Jesus Is God! This Is Crystal Clear!

Der Alter said:

Where did Irenaeus say what you quoted above and where was it allegedly perverted and what evidence proves this? Or should we just take your word for it.

Click to expand...

I believe he is conflating it with the Nicene Creed, unsuccessfully (it would help to delete "and the sea")

GDunn said:

I am only saying short versions of the Great Commission existed and Eusebius as a half-arsed historian was reciting them. AFTER NICAEA he quoted two long versions, indicative of his OWN deviance and changeable theology.

Anyone who reads his tome is gonna know he was JisG. He quoted many of the principles of Trinity and Deity of Jesus which are still used today.

Click to expand...

A lot of accusations in this post but no, zero, none evidence. Eusebius was a Arian, he was excommunicated 12 years before Nicaea and reinstated by Constantine in time for Nicaea. There was never a "shorter version of the great commission" as evidenced by every ECF who quoted Matt 28:19 prior to Nicaea. They quoted the text as it appears in every extant manuscript, evidence previously in this thread. Wrong about when and how many times Eusebius quoted the triadic Matt 28:19. It was five times evidence posted earlier in this thread.

If it was not so tragic this post would be comical. First you tout Eusebius as an authority as "proof" of a short version of Matt 28;19. Then you call him a "half arsed historian" and his theology as "deviance and changeable." From these latter comments Eusebius is worthless as an authority on anything.

Wgw said:

Interpolation is commonly used to refer to additions to an anicent text, like scripture, which were not originally there. If you want to have a serious discussion about these issues, you are going to have to step up to the plate, to use some vernacular I rather dislike.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpolation_(manuscripts)

The standard terminology used in a given intellectual field, like the study of Biblical manuscripts (which is directly pertinent to your claim Matthew 28:19 is inauthentic) cannot be dismissed as intellectual patois; neither can it be regarded as mere grandiloquence. It may surprise you to note that arguments cannot be won typographically through capitalization; indeed I fear you may well have worn out your shift key needlessly.

Click to expand...

I understand you don't like my caps, and I don't like your intellectual patois either. INSERTS can have various methods and manifestations, yes.

Your attempt to argue the inauthenticity of Matthew 28:19 is not credible given your unfamiliarity with the word "interpolation," which represents important domain-specific knowledge when it comes to Biblical history, textual criticism and related disciplines.

Click to expand...

It wasn't me, but Conybeare who actually listed the short forms of Eusebius for the Great Commission. Like I said before, this version in Matthew stands out quite oddly for instance comparing to the Lukan version.

Luke 24

45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

...and the Acts examples of baptism was similarly IN HIS NAME, the name of Jesus. Four times SPECIFICALLY. Combined, these concepts of preaching AND baptism were both IN THE NAME OF JESUS ONLY and is a direct CONTRADICTION to the Matthean account.

You can demean my scholarship, and you can make fun of me otherwise, but you cannot refute the above, sir.

Consider, the PROMISE OF THE FATHER, is this Holy Spirit you call a SEPARATE PARTNER OF GOD (ousia). Quite out there for a SCHOLAR sir, but then again you have MANY scholars before you who said the same thing.

GDunn said:

So then half of a name makes an abbreviation for the whole name expounded by God? DER? Was Jesus being EMPHATIC or was he being vague? Being vague is the vogue right? Lettuce be vague and boogie the night away, DER.

DER sir. If I say DER, you think I am DER ALTER, sir? DER?

Click to expand...

Is this supposed to make any kind of sense? "Ehyeh" alone certainly made sense to God in the second clause of Exo 3:14 "and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM [אהיה/eheyeh] hath sent me unto you."

The predicate from another sentence cannot be the predicate of the sentence, only in logical sequential thought.
You don't seem to understand this, and treat "ego eimi" as an incomplete sentence, sir. DER.

Click to expand...

Please show me a Greek grammar which expresses this? While you are scrambling trying to find a grammar which supports you, here from A.T. Robertson's A Grammar of the Greek New Testament p. 394

Your words don't make sense OLD. (Old Shepherd).

Click to expand...

You should talk. See your first comment above.

