• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Christ's Deity

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by fieldsofwind, Dec 3, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    "I would be very surprised if this fellow can overturn decades of reliable scholarship and archaeological evidence, yes".

    The Jews do not speak the Name. This is because they have known all along. The pseuo- scholars did not want to listen. Check it out for yourself.You are a bright guy. As far as the 'emmendations' of the scribes argument to support the Masoretic as being corrupt. Might want to research that as well. I have no problem with the LXX, but saying that the Masoretic has been altered to support this text is a weak and unsubstantiated argument.
  2. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    "I would be very surprised if this fellow can overturn decades of reliable scholarship and archaeological evidence, yes."

    Would that be the same 'reliable scholarship' that came up with the rendering 'Jehovah'. Should've consulted the Jewish Scholars. Now, in retrospect, it seems that they were right.
  3. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    Funny again evangelion...

    Come on now... you've already addressed those things? Really? I believe that you attempted to wiggle your way out of John 1... and your opinions were countered... you have yet to respond to that.

    You attempted to claim that the pieces of the NT relaying Chist as God with the terms Ho Theos were incorrect... and we see that they are correct...

    The list can easily, and will, go on.

    In fact... the most amazing thing... is that you seem to think that the Bible as I have it here was translated by men that did not have much more "schooling" in greek/hebrew/etc... than you. You must think that they were not privy to the info that you now have. What is true, however, is that they indeed did have all of the knowledge necessary, and were under the guidance of the same God that told moses to write his words down. I guess the people that translated it all were just morons that had no idea what greek was huh? Evangelion... I will always be able to find more info refuting your claims that the Bible does not portray Christ as God according to the "greek". You know why? Because it does portray Christ as God. You are the one who will not allow the light to shine inside.

    Fact is... that the word as we have it... is correctly translated... (of course... this excludes deliberate attempts to change it)... and it is completely clear about who Christ is.

    You have yet to take pure scripture and refute anything in the original post of this thread.

    take care

  4. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    HT -

    I know. This is irrelevant.


    Straw man. I had made no such claim.

    See above. I had made no such claim.

    I merely observed (and quite correctly) that it is nothing more than a scribal error that is corrected in the NT use of this passage. (Indeed, this is the argument of F. F. Bruce.) I am not saying that the text was modified in order to support the deity of Christ. I am saying (as Bruce does, and counless others will confirm) that it is a recognised scribal error, of no theological signigicance whatsoever.

    In fact, the very text itself testifies against the Trinitarian gloss. Even unamended, it says "They shall look upon me, whom they have pierced, and shall mourn for him."

    Now, the Trintiarian will claim that God is the speaker, and that He is the One Who is pierced. But the KJV leaves us with a contradiction, for the speaker clearly refers to one other than himself, for whom Israel will mourn!

    Even a Trinitarian must admit that this presents two different persons. But what can they do with it? The passage (as it stands in the KJV) asserts that two entirely different persons were crucified - and yet, that is contrary not only to the Word, but also to Trinitarianism!

    The resolution is simple. We must accept that the words "...and shall mourn for him" are a reference to the one who is alleged to have said "...and shall mourn for me." On this basis, we now see why it is necessary to replace the "me" with "him", and so restore the original sense of the passage. :cool:
  5. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    HT -

    No, that would be the same reliable scholarship that came up with the rendering "Yahweh."

    I reject the rendering "Jehovah" as an insupportable mangling of the original Hebrew. :cool:
  6. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    FOW -

    Most of them, yes. Those which I considered it worth my while to address. Meanwhile, do I see a credible response? No, I do not. All I hear is a fresh wave of excuses.


    No, what I did was present an explanation of the passage which has yet to be refuted. To date, nobody has taken the time to go back and show me why am wrong.

    Will you be the first? ;)


    Straw man. I did no such thing, and you lie by claiming otherwise. Go back and read what I wrote. I said that they do refer to him as theos, and that the reference is titular, not ontological.

