John 8:58 and Trinitarians.

[Der Alte]

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]

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".

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,

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.

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 Alte]

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.

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 Alte]

[ . . . ] 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]

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 Alte]

ok and I overed proof. which you ignored.

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

 

[2ducklow]

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

name it and claim it right?

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]

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
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]

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]

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.

 

[2ducklow]

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

sour balls, good candy.

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.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Recognize a subject of a sentence when you see one.

In a sentence, every verb must have a subject.[/SIZE]

The Subject

[SIZE=-1]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.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]This is from an English grammar website right? Not relevant, I posted Greek grammars! Once again,[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]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.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]Find the post where I said whatever it is you are claiming I said, post a reply to that post. Don't quote me your posts. Not interested.

I'll check back in a day or two. If it is more of this same ol', lame ol', don't expect an answer.[/SIZE]

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]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.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]Where did John begin, "the book of John to prove that Jesus is the christ , the son of god?" In John 1:18 the oldest most reliable manuscripts read "the monogenes Theos ho wn, the one being in the bosom of the father."

There you go again with "I say. . . " and "my interpretation," as your evidence for your argument. Neither is relevant. The problem with what you "say" and your "interpretation" is it contradicts 2000 years +/- of church history and of course ALL the early church father.

Link to writings of the early church fathers (ECF).

Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians - [30-107 AD] - Disciple of John

But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word,

Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians [30-107 AD]

He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same for ever; for “of His kingdom there shall be no end,” says Daniel the prophet. …

Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians [30-107 AD] [30-107 AD]

And God the Word was truly born of the Virgin, having clothed Himself with a body of like passions with our own. . . .Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; . . .

Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians [30-107 AD]

If any one confesses these things, and that God the Word did dwell in a human body, being within it as the Word, . . .

Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrneans [30-107 AD]

our Lord Jesus Christ, that He was the Son of God, “the firstborn of every creature,” God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and was of the seed of David according to the flesh, . . .

Ignatius, Epistle to the Tarsians [30-107 AD]

. . .He who was born of a woman was the Son of God, and He that was crucified was “the first-born of every creature,” and God the Word, who also created all things.

How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not 210 rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Ignatius, Epistle to the Philippians [30-107 AD]

And again, “Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word. For “the only-begotten Son,” saith [the Scripture], “who is in the bosom of the Father.” …

... For “the Word became flesh.” For “Wisdom builded for herself a house.” And God the Word was born as man, with a body, of the Virgin, without any intercourse of man.

Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho - [110-165 AD]

God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos;

“And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, . . .

Irenaeus - Against Heresies Book 1 [120-202 AD] - Disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of John

. . . “In the beginning was the Word,” for He was in the Son; “and the Word was with God,” for He was the beginning; “and the Word was God,” of course, for that which is begotten of God is God. “The same was in the beginning with God” …

Irenaeus - Against Heresies - Book 2 [120-202 AD]

… and has in Himself nothing more ancient or late than another, and nothing at variance with another, but continues altogether equal, and similar, and homogeneous, … He is all intelligence, and all word, . . .He is intelligence, in that also He is word, and that this Nous is His Logos, . . . And in what respect will the Word of God — yea, rather God Himself, since He is the Word . . .

Chap 17 Father of all is not to be regarded as a kind of compound Being, who 762 can be separated from his Nous (mind), as I have already shown; but Nous is the Father, and the Father Nous… he who springs from Him as Logos, or rather that Nous himself, since he is Logos, must be perfect and impassible,… they are of the same substance with himself, should be perfect and impassible, …

Irenaeus - Against Heresies - Book 3 [120-202 AD]

For inasmuch as the Word of God was man from the root of Jesse, and son of Abraham, in this respect did the Spirit of God rest upon Him, and anoint Him to preach the Gospel to the lowly. But inasmuch as He was God, . . .

Irenaeus - Against Heresies - Book 4 [120-202 AD]

And through the Word Himself who had been made visible and palpable, was the Father shown forth, … all saw the Father in the Son: for the Father is the invisible of the Son, but the Son the visible of the Father. And for this reason all spake with Christ when He was present [upon earth], and they named Him God.

He, therefore, who was known, was not a different being from Him who declared “No man knoweth the Father,” but one and the same, the Father making all things subject to Him; while He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit, . . .

For the true God did confess the commandment of the law as the word of God, and called no one else God besides His own Father.

Theophilus To Autolycus - Book 2 - [115 -181 AD]

In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.

Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam.

The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, . . .

Clement of Alexandria - Exhortation To The Heathen - [153 - 217 AD]

Well, inasmuch as the Word was from the first, He was and is the divine source of all things; but inasmuch as He has now assumed the name Christ, consecrated of old, and worthy of power, . . . This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, God and man.

He, who is in Him that truly is, has appeared; for the Word, who “was with God,” and by whom all things were created, has appeared as our Teacher. The Word, who in the beginning bestowed on us life as Creator when He formed us, taught us to live well when He appeared as our Teacher; that as God He might afterwards conduct us to the life which never ends.