Der Alter said:

A lot of accusations in this post but no, zero, none evidence. Eusebius was a Arian, he was excommunicated 12 years before Nicaea and reinstated by Constantine in time for Nicaea. There was never a "shorter version of the great commission" as evidenced by every ECF who quoted Matt 28:19 prior to Nicaea. They quoted the text as it appears in every extant manuscript, evidence previously in this thread. Wrong about when and how many times Eusebius quoted the triadic Matt 28:19. It was five times evidence posted earlier in this thread.

If it was not so tragic this post would be comical. First you tout Eusebius as an authority as "proof" of a short version of Matt 28;19. Then you call him a "half arsed historian" and his theology as "deviance and changeable." From these latter comments Eusebius is worthless as an authority on anything.

Click to expand...

You did not read my previous post carefully, sir. I said he was quoting manuscript(s) which had a shorter version of the Great Commission. Nothing to do with his theology.

Actually these short versions don't match up, which COULD reinforce a LOOSE consideration of text...as if Eusebius was only considering a SHORT part of the whole, or he was reciting from LOOSE memory. This is why I call him a half-arsed historian by the way. Interpolation or insertions of added concept was not ANATHEMA then and neither was scholarship so refined that they had compunction NOT TO ADD whatever they thought ripe for the occasion. Problem was, the COMPLETE equality of Jesus to his God was not then considered true for many. And ARIUS was JisG, he just said "there was a time when Jesus was NOT," which was one of the last vestiges of INEQUALITY not DEITY. You seem to be smudging the fact that BOTH sides of the Arian/Athanasian debate were essentially JisG. "Light from light" and "ray of light from the sun," denotes a second deity not exactly EQUAL and yet still God Almighty in a subordinate sense.

And the TRAGEDY is that once you made Jesus EQUAL GOD, you became a polygamist sir. By definition. Worshiping two WHOs in equal measure. Spiritual adultery and common in this day and age.

Der Alter said:

Is this supposed to make any kind of sense? "Ehyeh" alone certainly made sense to God in the second clause of Exo 3:14 "and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM [אהיה/eheyeh] hath sent me unto you."

Click to expand...

The whole English "I AM" is adroitly odd, since the Septuagint was considered the translation of the text by all. HO OWN "the being one" is indefinite as the Hebrew was and "I AM" in English is by you some absolute statement in the perfect present. You got the TENSES wrong sir, and this is common to smudgers and booglers.

The indefinite tense denotes "I AMing" not "I AM." Or "I WILL BE," not "I AM." For the Hebrew BOTH options are considered in comprehension and the CONTEXT will narrow down the meaning...or not. So then "the One who will be" is more accurate, and "the Being one" is more accurate to the Hebrew. NOT "ego eimi." FOR THE SECOND CLAUSE.

Not only that but "I am" is in the first person. HO OWN is in the third person. The Hebrew was in the first person. However much the Septuagint got the translation wrong, it was STILL the Greek translation of the day.
And confused any PARALLEL to Exodus 3 altogether.

Please show me a Greek grammar which expresses this? While you are scrambling trying to find a grammar which supports you, here from A.T. Robertson's A Grammar of the Greek New Testament p. 394

(g) Verb not the Only Predicate. But the predicate is not quite so simple a matter as the subject. The verb indeed is the usual way of expressing it, but not the only way. The verb eimi, especially estin and eisein, may be merely a "form-word" like a preposition and not be the predicate. Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in ego eimi (Jo. 8 : 58) and e thalassa ouk estin eti in (Rev. 21 : 1). Cf. Mt. 23 : 30. But more commonly the real predicate is another word and eimi merely serves as a connective or copula.​

Click to expand...

...now add IN THE SAME SENTENCE to the last sentence. Now you have Robertson's Grammar.

Consider [he] does have a conscious connection to something else, IN another sentence or IN the comprehension of mind when reading the term "ego eimi" without an explicit complement. HE WHO? HE WHAT?

And I say the [he] is MESSIAH and not GOD, sir.

You should talk. See your first comment above.

Click to expand...

You should talk.

No you.

No you, no you. Reverting to your avatar, sir? Baybehs do as baybehs do. GRANDAD.