    How do you expect to defeat me in a debate when you can't even read properly? Why are so many Trintiarians semi-literate? Is it something they do to your brains when you become a Trinitarian?


    No, that is another straw man. I have made no such claim. I have presented the words of Trinitarian scholars, and you have failed to refute them.

    In short - you're not reading what I've written, you're not addressing my arguments, and you've just demonstrated your appalling incompetence yet again. :cool:
  7. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    The Jews do not speak the Name.

    I know. This is irrelevant.

    Maybe not as irrelevent as you think... As quoted in the OT AND NT texts:

    "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Rom. 3:1-2)

    According to the Bible, the Hebrews were given charge of keeping and copying God's word. The word "oracle" means revelation, prophecy, canon, or edict. It was unto the Jew, that the Old Testament revelation and canon were committed. This is why twice in the Old Testament they were instructed not to add to or take from the word of God. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." (Deut. 4:2). "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Prov. 30:6).

    They understand the text according to God's word and wisdom. Their not saying 'Yahweh'.
  8. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    "How do you expect to defeat me in a debate when you can't even read properly? Why are so many Trintiarians semi-literate? Is it something they do to your brains when you become a Trinitarian?"

    Ad Hominem attack.....not a substitute for a sound argument....debate 101
  9. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    Btw ....after close scrutiny of many different copies of the Masoretic text, the Hebrew experts now think that the rendering might be closer to ' 'Yehowah ' which is a far cry from Yahweh, and actually closer to Jehovah.
  10. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member


    Next question: Did Jesus ever speak the name 'Yahweh'? Did He teach this name to the Apostiles?
  11. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    Posted by evangelion: "No, what I did was present an explanation of the passage which has yet to be refuted. To date, nobody has taken the time to go back and show me why am wrong."

    So, you're saying that John 1 does not dictate that the Word was God? Do you believe that it does not claim that Christ is the Word? Do you think that the Word came into Christ and that Christ is not the Word?

    Now... you say you have "evidence" for this... and yet... so many (a great majority) of the "scholars" demand that it indeed must say that Christ is the Word... which was God and became flesh. To not agree was considered ... what was it... bad grammar. Now... I believe God... and He says that His word will not pass away. It was as clear in the greek as it is now in the english. I can post the stuff for you again if you would like.

    Posted by evangelion: "Go back and read what I wrote. I said that they do refer to him as theos, and that the reference is titular, not ontological."

    So "ontological" meaning "in nature, etc" is something that you cannot see with all of the referrences to Christ being in the same form as they are to the Father? The "titular" claim is given to the Father just as it is to God who became flesh... and why should it not... for even though Christ had become flesh, he remained in very nature God (Phil 2)

