John 8:58 and Trinitarians.

Der Alter · #21 28th August 2009, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by 2ducklow

you got it backwards it's what you say about anything that is irrelevant and usually ridiculous, like verbs have no subjects, is is an action verb, .

I was not the one who used the phrase, "I say. . ." as proof of something as you did.

are too. here is how is how it is recorded in another book.

Mark 14:61-62 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.

so you are irrelevant because you ignore mark 14.61.,62.

You did NOT quote this verse in the post I replied to. As I said about Luke 22:70, When Jesus said "You say that I am." they were not his own words.

mark 14.61.62. or are you gonna resort to your verbs have no subjects, or up is down, or left is right, or is is an action verb, become is an action verb defence?

If you think I said something wrong in that other thread then bring it back up and I will show all the fine folks how I backed up everything I said from online grammars.

why don't you tell our readers again how in a sentence verbs don't have subjects? i can't wait to see what similar ridiculous thing u come up with when you get cornered with this one. anytthing to prove trinity right? even if you have to say verbs have no subjects.

More of same ol,' lame ol' nonsense. As I said I backed up everything I said from online grammars. Guess you think because I got tired of you repeating this same nonsense over and over and over and left, you somehow proved your argument. Go revive the thread and I will show how I quoted grammars every time.

2ducklow · #22 28th August 2009, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by Der Alter

I was not the one who used the phrase, "I say. . ." as proof of something as you did.

I looked back at my rather lengthy explanation that you totally ignored and could fined no place where i said " i say".

Originally Posted by deralter

You did NOT quote this verse in the post I replied to. As I said about Luke 22:70, When Jesus said "You say that I am." they were not his own words.

yes and i noticed that, since i knew what it says in the book of Mark i assumed that the record in luke must be a colloquialism meaning the same thing as in mark,

Originally Posted by deralter

If you think I said something wrong in that other thread then bring it back up and I will show all the fine folks how I backed up everything I said from online grammars.

deralter everyone except you knows that in a sentence every verb must have a subject. you twisted grammar texts to come up with your ridiculous grammar that no one in the world believes except you. try telling one of your college professor buddies that verbs have no subjects, that is if you don't mind ruining your reputation before them.

Originally Posted by deralter

More of same ol,' lame ol' nonsense. As I said I backed up everything I said from online grammars. Guess you think because I got tired of you repeating this same nonsense over and over and over and left, you somehow proved your argument. Go revive the thread and I will show how I quoted grammars every time.

everybody in the world knows that in a sentence every verb must have a subject, except you.you're making yourself look foolish with this insistance that in a sentence verbs do not have subjects. even elementry grade school kids know that.

Der Alter · #23 28th August 2009, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by 2ducklow

I looked back at my rather lengthy explanation that you totally ignored and could fined no place where i said " i say".[ . . . ]

This is the post I responded to and quoted in my post.

Originally Posted by 2ducklow

I say that Jesus was put to death for claiming to be the christ and the son of god, and that in john 8.58 they attempted likewise to put him to death for claiming that he was the christ, "I am (He)" in BOTH CASES.[ . . . ]

Der Alter · #24 28th August 2009, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by 2ducklow

[ . . . ] deralter everyone except you knows that in a sentence every verb must have a subject. you twisted grammar texts to come up with your ridiculous grammar that no one in the world believes except you. try telling one of your college professor buddies that verbs have no subjects, that is if you don't mind ruining your reputation before them.

everybody in the world knows that in a sentence every verb must have a subject, except you.you're making yourself look foolish with this insistance that in a sentence verbs do not have subjects. even elementry grade school kids know that.

Not interested in, "I said. You said, Did too! Nuh Huh!" Find the thread you are talking about, post a reply, and bring it to the top, then I will discuss.

2ducklow · #25 28th August 2009, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by Der Alter

This is the post I responded to and quoted in my post.

ok and I offered proof. which you ignored. scripture says that Jesus was put to death for claiming to be the christ, the son of god, so what I said on the issue lines up with scripture as I proved and you ignored choosing rather to dismiss everything i said by attacking my opinino that lines up with scripture.

Der Alter · #26 28th August 2009, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by 2ducklow

ok and I overed proof. which you ignored.

I ignored nothing. I addressed your two proof texts and refuted your misrepresentation.

2ducklow · #27 28th August 2009, 11:48 PM

Originally Posted by Der Alter

I ignored nothing. I addressed your two proof texts and refuted your misrepresentation.

name it and claim it right?

Originally Posted by 2dlearlier

wrong mr. verbs have no subjects. it says for blasphemy AND blah blah blah, makest thouself god. the blasphemy was Jesus claiming to be christ. the false accusation of jesus making himself god was an add on by ignorant Jews. knowledgeable jews like those in the sanhedrin never accused Jesus of claiming to be god, theey accused him of claiming to be the christ.

John 10:24 The Jews therefore came round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou hold us in suspense? If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly.