Wgw said:

I believe he is conflating it with the Nicene Creed, unsuccessfully (it would help to delete "and the sea")

Click to expand...

Centuries apart. Irenaeus would have had A COW if he attended Nicaea. Since he was...an...Abrahamic Monotheist.

GDunn said:

... It wasn't me, but Conybeare who actually listed the short forms of Eusebius for the Great Commission. Like I said before, this version in Matthew stands out quite oddly for instance comparing to the Lukan version....

Click to expand...

Have you ever actually read Conybeare? In which of his writings would we find the reference to Eusebius and Matthew 28:19?

GDunn said:

The whole English "I AM" is adroitly odd, since the Septuagint was considered the translation of the text by all. HO OWN "the being one" is indefinite as the Hebrew was and "I AM" in English is by you some absolute statement in the perfect present. You got the TENSES wrong sir, and this is common to smudgers and booglers.

Click to expand...

Saying I got the tenses wrong does not make it so! Where did I get any tenses wrong? You keep accusing me of things. There is no "absolute statement" by me. I have quoted scholars and grammars. You just keep making up your own rules.

The indefinite tense denotes "I AMing" not "I AM." Or "I WILL BE," not "I AM." For the Hebrew BOTH options are considered in comprehension and the CONTEXT will narrow down the meaning...or not. So then "the One who will be" is more accurate, and "the Being one" is more accurate to the Hebrew. NOT "ego eimi." FOR THE SECOND CLAUSE.

Not only that but "I am" is in the first person. HO OWN is in the third person as the Hebrew was. Got both person and tense wrong. Nice going, sir.

Click to expand...

All irrelevant! See Jewish Encyclopedia article above.

...now add IN THE SAME SENTENCE to the last sentence. Now you have Robertson's Grammar.

Click to expand...

No thanks, no amateurish attempts to rewrite Robertson. I have a a copy of Robertson's 1200 page grammar and it does not have your revision.

Consider [he] does have a conscious connection to something else, IN another sentence or IN the comprehension of mind when reading the term "ego eimi" without an explicit complement. HE WHO? HE WHAT?

Click to expand...

Makes absolutely no sense. I don't know what "he" is supposed represent. You are the one who keeps adding it to the "ego eimi" statements. You keep talking about other sentences. There was no punctuation in the original. All of the punctuation is arbitrary.

And I say the [he] is MESSIAH and not GOD, sir.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Self identification by Jesus immediately before the "I am" statement is more logical.

GDunn said:

You did not read my previous post carefully, sir. I said he was quoting manuscript(s) which had a shorter version of the Great Commission. Nothing to do with his theology.

Click to expand...

Can you show me these so-called shorter manuscripts? Has anyone who claims their existence ever seen the elusive manuscripts? Let me see if this makes sense according to your previous statements. You claimed that "After Nicaea he [Eusebius] quoted two long versions, indicative of his OWN deviance and changeable theology." Now you claim that Eusebius "quoting manuscript(s) which had a shorter version of the Great Commission. Nothing to do with his theology." So which is it?

Actually these short versions don't match up, which COULD reinforce a LOOSE consideration of text...as if Eusebius was only considering a SHORT part of the whole, or he was reciting from LOOSE memory. This is why I call him a half-arsed historian by the way. Interpolation or insertions of added concept was not ANATHEMA then and neither was scholarship so refined that they had compunction NOT TO ADD whatever they thought ripe for the occasion. Problem was, the COMPLETE equality of Jesus to his God was not then considered true for many. And ARIUS was JisG, he just said "there was a time when Jesus was NOT," which was one of the last vestiges of INEQUALITY not DEITY. You seem to be smudging the fact that BOTH sides of the Arian/Athanasian debate were essentially JisG. "Light from light" and "ray of light from the sun," denotes a second deity not exactly EQUAL and yet still God Almighty in a subordinate sense.

Click to expand...

You are quoting Arius wrong. And you are also wrong about "Light from light" and "ray of light from the sun," denotes a second deity." You might want to read what Justin said about this.

And the TRAGEDY is that once you made Jesus EQUAL GOD, you became a polygamist sir. By definition. Worshiping two WHOs in equal measure. Spiritual adultery and common in this day and age.