    Here, perhaps this will help: The Gospel writers all used the TITLE, " ho theos " to refer to the One, True God, as did the writers of the Epistles. There are places in the New Testament, where the word ho is followed by the word theos and they are not being used as a title. The context of where the words appear determines if it is meant to be a title, or not. This is a clearly evident fact to all, but those who attempt to deny that Jesus is God, Jehovah, and also those who attempt to deny the Triune Nature of the Godhead, Trinity. They like to point to 2Co 4:4, as proof that ho theos does not signify Almighty God.
    "-in whom the (ho) god (theos) of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them. "
    Completely ignoring the structure of the verse, they point out that in this verse ho and theos do not mean Almighty God, which is correct. However it is undeniably clear from the grammatical and sentence structure, that they are not being used as a title. The title in this case is "god of this world"; not, "The God." Much the same as Mat 22:32,
    "I am the (ho) God (theos) of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."
    where the titles are, "God of Abraham", "God of Isaac", & "God of Jacob."
    That the TITLE " Ho Theos ", refers only to Jehovah God is proved by New Testament. There are a large number of verses, which evidence this fact, A few of them follow.
    "And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God (ho theos)! "
    John 20:28
    Clearly, ho theos, is being used as a title. The verse would make no sense translated as, "My Lord and My the God!" For an in-depth look at this verse and its true meaning visit John 20:28.
    Here are a few more of the many verses, which show ho theos used as the title for Almighty God. I won't belabor the point by addressing each verse for I am sure that you can grasp that translating ho theos in these verses as the God would make no sense.
    "-You shall worship the Lord your God (ho theos), and Him only you shall serve." "
    Mat 4:10
    "Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God (ho theos) with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. "
    Mat 22:37
    "-and you shall love the Lord your God (ho theos) with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment. "
    Mark 12:30
    "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? (which being translated is, My God, My God (ho theos), why did You forsake Me?)"
    Mark 15:34
    "And he shall turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God (ho theos)."
    Luke 1:16 "
    But my God (ho theos) shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus."
    Phi 4:19
    "-for also, 'Our God (ho theos)is a consuming fire. "
    (Hebrews 12:29)
    As I said at the beginning, the application of the title, " ho theos " forms only a very small part of the biblical evidence that Jesus is Jehovah God and that the Godhead is Triune in Nature. The word " the " followed immediately by the word " God(god) " appears only 40 times in Literal Translations of the New Testament. 39 of which refer to the One True God. The only exception is 2Co 4:4. The Greek word " ho " followed immediately by the word " theos " appears upwards of 950 times in the original manuscripts, with the exception of 2Co 4:4, they are used to indicate Jehovah God. The intent & teachings of the God-inspired authors is quite clear. Those who cite 2Co 4:4 as proof that the title does not mean Almighty God are grasping at straws and ignoring the message of Holy Scripture." From http://acharlie.tripod.com/bible_study/ho_theos.html

    Posted by evangelion: "No, that is another straw man. I have made no such claim. I have presented the words of Trinitarian scholars, and you have failed to refute them."

    Another laugh... come on evangelion?

    You presented words of scholars... and I presented words of scholars...

    You know what... I belive that God had his hand on those old guys that translated the word for us. Perhaps with the differences in languages... different meanings can come out of a text. However, to doubt that God could not keep His truth prevalent by guiding those translators is to doubt God.

    And anyways... even if you only go by a "scholars" word... you must still adhere to the fact that so many more scholars agree that the Deity of Christ is very apparent in scripture... hebrew/greek/whatever... its there.

    take care

  12. Jedi

    Jedi Knight

    Baseless assumption.

    Where does it say this? Where does it say God gave over his title of “The First and the Last?” To attribute this title to anyone but God is without Biblical support.

    Oh, this poor excuse. Jehovah’s Witnesses go bonkers over this. This is an extremely fallacious interpretation, since there’s no basis to say that this title means anything else than what it has always meant throughout scripture: a title due to only God himself.

    And so since I like Greek, you go to Hebrew, because…?

    You’re talking about two different languages now, and they don’t always follow the same structure or rules.

    No, he didn’t. Look at the Greek please.

    Gee, I wonder why. Could it have been because they understood his claim to deity by attributing the title “I am” to himself?

    He answered the question by claiming deity.

    Not in this case. Look at what he said. Again, he goes out of his way to attribute the title “I am” to himself.

    Funny how you’d have to throw out what scripture says to believe this to be true. Again, your argument is no longer with us, but the Bible. Funny how the consensus amongst translators, even in the Septuagint (which Jesus quoted from all the time) reads, “I am” instead of “I shall prove to be.”

    It says they bowed down and worshiped him. If it didn’t mean the Godly sort of worship, it’s like saying, they bowed down and bowed down. That’s nonsense to understand it that way. When the Bible says “Worship” they worship. Again, your problem doesn’t lie with us, but the Bible.

    I think of it more as Jesus being a pen name for God. Two names, one person. I wouldn’t find it odd that if a writer went by both a pen name (by which he wrote a certain type of book) and his real name (by which he wrote another type of book), that both names are mentioned in a toast at his birthday party.

