jesus Christ is not the son of man it is the Son of God who manifested in the flesh that is why in I Timothy 3:15 stated:

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Lione D' ea: Who is God that manifested in the flesh in Philippians 2:5-8 Read:

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Lione D' ea: It is Jesus Christ who was manifested in the flesh mention in I Timothy 3:16 and not the Father because Father God never change even His shadow, the God who change in the Bible is the Christ Jesus remember Jesus Chris who being in the from of God was only likeness of men so how can you tell me He is not God?

Disclaimer: We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)


#83 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Upsilon

  • Forum Manager
  • 4,619 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 01:39 AM

I am growing tired of repeating myself and you twisting quotations. Does anyone else out there want to give this a shot?
Matt Smith
Arizona Christadelphians

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

#84 nsr

nsr

    Order of the Golden Pedant 2nd Class

  • Forum Manager
  • 6,370 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 08:13 AM

I am growing tired of repeating myself and you twisting quotations. Does anyone else out there want to give this a shot?

No. LioneDea, on the basis that you refused our offer to find someone with whom you could communicate in Filipino, your native language, and since you are either unable to communicate in English or else being deliberately obtuse, I am wondering whether it is a good idea to allow you to continue posting here.
"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect..." (Heb 12:22-23)

#85 LioneDea

LioneDea

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 29 July 2012 - 09:54 AM

I am growing tired of repeating myself and you twisting quotations. Does anyone else out there want to give this a shot?



Lione D' ea: I never used twisting words to anybody I only follow what the passages telling to me and explained it, you see I have evidence to show up in everybody that my statement is not on my own idea but only the Bible John 7:17-18 Read:

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
18He 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: If you are from God you must follow all the passages tells you: No reduction & No addition According in Jeremiah 26:2 Read:

Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD'S house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD'S house, allthe words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:

Lione D' ea: All(adj.) the words that God command must speak it diminish not His words nor add His words according of the Bible or else you found as liar Proverbs 30:6 Read:

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Lione D' ea: Christadelphians organisation are lessen, adding what the written said and some of there are not acknowledge the passage take for example the Christadelphians said "the Bible never teach Jesus Christ is God", but in the Bible itself teach that Jesus Christ is true God then how could you telling to us Bible did not teach Jesus Christ is God now who is the telling the truth...the Bible or you, as the passage said to the reader:

Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD'S house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD'S house, allthe words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word: (Jeremiah 26:2)

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:6)

Lione D' ea: Now who is found a liar...is it the Bible or You thechristadelphians organisation without shame and now your accusing me I twisting quotations...what is your evidence?


:One thing what I saw there: "You can't refute my bases"

Edited by LioneDea, 29 July 2012 - 09:57 AM.

Disclaimer: We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)


#86 LioneDea

LioneDea

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 29 July 2012 - 10:06 AM


I am growing tired of repeating myself and you twisting quotations. Does anyone else out there want to give this a shot?

No. LioneDea, on the basis that you refused our offer to find someone with whom you could communicate in Filipino, your native language, and since you are either unable to communicate in English or else being deliberately obtuse, I am wondering whether it is a good idea to allow you to continue posting here.



Lione D' ea: What kind of basis you are referred because there are so many the word "basis" we apply, I never refused any basis on yours, how about find someone Filipino there in yours to translate my language to you so that you may know that you don't understand "English Bible".

Disclaimer: We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)


#87 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Upsilon

  • Forum Manager
  • 4,619 posts

Posted 29 July 2012 - 01:35 PM

We understand the English Bible quite fine, thank you. It's your English we have a hard time with.
Matt Smith
Arizona Christadelphians

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

#88 nsr

nsr

    Order of the Golden Pedant 2nd Class

  • Forum Manager
  • 6,370 posts

Posted 29 July 2012 - 03:30 PM

I think LioneDea is still confused by Richie's "all your base are belong to us" comment a few weeks ago...
"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect..." (Heb 12:22-23)

#89 Librarian

Librarian

    Omega

  • Publications
  • 9,958 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 05:26 AM

LioneDea - there are some booklets in Tagalog (if that is your first language) which may assist you in our understanding of the Bible.

More booklets to be added, and some Headings, the booklets completed.

The Link is here:


Tagalog panitikan

One in particular:

ANG DIYOS AY ISA, HINDI TATLO




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users