Click to expand...

Your opinion on this matter is absolutely meaningless.

Der Alter said:

Where did Irenaeus say what you quoted above and where was it allegedly perverted and what evidence proves this? Or should we just take your word for it.

Click to expand...

Ain't studied it yet. My studies so far include Polycarp and Clement of Rome. Their CONSIDERED writings are one Epistle per person. All ADDITIONAL writings with their name on it are PSEUDOGRAPHA. And their CONSIDERED single writings per person
are entirely by the way...ABRAHAMIC in view of God and not MULTI-PERSONAL in view of God.

All I know are the alternate renditions of Ireneus' Rule of Faith. And how SUSPICIOUS the later redactions seem to me.

Der Alter said:

Can you show me these so-called shorter manuscripts? Has anyone who claims their existence ever seen the elusive manuscripts? Let me see if this makes sense according to your previous statements. You claimed that "After Nicaea he [Eusebius] quoted two long versions, indicative of his OWN deviance and changeable theology." Now you claim that Eusebius "quoting manuscript(s) which had a shorter version of the Great Commission. Nothing to do with his theology." So which is it?

Click to expand...

Which is what? The half-arsed Eusebius is the closest inner sanctum historian we have, so we HAVE to consider his writings.

He quoted half-arsed SHORT versions of the Matthean Commission. Whether this was of his INTERPOLATIONS of the actual texts he was using, or whether he was EMPHASIZING one thing not Trinity we can't know. But these SHORT VERSIONS may actually stem from a SHORT TEXT, sir. The IMMEDIATE implication which Conybeare brought to light.

20 plus versions which DON'T have the trinitarian formulation. If you want EVIDENCE, sir...google Conybeare and the Great Commission together.

You are quoting Arius wrong. And you are also wrong about "Light from light" and "ray of light from the sun," denotes a second deity." You might want to read what Justin said about this.

Click to expand...

We don't have Arius' writings at all, only what others said he said. I quoted a single thing he said and ran with it. Sue me. He DID say, "there was a time when Jesus was not," by what others said he said.

And I cannot read Justin Martyr without barfing, sorry. Don't like to barf, in general.

Your opinion on this matter is absolutely meaningless.

Click to expand...

Polygamy is sin. This is meaningless? The worship of three PERSONS equally?

Der Alter said:

Have you ever actually read Conybeare? In which of his writings would we find the reference to Eusebius and Matthew 28:19?

Click to expand...

Gosh it is obvious you are completely out of touch. You consider Mt 28:19 UNCONTESTED, when my buddy Nehemiah Gordon the CLOSEST Jew among Christians wrote a whole book about the Hebrew Matthew. Shem Tov Matthew is considered BY SOME including Gordon to be an early COPY of the original Matthean Text.

The FIRST questions arising about the accuracy and pristineness of the Great Commission arose from Conybeare's findings.

Der Alter said:

Saying I got the tenses wrong does not make it so! Where did I get any tenses wrong? You keep accusing me of things. There is no "absolute statement" by me. I have quoted scholars and grammars. You just keep making up your own rules.

Jewish Encyclopedia-Names of God​

In appearance, Yhwh (יהוה) is the third person singular imperfect "kal" of the verb ( הוה ("to be"), meaning, therefore, "He is," or "He will be," or, perhaps, "He lives," the root idea of the word being, probably, "to blow," "to breathe," and hence, "to live." With this explanation agrees the meaning of the name given in Ex. iii. 14, where God is represented as speaking, and hence as using the first person—"I am" (אהיה, from ( היה, the later equivalent of the archaic stem ( הוה). The meaning [of יהוה] would, therefore, be "He who is self-existing, self-sufficient," or, more concretely, "He who lives," the abstract conception of pure existence being foreign to Hebrew thought. There is no doubt that the idea of life was intimately connected with the name Yhwh from early times. He is the living God, as contrasted with the lifeless gods of the heathen, and He is the source and author of life (comp. I Kings xviii.; Isa. xli. 26-29, xliv. 6-20; Jer. x. 10, 14; Gen. ii. 7; etc.). So familiar is this conception of God to the Hebrew mind that it appears in the common formula of an oath, "hai Yhwh" ( חי־יהוה = "as Yhwh lives"; Ruth iii. 13; I Sam. xiv. 45; etc.).
Jewish Encyclopedia online​

Click to expand...