    Not really. “Master/Owner/sovereign,” they all refer to the person over them. But… if there’s only one person over them, and Jesus is it (who is also the “author of life” – Acts 3:15), then he’s God.


    But who did Jesus say would “raise up his temple/body?” Hmmm? Jesus said he would. You can’t avoid that one. You shot yourself in the foot too good for me to let that slip by. :)

    Yep. So Jesus said he would raise himself back to life when speaking of the temple of his body being destroyed, but then it turns around and says God raised him from the dead. Again, you’re kinda stuck here. :)

    Only to your presupposition. Scripture seems to teach this rather clearly.

    Please, you must be joking. When Jesus says, “I will raise it (his body) up,” I believe he rose it up. What about you? Do you believe Jesus?

    Um, what are you talking about? Ezekiel 43:3 reads, “The vision I saw was like the vision I had seen when he came to destroy the city and like the visions I had seen by the Kebar River, and I fell facedown” (NIV). I don’t see Ezekiel saying he, himself, will cause ruin to anything. Even so, your example is fallacious. It would be like saying “I have come to bring news of ruin to the city,” or “I have come to pronounce judgment on the city.” It says “I have come to bring,” not “I will carry out,” which makes it unparallel with Jesus’ statement that he, himself, will do something.

    Authority to receive life? Please. He’s the “author of life” (Acts 3:15). The authority is always his. Again, there are two parts to Jesus: God and man.

    Again, there are two parts to Christ: Man and God. You keep forgetting the God part. Jesus is God in the flesh (Colossians 2:9). He is also the “author of life” (Acts 3:15). What title do you suppose the “author of life” has? I’d say the author of life is God.
  13. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    Good stuff Jedi

    Posted by lightbearer: "The word in English is Proskyneo and you seem to have missed the whole point of the word. It is used to denote worship, bowing down in respect (as is the case at Matt 28), prostrating oneself, doing Obeisance and so on. So, no bubble burst as you say so patronisingly[sic]."

    Proskyneo... lets see here: As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in proskyneo(reverence)" Acts 10:25

    Peter, one of the apostles received the same act of proskyneo, which is translated as reverence, as he himself had attributed to Jesus in the gospels (Matthew 28:18), so what happens as a consequence of this?

    "But Peter made him get up. ‘Stand up.’ he said, ‘I am only a man myself’ " Acts 10:26

    Peter knew when he rebuked Cornelius that such an act was indicative of divinity and such an act should not be applied to human beings, Peter was also a strictly monotheistic who would have not attributed any form of worship to anyone outside of the one true God. Attributing such worship to Jesus Christ is proof enough of Jesus’ divinity, indicating that he is indeed God. To put a final nail into the argument, let us consider the following fact. When Peter was confronted by the act of being bowed down before his person, he rebuked the person (Cornelius) stating that he himself was only a man and was not due such adoration. We find a similar account of an act of worship being rebuked by the Angel in Revelation 22:8-9, again the word used for worship here is proskyneo. It is also interesting to note that there is no situation in the Bible where people bow down to worship Jesus at which point he rebukes them saying, "Get up, I am only a man myself."

    From: http://www.geocities.com/bicwyzer.geo/Faq/faq4faq2.html

    also... pertaining to John 8:58, from the same source:

    "The name ‘I am’ is the divine name of God, and has been used by every prophet of God in the bible, in fact it is a requirement that any prophet who speaks for the one true God speaks in his name, Deuteronomy 18. The divine name (the Hebrew characters YHWH) appears over 6000 times in the bible and is usually transliterated as Jehovah, Yahweh or most commonly LORD. We notice that all prophets who spoke, spoke in the name of God, but there was only one who claimed to be ‘I am’ this was Jesus who said "Before Abraham was born, I am" (ego emi in the original Greek text). We not only need to realise the fact that Jesus claimed the name for himself but he also claimed that the great Patriarch Abraham had rejoiced of his coming. Not only did Jesus identify the name with himself but he also claimed to have existed before Abraham, can we really say this of a normal man, that he, living in first century Palestine who being ‘not even 50 years of age’ John 8:57 claimed to exist before Abraham had been born?