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father's name, these bear witness of me.
[you ignored these two verses that prove that Jesus was put to death for claiming to be the Christ, the son of god]

Jesus already told them that he was the christ earlier indirectly but they wanted a plain straightforward declaration that he was the christ which he would not do directly but would indirectly as is hte case here in john 10.25, and earlier in john 8.58 when he said "before abraham was i am he." I am he the christ the one promised even before abraham is the meaning of john 8.58 if you would read john 8 you would see the whole discourse is about Jesus being the christ not about jesus being god. ex.[you ignored this bit a bout jesus saying he had already told them previously that he was the Christ, i.e. john 8,.58]

John 8:16 Yea and if I judge, my judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

I and the father that sent me, sent who? sent god himself? no sent the saviour , the christ, the messiah of course. that's what the whole book of john is about according to john's own words in john 2031.[you ignored this fact that john 28.31 states that the book of John was written to prove that Jesus is the Christ , the son of god. I can only presme t hat you believe if you ignore the evidence it isn’t there.]

are too. here is how is how it is recorded in another book.

Mark 14:61-62 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.

therefore the wording in luke prob. is a figure of speech meaningthe same thing as mark 14.61-62. or a bad translation, or an interpolation of scripture.

so you are irrelevant because you ignore mark 14.61.,62.[you ignored mark 14.61.62 where Jesus says I am” and means he is the Christ, the son of god. All you said was that I didn’t say it earlier. So you ignored the evidence again, and again and again anad again. Ad nausium]

2ducklow · #28 29th August 2009, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by Der Alter

Not interested in, "I said. You said, Did too! Nuh Huh!" Find the thread you are talking about, post a reply, and bring it to the top, then I will discuss.

Recognize a subject of a sentence when you see one.
In a sentence, every verb must have a subject.

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subject.htm

you quoted some source that says sentences have verbs subjectss and objects and twisted that to mean verbs don't have subjects all because of your poor greek grammar (deponent verbs) for john1.14. Otherwise you would agree with the rest of the world that in a sentence every verb must have a subject. that's where we ended the deponent verb for john 1.14 debate we had with your conclusion that verbs don't have subjects and mine, and the rest of the worlds conclusion that every verb must have a subject. you have to say verbs don't have subjects to hold on to your interpretation of john 1.14 which no one in the world has except you, which is why you are the only one in the world believing that verbs have no subjects.

ittarter · #29 29th August 2009, 11:33 AM

Hmm, this thread seems to be turning sour, but I'd like to make one comment.

I think that Marcusampe offers a good alternate interpretation -- namely, that Jesus in John 8:58 speaks of his foreordination.

I have considered that interpretation before, but I think that the entire gospel of John presents Jesus as God Incarnate. The Christological vision of the whole book should enlighten our interpretation of this specific passage. Take John 1:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

18No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

I realize that these translations (NASB) are open to debate, but I also think that we need to respect the general truth that the writer of the fourth gospel wishes to express -- namely, that in some important sense, Jesus IS the incarnate deity.

At the same time, it is clear that John's position is a bit more nuanced than that, and he's saying many, many more things about the nature and salvific function of Jesus, which we need to consider if we want to understand exactly why John describes him thus.

2ducklow · #30 29th August 2009, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by ittarter

Hmm, this thread seems to be turning sour, but I'd like to make one comment.

I think that Marcusampe offers a good alternate interpretation -- namely, that Jesus in John 8:58 speaks of his foreordination.

I have considered that interpretation before, but I think that the entire gospel of John presents Jesus as God Incarnate. The Christological vision of the whole book should enlighten our interpretation of this specific passage. Take John 1:

I realize that these translations (NASB) are open to debate, but I also think that we need to respect the general truth that the writer of the fourth gospel wishes to express -- namely, that in some important sense, Jesus IS the incarnate deity.

At the same time, it is clear that John's position is a bit more nuanced than that, and he's saying many, many more things about the nature and salvific function of Jesus, which we need to consider if we want to understand exactly why John describes him thus.

since John said in vs. 28.31 that he wrote the book of John to prove that Jesus is the christ the son of god, would it not be natural that he began the book of John to prove that Jesus is the christ , the son of god? I say yes. your christological interpretation of John 1 is totally dependant on you taking 'the word" to be some being, whereas my interpretation of John 1 takes 'the word" to mean what it does everywhere else in the bible, namely what God said either written or orally. so you have no scriptural precedence for the word being a being, except your intepretation.
It makes no sense to me that John would end his gospel with john 28.31 stating that he wrote the book to prove that Jesus is the christ , the son of god, and begin the book of john stating indirectly, vaguely, implyingly, that Jesus is god. In fact John does state at the b eginning of his book, in John 1 that Jesus is the only begotten son of god. so he begins his book stating that Jesus is the son of god and ends it with the statement that that is the whole reason for the book. to interpret john 1 to imply that Jesus is god, would mean that Jesus being god is such an unimportant ancilliary thing as to not even mention it as a reason for the book. That in my opiion cannot be.