If it is thy wish, be thou also initiated; and thou shalt join the choir along with angels around the unbegotten and indestructible and the only true God, the Word of God, raising the hymn with us. This Jesus, who is eternal, the one great High Priest of the one God, and of His Father, prays for and exhorts men.

Clement of Alexandria - The Instructor [153 - 217 AD]

God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father’s will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father’s right hand, and with the form of God is God.

Address Of Tatian To The Greeks – [110-172 AD]

God was in the beginning; but the beginning, we have been taught, is the power of the Logos. . . .And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. Him (the Logos) we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by participation, not by abscission;

Chapter XXI.-Doctrines of the Christians and Greeks Respecting God Compared.

We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man.

A Plea For The Christians By Athenagoras The Athenian: [c.120- 180]

. . . But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. . . .Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?

…that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, the Father, and their distinction in unity; and who know 255 that the life for which we look is far better than can be described in words,

The Epistle Of Mathetes To Diognetus [c. 130 AD]

…but truly God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, [Him who is] the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word, and has firmly established Him in their hearts … but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things-by whom He made the heavens-by whom he enclosed the sea within its proper bounds-, . . This [messenger] He sent to them. Was it then, as one might conceive, for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror? By no means, but under the influence of clemency and meekness. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God....​

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.

What makes no sense to you is NOT relevant.

1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

1 Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;​

[SIZE=-1]
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.[/SIZE]

Where does "John begins his book stating that Jesus is the son of god?" See John 1:18. Your "opinion" is irrelevant.
[/SIZE]

 

[ittarter]

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.

As do I. However, unpacking what it means to say that Jesus is the SON of God might take a little more than that.

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.

You're serious? When it says, "The word became flesh," you don't think that's an oblique reference to Jesus, who plays the title role in the entire gospel? Precedence, of course, plays an interpretative role, but I think you have your work cut out for you if you want to make the case that "the Word" of John 1 is not in reference to a person.

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.

I never said, "Jesus is God." This is exactly the kind of simplistic terminology that leads to either-or thinking.

In fact John does state at the beginning 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.

Your thinking is, How can Jesus be God if he is God's son? My thinking is, Sonship implies derivation, which is clearly true if the incorporeal deity becomes corporeal deity and weds himself to humanity. You need to join the two concepts together if you want to make a christology that accurately represents the substance of the Johannine gospel.

Please, try and avoid putting words in my mouth, and actually listen to what I'm saying. If you pre-judge what I'm saying, there's no point for us to continue this discussion. You're beating up the proverbial straw man.

 

[2ducklow]

As do I. However, unpacking what it means to say that Jesus is the SON of God might take a little more than that.

not much more.

You're serious? When it says, "The word became flesh," you don't think that's an oblique reference to Jesus, who plays the title role in the entire gospel? Precedence, of course, plays an interpretative role, but I think you have your work cut out for you if you want to make the case that "the Word" of John 1 is not in reference to a person.

john 1.14 is highly figurative. Even for those who suppose that they take it literally.

(Rotherham) John 1:14 And, the Word, became, flesh, and pitched his tent among us, and we gazed upon his glory,--a glory, as an Only-begotten from his Father. Full of favour and truth.

It's not 'the word' it's all of God's words. the word is figurative for god's wordfs.
flesh is figurative for Jesus, Jesus is more than just his flesh, flesh is a metonymy for Jesus .
John 1.14 states specifically how the word became flesh, by the Father begatting Jesus, not by some person of god incarnating as flesh, as a fetus, or however trinitarians choose to view it. In fact t o say that god incarnated himself into flesh contradicts several scriputres that say god begat Jesus. begatting is something totaally different than incarnatinig.
Jesus is the word, but he is also called a door, a good shepard a lamp, bread from heaven, and numerous other things, all of which are figurative. think about it, Jesus spoke only what his father, the one and only true god, gave him to speak, therefore he was always speaking the word, the word of god, so in that f igurative sense he is also the word of god, not only because he is the fulfillment of the word but also because he was always (hyperbole) going around speaking what god his father gave him to speak. Scripture specifically states these undeniable facts.

John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

I never said, "Jesus is God." This is exactly the kind of simplistic terminology that leads to either-or thinking.

You said Jesus is god incarnate, that is the same thing as saying Jesus is god. besides every trinitarian i've ever run into says Jesus is god.

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:

Your thinking is, How can Jesus be God if he is God's son? My thinking is, Sonship implies derivation, which is clearly true if the incorporeal deity becomes corporeal deity and weds himself to humanity. You need to join the two concepts together if you want to make a christology that accurately represents the substance of the Johannine gospel.

god is spirit, Jesus is flesh, spirit begats spirit, flesh begats flesh, God did not begat Jesus (who is flesh) with his spirit, God begat Jesus with new human male seed (flesh) that he created. Mary conceived, and her egg conceived because it was fertilized with t he flesh (seed ) that g od created, making god the begatter of Jesus and Mary the conceiver of Jesus.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

flesh is not born of spirit. and incorporal diety (spirit, if not spirit what ?) becoming corporal (flesh) contradicts gods word that says flesh is born of flesh,

Please, try and avoid putting words in my mouth, and actually listen to what I'm saying. If you pre-judge what I'm saying, there's no point for us to continue this discussion. You're beating up the proverbial straw man.

you said Jesus is god incarnate, i paraphrased it as you saying Jesus is god, and you make a big deal about it as if i totally misrerpesented what you said. that is ridiculous.