    It is clear from this verse that Jesus is more than just a mere man, and that he claims a name that belongs only to God. This is evident by the response of the Jews, who wished to stone him as a consequence of what he had done. This reaction was prompted by Leviticus 24:16 which states that anyone speaking against Yahweh/Jehovah, should be stoned by the whole community, here they saw what they perceived to be a man of not more than 50 years of age, claiming to be God.

    Not only do we need to take notice of the reaction of the Jews but to consider the prophecy of the one who was to have the divine name

    "The time is coming when I (God) will choose a righteous descendant of David… …he will be called the LORD (‘I am’/Yahweh/Jehovah) our salvation." Jeremiah 23: 5,6 (Good News)"

    For a lengthier look at John 8:58 from the "greek" if one really wants to see it... check out: http://www.carm.org/jw/john8_58.htm

    I'll post it below:
  14. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God. So, when it comes to translating and interpreting Bible verses that show the deity of Jesus, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society will go to great lengths to support their false presupposition. Sometimes they will even translate verses in a way that is consistent with their belief system. In the Jehovah's Witness Bible, known as the New World Translation (NWT), John 8:58 is a verse that they have translated in a manner deliberately consistent with their theology. Following is the verse in context from the NASB.

    In John 8:56-59 says, "'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.' 57The Jews therefore said to Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' 58Jesus said to them, 'Truly truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' 59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple." (All Bible quotes are from the NASB)

    The issue at hand is the phrase "I am" in verse 58. The Jehovah's Witnesses have "translated" the Greek present tense ("I am") into the English perfect tense ("I have been") which is more consistent with their theological position that Jesus is not God in flesh. In the Greek, the words are "ego eimi." Literally, this is "I am." "Ego eimi" is the present active indicative first person singular (I am), not the perfect active indicative first person singular (I have been). It would seem that the natural and correct translation into the English is "I am." But the NWT does not translate this into the present tense. Why? I am firmly convinced it is because translating John 8:58 as "I am" would be too close to God identifying Himself as the "I am" in Exodus 3:14. Therefore, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has opted for a different rendering.

    "And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you,’" (Exodus 3:14).

    But the issue is not settled so easily. Does the Bible ever legitimately translate the present tense 'ego eimi' into the English perfect tense "I have been"? Yes it does. In John 14:8-9 it says, "Philip said to Him, 'Lord show us the Father, and it is enough for us.' 9Jesus said to him, 'Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father?'" Where Jesus says, "I have been" is in the Greek present tense, 'ego eimi'. Literally, again, this is "I am." Here we have an example of the Greek present tense being translated into the English perfect tense. This is the very same thing the Watchtower organization claims is legitimate in John 8:58. Why is this translated into "I have been?" Quite simply because if we did not do this, then the English would say, "I am with you so long...." That is awkward in the English, so translators translate it as "Have I been so long with you...." It is legitimate to do this in some instances where it is warranted in order to make the English more readable and clear. But is it necessary to do this in John 8:58? I don't believe so -- unless your underlying presupposition is that Jesus is not God in flesh.
    Additionally, to make the issue even more complicated, there are some English Bible translations that render John 8:58 other than "I AM." For example, the Living Bible (1973, a paraphrase) says, "The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." The New Living Translations says, "I existed." The Bible in Worldwide English translates it as "I already was." The 1960, 1973 NASB had a marginal rendering of "I have been." Because of this, the Jehovah's Witness will claim the NWT is, therefore, legitimate since other Bibles have translations other than "I AM" in John 8:58. But from what I have seen of these other translations, they are intended to be looser renderings of the Greek and therefore take more liberties in translation. The NASB, for example, is intended to be as literal as possible as does the KJV which both translate the verse as "I AM." The 1973 NASB marginal quote above is just that, marginal and is not what they rendered into the English text. The preferred translation is "I am." Take Young's Literal Translation as another example. In John 8:58 it states, ". . . Before Abraham's coming -- I am." In fact, other translations render it as:

