Results 21 - 25 of 25
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Andy S. Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | One thread? | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234522 | ||
Hey Tim, The verses you gave me where the verb is translated as "I am" is not the same exact verb used in Exodus 3:14. The verb in these verses is ha-yi-ti (sorry, I'm not good with putting "accents" on my letters). It seems to me you have slowly gone from a position of Jesus definitely claiming the divine title of Yahweh to him just "alluding to it". So I think you definitely understand my position that participles and Titles don't mix. My God is an all-powerful God and if He wanted me to believe that Jesus was claiming the divine name of God then the Septuagint would read, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM (ego eimi) has sent me to you'". Instead the LXX reads, "He who is/the being (HO ON) has sent me to you". Or I would be convinced if John 8:58 read, "before Abraham was born, He who is/The being (HO ON). Tim, exact words are included in titles and titles are specific. Our president of the United States is not called president in some states and master in others. My all-powerful God would not allow there to be any question or controversy concerning a verse that deals with salvation (John 8:24). Especially if this is the only verse in the whole New Testament that supposedly makes it a requirement to believe Jesus is Yahweh. So I made my argument concerning this and I don't think there is much you can say to convince me otherwise unless you find the Septuagint Servetus is talking about that has "ego eimi" in the place of "ho on". Now let's look at the circumstantial evidence. You say Jesus is "alluding" to the Divine Title and my circumstiantial evidence is verse 25 when the Jews ask Him "Who are you?" This sure doesn't sound like Jesus is claiming the Divine Title because this would be a stupid question. Jesus obviously told them who He was by claiming the Title of Yahweh. Now let's look at your circumstantial evidence. You say the reaction of the Jewish leaders points to Jesus "alluding" to the Divine Title. You're using the word "alluding" so we can't say for sure he is claiming to be Yahweh but because the Jews picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy this seals the deal. But couldn't the Jews be stoning Him for claiming He is the Son of God. Take a look at John 19:7. The context of John chapter 8 is Jesus "alluding" to being the Son of God (8:16,18,19,28,38,40,42,49,54). Also, why did the Jews ask Him 2 chapters later, "How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly (John 10:24)". Why would they be asking this? Didn't Jesus claim He was Yahweh in 8:58? And Tim, don't you find it suspicious that the charge against Jesus at his Trial was that He was the Son of God and not the One True God incarnate? I also find it interesting that Iranaeus who was discipled by Polycarp who was discipled by John interpreted John 8:58 to just mean that Jesus existed before Abraham (ccel.org fragment LII). He said nothing that Jesus was claiming the Divine Title of Yahweh. And Tim, why did the council of Nicea last two months. Shouldn't the debate over Jesus' deity have lasted 2 minutes. Athanasius would have pointed to John 8:58 and said, "Debate is over"! I find it extremely interesting reading through the early church fathers (before 325 A.D.)on ccel.org that I find no evidence that Jesus claimed the Divine Name of Yahweh. I gave you a couple of things to think about. Hey Tim, it seems like our posts are overlapping into the same subject. You can respond to both of mine that I gave you but then would you like to just have one thread? God Bless and Happy Thanksgiving! Andy |
||||||
22 | Interpret John 8:24 | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234539 | ||
Hey Tim, Wow, it took a long time but we finally see eye to eye one one thing. I agree, I will never be able to understand our infinite God. I don't know why we would have to meet face to face. I think you can be much clearer through e-mailing because you have a delete button if you want to take anything back that you have written. We have been talking about the truth of the gospel and since the gospel is simple it should be easy to give a clear answer. You said there is not a long checklist of doctrine that one must believe in order to be saved. Your checklist is longer than mine my friend because of how you interpret John 8:24. Wait just a second. I can't believe I have to ask you this again but how do you interpret John 8:24. I said we had to slow down for BradK but now we have to slow down for my sake. I promised BradK you are "well-rounded" but now I'm not so sure. Your going to really have to explain yourself. You said you disagree with my former pastor's understanding of John 8:24. Let me put you in a hypothetical scenario. You are having a Bible Study at a coffee shop with my former Pastor and you guys agree that Jesus is claiming to be Jehovah through these "I am" statements in John chapter 8. And my former pastor says, "People will "die in their sins" if they don't believe Jesus is co-equal, co-eternal and con-substantial (one being) with the person of Jehovah. If Jesus is claiming to be Jehovah then He is obviously claiming to be the "being" of Jehovah". And you respond, "Yes I agree that Jesus is claiming to be Jehovah in these verses but I disagree with you because....". Can you please complete this sentence for me? If you don't mind I'm going to send people over to this thread so we can just use one thread. I want to respond to your other thread but I would like this question answered and I'm going to use that thread to notify people we are now using this thread. So ignore your second e-mail. I just read your last sentence. I take it back, there are two things we have agreed on. "Truth is truth because it is true, not because everyone agrees with it." THAT'S THE TRUTH! God Bless and Happy Thanksgiving, Andy |