 

[Zebra1552]

in both cases they are translated exactly the same "I am." so you are saying I am means one thing here and I am doesn't mean I am there.

Yes, just like pneuma means wind or spirit, depending on the context. You're catching on. Just because some translator translates the same words doesn't mean he's going to include all the nuances involved in translating that word and what is lost in the translation.

the context is the same, Jesus is claiming to be the messiah in both instances with the statement "I am" and "I am" always means "I am" not something else. If I am doesn't mean I am as you assert, what does it mean? he was? they stole? what?

Prove that Jesus is claiming to be the messiah. Give us sources that back you. You haven't done this, and until you do, you have no position to say that your Luke verse is relevant.

My mistake, I inadvertantly thought i was in my world reknowned thread "scripturesthat trinitarians ignore."

Not a problem... sometimes I get my threads mixed up as well.

I gave several examples such as ' the image of god example, the name of the almighty example and others, you just ignored my examples, Ignoring what I say doesn't mean i said nothing as you believe.

I have no idea what you are talking about or why any of the above is relevant. Please explain.

Jesus never said he is god. you interpret scritpure to mean that. and you like most trintiarians can't tell the difference betweein your interpretations (as in Jesus is god here that you assert) and what scripture actually says, No wonder you guys are os messed up doctrinallyh you can't even tell what is and what isn't scripture.

Of course I interpret it to mean that, because that's what the translation means. You don't think I read a statement like, "The fish is blue." and suddenly start thinking the fish is magenta, do you? I read what's in the text.

i haven't seen one iota of proof to that effect form you or anyone.

That's an interesting claim, as the one time I've tried to give it to you- and seen others try to do the same- I've been accused of ignoring Scripture and reading into the text. Why should I give you proof if you're just going to shove it back in my face?

Your false claim that Jesus said he is god is no proof, quote a scripture that says Jesus is god then you got proof but of course there is none.

I've quoted several in your thread, and you've yet to deal with the issues your interpretation brings to the table- namely an inconsistent Bible.

And of course you have proved nothing except that you can invent scripture such as Jesus saying he is god and that you don't know that I am always means I am. Perhaps if you were to quote scritpures that you imagine say "jesus is god" you could enlighten us. But perhaps you know all to well that no scripture says "Jesus is god" so you're only left with inveinting the scripture and never saying where it is. good trinitarian tactic. i've seen it a lot.

Here's a tactic for you: instead of listening to you insult my intelligence, I'm going to ignore your barbs and ask you again what you plan to do with this:

1- The Bible cannot contradict itself, lest it be unreliable and untrustworthy.
2- Because the Bible cannot contradict itself, you cannot have passages in the Bible that are interpreted in a way that contradict.
3- If you are willing to accept points 1 and 2, then you need to do something with the verses that say Jesus thought He was God rather than just dismiss them.

From here.

 

[2ducklow]

Yes, just like pneuma means wind or spirit, depending on the context. You're catching on. Just because some translator translates the same words doesn't mean he's going to include all the nuances involved in translating that word and what is lost in the translation.

pneuma means spirit or wind. ego eimi means I am and nothing else. State whatelse ego eimi means instead of just saying well it means something else but i aint gonna tell you whatt .

 

[2ducklow]

[SIZE=+1]Where did John begin, "the book of John to prove that Jesus is the christ , the son of god?" In John 1:18 the oldest most reliable manuscripts read "the monogenes Theos ho wn, the one being in the bosom of the father."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1] John 1.1, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.11,12,13,14,etc.[/SIZE]

I'm sure you are well aware of the arguments for and against the reading monogenes theos.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1] John 1.1, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.11,12,13,14,etc.[/SIZE]

Does NOT answer my question!

[SIZE=-1]I'm sure you are well aware of the arguments for and against the reading monogenes theos. [/SIZE]

There are NO, ZERO, NONE credible arguments against "monogenese theos."

NET notes 45tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh" qeo", “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh" Juio", “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo" hn Jo logo") means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονογενής (monogenh") see the note on “one and only” in 1:14.

46tn Grk “in the bosom of” (an idiom for closeness or nearness; cf. L&N 34.18; BDAG 556 s.v. κόλπος 1).​

​

​

 

[Zebra1552]

pneuma means spirit or wind. ego eimi means I am and nothing else. State whatelse ego eimi means instead of just saying well it means something else but i aint gonna tell you whatt .

Why should I be so revealing when you don't bother to address the parts of my posts that are more troubling to your position?