    "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am," (ASV).
    "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am," (KJV).
    “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am," (NASB).
    “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!" (NIV).
    “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM," (NKJV).
    “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am," (RSV).
    "Truly, truly, before Abraham was, I am," (NLT).
    "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am," (RSV)
    "Verily, verily I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am!" (KJ21).
    "Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming -- I am,' (YLT).
    "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am," (Darby).
    "Antes que Abraham fuese, yo soy," (Spanish) - uses "yo soy" which is "I am."
    "En vérité, en vérité, je vous le dis, avant qu'Abraham fût, je suis," (French) "je suis" which is "I am."
    Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses will cite translations that have renderings other than the plain "I am" for John 8:58 and in so doing claim legitimacy. Unfortunately, since different translations do have different renderings, the debate will continue between the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian apologists until the Lord Jesus returns.
    In the mean time, let's turn to page 467 of the 1969 Greek Interlinear used by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:.

    The Watchtower's own interlinear translates John 8:58 as "I am" even though in the NWT it renders it as "I have been." In this, they admit that the Greek is indeed, "I am," the present tense. They will not deny this. What they assert is that it should be translated into the English, "I have been." Should it or could it? If it should, then Greek scholars would echo the NWT rendition in the great majority of instances. But they do not. Essentially, the Watchtower organization is saying that all the translations that have "I am" as the rendering are wrong, that the "proper" translation is "I have been." In a footnote at the bottom of page 467 regarding John 8:58 in the NWT is this comment:

    "I have been = ego eimi after the a'orist infinitive clause prin' Abraam genesthai and hence properly rendered in the perfect tense. It is not the same as ho ohn', meaning "The Being" or "The I Am") at Exodus 3:14, LXX"

    The "LXX" is the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The question is whether or not Jesus was quoting from the LXX or if He was simply translating the Hebrew. Again, Exodus 3:14 says, "And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’" The phrase "I AM WHO I AM" is rendered in the Greek LXX as "Ego eimi ho on." Literally, this is "I am the being one." Most Bibles translate the Hebrew from Exodus 3:14 as "I am" -- the present tense as did the Hebrew translators of the LXX. The LXX also has it in the present tense which is what the Greek syntax states. Jesus uses the present tense in John 8:58.
    In spite of some of the translations regarding John 8:58, I do not believe the NWT's version of John 8:58 is warranted for three reasons: First, it purports to "transmit his [God] thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible."1 I do not believe this is the case at all. Rather, I see the Watchtower's bias against Jesus' divinity overtaking this verse and altering it as it has done in other verses such as Heb. 1:8 and Col. 1:15-17. Second, the most literal translations such as the NASB, the NIV, and the KJV do not render this verse as "I have been" but as "I AM." And, third, the context of the verse does not support the JW position.

    It isn't the English, but the Greek that upset the Pharisees

    "'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.' 57The Jews therefore said to Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' 58Jesus said to them, 'Truly truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' 59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple."