So then...I say "I LIVE," and everyone thinks I am God, sir? WHOO HOO.

I LIVE, therefore I am God. WHARHHH! See how many RENDITIONS of God's name CAN BE CONSTRUED as a claim to deity, as long as you PRESUPPOSE the subject is ALREADY Deity?

All irrelevant! See Jewish Encyclopedia article above.

Click to expand...

You consider everything I say as irrelevant. That is because you PRESUPPOSE Jesus is God. What ELSE is new, sir?

No thanks, no amateurish attempts to rewrite Robertson. I have a a copy of Robertson's 1200 page grammar and it does not have your revision.

Click to expand...

...unless that is what he really meant, sir.

Makes absolutely no sense. I don't know what "he" is supposed represent. You are the one who keeps adding it to the "ego eimi" statements. You keep talking about other sentences. There was no punctuation in the original. All of the punctuation is arbitrary.

Click to expand...

You ARE ignoring the fact that EVERY OTHER EXAMPLE of "ego eimi" is rendered in translation with an EXPLICIT [he] are you not?

OH OH. I just demolished your WHOLE theory. Whoops.

Irrelevant. Self identification by Jesus immediately before the "I am" statement is more logical.

Click to expand...

Be specific sir. Readers can't even know what you mean. I don't. Repeatez por favor.

GDunn said:

Which is what? The half-arsed Eusebius is the closest inner sanctum historian we have, so we HAVE to consider his writings.

He quoted half-arsed SHORT versions of the Matthean Commission. Whether this was of his INTERPOLATIONS of the actual texts he was using, or whether he was EMPHASIZING one thing not Trinity we can't know. But these SHORT VERSIONS may actually stem from a SHORT TEXT, sir. The IMMEDIATE implication which Conybeare brought to light.

20 plus versions which DON'T have the trinitarian formulation. If you want EVIDENCE, sir...google Conybeare and the Great Commission together.

Click to expand...

Lot of speculation here. Sorry amigo that ain't the way it works. If you refer to a source then the burden of proof is on you to back it up. Not tell others to go look it up for themself. My point is you have never read Conybeare. You have no idea who he was. The 2d-3rd hand quote is from an article published in 1962 by "A. Ploughman" Conybeare did not bring anything to light. He just made some assumptions. He did not say "20 plus." You use this rubbish and you don't even know who the person was or what he actually said.

We don't have Arius' writings at all, only what others said he said. I quoted a single thing he said and ran with it. Sue me. He DID say, "there was a time when Jesus was not," by what others said he said.

Click to expand...

Arius did not say "there was a time when Jesus was not!" If you are going claim something is a quote. Get it right!

And I cannot read Justin Martyr without barfing, sorry. Don't like to barf, in general.

Click to expand...

Strange! You quoted what he said.

Polygamy is sin. This is meaningless? The worship of three PERSONS equally?

Click to expand...

Polygamy? Who was talking about polygamy? We worship one God!

GDunn said:

Centuries apart. Irenaeus would have had A COW if he attended Nicaea. Since he was...an...Abrahamic Monotheist.

Click to expand...

Indeed he was, rather like Nicene Christians. You seem unable to grasp that we are not actually tritheists. At any rate, St. Irenaeus wrote this:

"But whatever things had a beginning, and are liable to dissolution, and are subject to and stand in need of Him who made them, must necessarily in all respects have a different term [applied to them], even by those who have but a moderate capacity for discerning such things; so that He indeed who made all things can alone, together with His Word, properly be termed God and Lord: but the things which have been made cannot have this term applied to them, neither should they justly assume that appellation which belongs to the Creator."

Interestingly St. Irenaeus claimed apostolic succession from St. John, through St. Polycarp, so we can regard this as a claim of the divinity of Jesus Christ in unity with the Father in light of John 1:1.