||||||
23 | One thread? | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234540 | ||
THIS THREAD HAS MOVED TO THE FEED ENTITLED "DIE IN YOUR SINS". THIS DISCUSSION HAS OVERLAPPED AND THIS 2 DIMENSIONED DIALOGUE HAS BECOME 1 DIMENSIONED. THESE ISSUES WILL BE DISCUSSED MORE IN THE THREAD ENTITLED "DIE IN YOUR SINS". | ||||||
24 | Interpret John 8:24 | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234556 | ||
Hey Tim, It looks like I'm not the only one who thinks you are dodging this question. Servetus is right. I never said my former pastor said I had to UNDERSTAND how Jesus is Yahweh, he said I just have to BELIEVE Jesus is Yahweh. These are two totally different things. Tim, if someone could truly understand every aspect of how the Son of God can actually be the Supreme God himself, the person could make millions of dollars writing books about this. I said I agree with you that our finite minds cannot fully comprehend God. So I repeat: My pastor did not say I have to UNDERSTAND any of this. He only said I have to BELIEVE it. I remember him even referencing the Samson story and saying you don't have to understand how Samson's hair gives him strength, you only have to believe it. So back to the same wording in the hypothetical scenario in the coffee shop I gave you. I really don't see how you would have any disagreement. My former pastor is talking to you and says, "People will 'die in their sins' if they don't BELIEVE Jesus is co-equal, co-eternal and con-substantial (one being) with the person of Jehovah. If Jesus is claiming to be Jehovah then He is obviously claiming to be the "being" of Jehovah". So Tim, sorry for the misunderstanding. But knowing that my former pastor said nothing about the requirement of having to UNDERSTAND a binity, what is your response to his statement. Finish this conversation. Do you say I agree... or do you say I disagree because.... I can't move on if you are not honest with this. I'm not the only one who thinks you might be dodging this question. Servetus even said he didn't remember my pastor saying one must understand this. And then you completed the sentence in his post and said I disagree because one does not have to fully UNDERSTAND the nature of Jesus. You have not answered my question as "directly" as you can. I need to first establish the truth to your gospel and then I will let you know about all my presuppositions. I would love to discuss all the scripture you gave me especially the comparison of Mar. 13:6 and Mat. 24:5. I definitely think you are reading waaaaay to much into these "I am" statements. I look forward to our continued discussion on the truth to the gospel message. I hope you had a great Thanksgiving. God Bless, Andy |
||||||
25 | die in your sins | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234576 | ||
Hey EdB, Good to hear from you again. That is a great question. It's probably the best question I've received since being on this forum. Tim is saying that because Jesus is saying "I am" in John 8:24 that one must believe that Jesus is Jehovah or they will "die in their sins". Tim, like most "orthodox" Christians, is saying that Jesus is claiming the Divine Title found in Exodus 3:14 ("I am"). So the verse would loosly read, "...unless you believe that I am Yahweh, you shall die in your sins." I have found this verse to be extremely controversial within the Christian Community. If you read this entire thread you will see that I am challenging Tim's claim that this "I am" statement is a verb and not a Title. The other thread to read concerning this topic is entitled "I am who I am". I think you know of this thread because I tried to answer one of your questions. Some of his best evidence is the way the Jews reacted in John 8:58 when he again said "I am". This is the only verse in the whole Bible that makes it a requirement to believe that Jesus is actually Jehovah. In other words, according to Tim's interpretation, people must believe that Jesus is the Son of God and God. To answer your question, I would say nothing is different from John 8:24 to the two "I am's" in John 8:23. Tim has a different opinion which he does a good job explaining his position in this thread. When I started questioning this verse I had the exact question as you. I think Tim is reading waaaay too much into these "I am" statements. The debate is really over if this "I am" statement is just a verb or a title. There is really no easy answer and all Tim and I really have is circumstantial evidence. This verse either adds to the doctrine of salvation or subtracts from the doctrine of salvation depending on how you interpret it. I had a problem with this verse in my Christian walk because I wasn't saved under the impression that Jesus was the Son of God and God. I had no idea what the definition of Trinity was. 6 months after I was saved I found out from my pastor that I would "die in my sins" if I didn't believe Jesus was also God. I was only under the impression that God sent his Son and Jesus loved and obeyed His Father and that is why He was the perfect atonement for my sins. I was not under the impression that God loved and obeyed Himself that He sacrificed Himself to Himself to atone for the sins of the world. My former pastor told me that if I didn't accept that Yahweh and Jesus were co-eternal, co-equal, and con-substantial then I would "die in my sins" according to his interpretation of John 8:24. I hope this helps a little. I would encourage you to keep an eye on this thread. Tim and I have laid a foundation for a great debate. He seems very intelligent. God Bless, Andy |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 ] |