    The Pharisees didn't speak English. They spoke Hebrew and Greek. In the Greek text, Jesus uses the present tense. It was this Greek present tense (I am) that upset the Pharisees so much, not the perfect tense (I have been).
    If Jesus were really saying to the Jews, "I have been," then why would the Pharisees want to kill him (v. 59)? Since blasphemy, or calling yourself God, was punishable by death, isn't this a confirmation that Jesus was saying "I am" and that the Jew's understood what he was saying? Absolutely! That is why the best translation is simply, "I am."2
    I also need to mention that in Mark 14:62, where Jesus answered the High Priest who said, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 63Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? 64Ye have heard the blasphemy. . ." Jesus responded with "I am" which provoked the authorities and prompted them to seek death. This is particularly revealing when we compare John 10:34 where the Pharisees want to kill Jesus because they said He was making Himself equal to God. The phrase, "I AM" in these contexts would surely imply that.
    Undoubtedly, Jesus knew the difference in the Greek between "I am" and "I have been." Jesus did not use the form "I have been" in the Greek, but used the form "I am." It is the Greek, not the English that the Pharisees were upset about.

    But the Pharisees were so upset

    At this point, many of the Jehovah's Witnesses assert that by the time Jesus said, "Before Abraham was I have been" (NWT), they had already been thoroughly agitated by Jesus and, basically, snapped and tried to kill Him at this final comment. Furthermore, the Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus was claiming the divine title of Exodus 3:14 where God said to Moses, "I am that I am." But which do you think would have upset the Pharisees more, saying "Before Abraham was, I am" or Before Abraham was, I have been"? Obviously, the former would be more upsetting and that is exactly the phrase that Jesus used.
    If Jesus wanted to avoid any confusion with the Pharisees, why didn't He use one of the past tenses? Certainly he must have known that saying "Before Abraham was, I am" to the Pharisees would cause some problems. And it did. The aorist (I was), the perfect (I have been), and the pluperfect (I had been) all deal with the past, yet Jesus chose to deliberately use the present tense "I am." He used a past tense verb when describing Abraham ("before Abraham was..."), but a present tense verb when describing Himself ("I am"). He deliberately brought attention to the words, "I am." The Pharisees understood this and was indeed the last straw for them.

    take care

  15. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    HT -

    The "Hebrew experts", eh? Well, whatever.

    I don't know. We're not told, and I don't care to speculate.

    What's your point? And why can't you spell properly?
  16. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    From the Jewish Encyclopaedia:

    • YHWH.

      Of the names of God in the Old Testament, that which occurs most frequently (6,823 times) is the so-called Tetragrammaton, Yhwh (), the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel. This name is commonly represented in modern translations by the form "Jehovah," which, however, is a philological impossibility (see Jehovah). This form has arisen through attempting to pronounce the consonants of the name with the vowels of Adonai ("Lord"), which the Masorites have inserted in the text, indicating thereby that Adonai was to be read (as a "eri perpetuum") instead of Yhwh.

      When the name Adonai itself precedes, to avoid repetition of this name, Yhwh is written by the Masorites with the vowels of Elohim, in which case Elohim is read instead of Yhwh. In consequence of this Masoretic reading the authorized and revised English versions (though not the American edition of the revised version) render Yhwh by the word "Lord" in the great majority of cases.

      This name, according to the narrative in Ex. iii. (E), was made known to Moses in a vision at Horeb. In another, parallel narrative (Ex. vi. 2, 3, P) it is stated that the name was not known to the Patriarchs. It is used by one of the documentary sources of Genesis (J), but scarcely if at all by the others. Its use is avoided by some later writers also. It does not occur in Ecclesiastes, and in Daniel is found only in ch. ix. The writer of Chronicles shows a preference for the form Elohim, and in Ps. xlii.-lxxxiii. Elohim occurs much more frequently than Yhwh, probably having been substituted in some places for the latter name, as in Ps. liii. (comp. Ps. xiv.).

      In appearance, Yhwh is the third person singular imperfect "al" of the verb ("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" (, from the later equivalent of the archaic stem ).

      The meaning 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, "ai Yhwh" (= "as Yhwh lives"; Ruth iii. 13; I Sam. xiv. 45; etc.).