GDunn said:

So then...I say "I LIVE," and everyone thinks I am God, sir? WHOO HOO.

I LIVE, therefore I am God. WHARHHH! See how many RENDITIONS of God's name CAN BE CONSTRUED as a claim to deity, as long as you PRESUPPOSE the subject is ALREADY Deity?

Click to expand...

Were you born of a virgin due to God's specific action? Did God ever identify you as His one and only son? Have you ever risen from the dead? Since the answer is no, your attempts to make yourself equal to Jesus are irrelevant.

You consider everything I say as irrelevant. That is because you PRESUPPOSE Jesus is God. What ELSE is new, sir?

Click to expand...

Only when you post a lot of assumptions, presuppositions, and unsupported opinion.

...unless that is what he really meant, sir.

Click to expand...

Please feel free to look up Robertson's grammar and prove your assumption. It is avaiable online, free.

You ARE ignoring the fact that EVERY OTHER EXAMPLE of "ego eimi" is rendered in translation with an EXPLICIT [he] are you not?

OH OH. I just demolished your WHOLE theory. Whoops.

Click to expand...

You demolished nothing! Do you know the difference between implicit and explicit? The insertion of italicized words in the text is only the translators opinion.

Be specific sir. Readers can't even know what you mean. I don't. Repeatez por favor.

Click to expand...

Most people here understood what I said.

Der Alter said:

Lot of speculation here. Sorry amigo that ain't the way it works. If you refer to a source then the burden of proof is on you to back it up. Not tell others to go look it up for themself. My point is you have never read Conybeare. You have no idea who he was. The 2d-3rd hand quote is from an article published in 1962 by "A. Ploughman" Conybeare did not bring anything to light. He just made some assumptions. He did not say "20 plus." You use this rubbish and you don't even know who the person was or what he actually said.

Click to expand...

A German Theologian? Funny but all references to Conybeare are of scholars who can translate German, sir. No writing of his is understood otherwise.

Conybeare, F. C. 1901. "The Eusebian Form of the Text Matth. 28, 19." Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 2: 275-288.

73. The Hebrew text reads instead, "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever."

http://www.geocities.ws/fdocc3/quotations.htm

Arius did not say "there was a time when Jesus was not!" If you are going claim something is a quote. Get it right!

Click to expand...

Arius, wiki:

The Trinitarian historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius sparked the controversy that bears his name when St. Alexander of Alexandria, who had succeeded Achillas as the Bishop of Alexandria, gave a sermon stating the similarity of the Son to the Father. Arius interpreted Alexander's speech as being a revival of Sabellianism, condemned it, and then argued that "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing."[14] This quote describes the essence of Arius' doctrine.

Think again, herr Der.

Strange! You quoted what he said.

Click to expand...

So they BOTH said it. This does not make Arius NOT say it. What kinda logic you have, SIR?

Polygamy? Who was talking about polygamy? We worship one God!

Click to expand...

You worship three Persons of one OUSIA with equality and not so great impunity.

Wgw said:

Indeed he was, rather like Nicene Christians. You seem unable to grasp that we are not actually tritheists. At any rate, St. Irenaeus wrote this:

"But whatever things had a beginning, and are liable to dissolution, and are subject to and stand in need of Him who made them, must necessarily in all respects have a different term [applied to them], even by those who have but a moderate capacity for discerning such things; so that He indeed who made all things can alone, together with His Word, properly be termed God and Lord: but the things which have been made cannot have this term applied to them, neither should they justly assume that appellation which belongs to the Creator."

Interestingly St. Irenaeus claimed apostolic succession from St. John, through St. Polycarp, so we can regard this as a claim of the divinity of Jesus Christ in unity with the Father in light of John 1:1.

Click to expand...

If this were true, then LORD means ADONAI, which is NOT what I think Irenaeus meant. "Adonai" was a NAME of God, and referring to the SAME REFERENT AS YHWH, sir. ADON had to be meant, and your quote from Irenaeus is now COMPLETELY ABRAHMIC. EXCUSE MY CAPS, sir. I am a man of many HATS sir, not to be proud aboudit.

ADON was the meaning, and referred to men superlative. GEDDIT?