      If the explanation of the form above given be the true one, the original pronunciation must have been Yahweh or Yahaweh. From this the contracted form Jah or Yah is most readily explained, and also the forms Jeho or Yeho, and Jo or Yo, which the word assumes in combination in the first part of compound proper names, and Yahu or Yah in the second part of such names. The fact may also be mentioned that in Samaritan poetry rimes with words similar in ending to Yahweh, and Theodoret ("Quæst. 15 in Exodum") states that the Samaritans pronounced the name 'I&#945;&#946;&#941;. Epiphanius ascribes the same pronunciation to an early Christian sect. Clement of Alexandria, still more exactly, pronounces 'I&#945;&#959;&#965;&#941; or 'I&#945;&#959;&#965;&#945;&#943;, and Origen, 'I&#945;.

      Aquila wrote the name in archaic Hebrew letters. In the Jewish-Egyptian magic-papyri it appears as &#921;&#945;&#969;&#959;&#965;&#951;&#949;. At least as early as the third century B.C. the name seems to have been regarded by the Jews as a "nomen ineffabile," on the basis of a somewhat extreme interpretation of Ex. xx. 7 and Lev. xxiv. 11 (see Philo, "De Vita Mosis," iii. 519, 529). Written only in consonants, the true pronunciation was forgotten by them. The Septuagint, and after it the New Testament, invariably render &#948;&#954;&#973;&#961;&#953;&#959;&#962; ("the Lord").

      Various conjectures have been made in recent times respecting a possible foreign origin of this name. Some derive it from the Kenites, with whom Moses sojourned, Sinai, the ancient dwelling-place of Yhwh, having been, according to the oldest tradition, in the Kenite country. A Canaanite, and, again, a Babylonian, origin have been proposed, but upon grounds which are still uncertain.

      Various explanations of the meaning of the name, differing from that given above, have been proposed: e.g., (1) that it is derived from ("to fall"), and originally designated some sacred object, such as a stone, possibly an acrolite, which was believed to have fallen from heaven; (2) or from ("to blow"), a name for the god of wind and storm; (3) or from the "hif'il" form of ("to be"), meaning, "He who causes to be," "the Creator"; (4) or from the same root, with the meaning "to fall," "He who causes to fall" the rain and the thunderbolt—"the storm-god." The first explanation, following Ex. iii. 14, is, on the whole, to be preferred.

      Full text available here.
  17. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    evangelion... why do you see the need to attempt to put others down because of a mere typo?

    take care

  18. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    You call that "putting others down", do you? Well, it was an honest question - nothing more.

    Woud you care to explain why (a) you persist in misrepresenting my arguments, (b) you persist in copy/pasting vast amounts of work that isn't even your own, (c) you never actually present an original argument, and (d) you keep wandering off-topic? :cool:
  19. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    Pertaining to using info that is not my own> Well, the sources are given, and you do the exact same thing. And, the info that is posted refutes your claims thoroughly.

    Pertaining to being off-topic... Examples please

    take care, and you could always attempt at responding to the refutations.... or I can post them again for you!

    take care

  20. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    Jedi -

    According to Clarke's Commentary:

    • Joh 10:18 - I have power -
      Or, authority, åîïõóéáí.
      Our Lord speaks of himself here as man, or the Messiah, as being God’s messenger, and sent upon earth to fulfill the Divine will, in dying and rising again for the salvation of men.
    According to A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament:

    • I have power to lay it down (exousian echo&#772; theinai aute&#772;n).
      Exousia is not an easy word to translate (right, authority, power, privilege). See Joh_1:12. Restatement of the voluntariness of his death for the sheep.

      And I have power to take it again (kai exousian echo&#772; palin labein aute&#772;n).
      Note second aorist active infinitive in both cases (theinai from tithe&#772;mi and labein from lambano&#772;), single acts. Recall Joh_2:19 where Jesus said: “And in three days I will raise it up.” He did not mean that he will raise himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom_8:11).
    The Father is the active agent. The Son is the impassive recipient. Christ has the authority, right and privilege to accept his life again. God had the power to do this for him.

    And so it came to pass... :cool:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.