Results 1 - 20 of 25
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Andy S. Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 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 |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | 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". | ||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||
5 | 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 |
||||||
6 | Was the blind man God? | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234521 | ||
BradK, 1. I didn't say you agreed with Tim. I said, "IF you believe Tim on this issue". I want to make you happy Brad so I posed the question to Tim entitled "Do you believe in a binity?" He hasn't answered yet. If he doesn't answer that He does believe in a binity according to my definition given to him then I would question him being "well-rounded". If Jesus is claiming to be Jehovah then He is obviously claiming to be "one being" with Jehovah. 2. You say you are not aware that Orthodoxy holds or requires a belief in the Trinity to be saved. You missed my point to this post. The fact you had to know my credentials first clouded your comprehension of my post. My point is that Trinitarian Protestant "Orthodoxy" doesn't even know what "Orthodoxy" is concerning the requirement of belief needed for salvation. One leading Pastor who requires a belief in the Trinity is John MacArthur. If you have access to I-tunes I just listened to one of his question and answer shows last week. You can download this for free on I-tunes and it's the 9/5/11 show and he talks about the Trinity being a requirement of belief 23 minutes into this podcast. 3. What do I mean by Trinitarian Protestant Religion? Well, I know you like me to source the Bible but the words "Trinitarian", "Protestant" or "Religion" are not in the Bible. So Dictionary.com will be my source. 1. Trinitarian: The belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. 2. Protestant: An adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the reformation. 3. Religion: A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. So put together I would say that it is a group of people who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity that separated themselves from the Church of Rome who generally agree on a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices. My point is that this religion cannot be true because people within this religion do not generally agree on a one specific fundamental belief needed for salvation. 4. You said you don't want to "waste your time" in dialoging with someone you know nothing about. I'm sorry but I don't think Jesus would agree with you. The Pharisees were the ones with the "credentials" and He was not concerned about their credentials? Did the Bereans ask for Paul's resume before they heard him out. No! They searched the scriptures daily before they accepted or rejected his claims. Brad, we definitely do not see eye to eye on this. The way people gain credibility with me is not by showing me their degrees. I could care less. The way trust is built in my eyes is testing the truthfulness of their claims in light of scripture. Brad, I don't remember ever asking you to dialogue with me. This last question, "was the blind man God?" wasn't even directed to you. It was directed to Tim. I could care less if you don't want to dialogue with me. Trust me, my feelings aren't hurt. You have added nothing to this topic. I'll be blunt. I'm a high school drop-out but at least I'm smart enough to google "Trinitarian Protestant Religion". Do I have an agenda? Yes! It is learning from others and proclaiming the truth to the gospel that I have come to know and love. Please do not chime in anymore. You are only slowing down this process. Tim seems much more passionate about the truth to the gospel and I'd much rather dialogue with him about the gospel and not about credentials. |
||||||
7 | Was the blind man God? | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234519 | ||
BradK, 1. I didn't say you agreed with Tim. I said, "IF you believe Tim on this issue". I want to make you happy Brad so I posed the question to Tim entitled "Do you believe in a binity?" He hasn't answered yet. If he doesn't answer that He does believe in a binity according to my definition given to him then I would question him being "well-rounded". If Jesus is claiming to be Jehovah then He is obviously claiming to be "one being" with Jehovah. 2. You say you are not aware that Orthodoxy holds or requires a belief in the Trinity to be saved. You missed my point to this post. The fact you had to know my credentials first clouded your comprehension of my post. My point is that Trinitarian Protestant "Orthodoxy" doesn't even know what "Orthodoxy" is concerning the requirement of belief needed for salvation. One leading Pastor who requires a belief in the Trinity is John MacArthur. If you have access to I-tunes I just listened to one of his question and answer shows last week. You can download this for free on I-tunes and it's the 9/5/11 show and he talks about the Trinity being a requirement of belief 23 minutes into this podcast. 3. What do I mean by Trinitarian Protestant Religion? Well, I know you like me to source the Bible but the words "Trinitarian", "Protestant" or "Religion" are not in the Bible. So Dictionary.com will be my source. 1. Trinitarian: The belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. 2. Protestant: An adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the reformation. 3. Religion: A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. So put together I would say that it is a group of people who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity that separated themselves from the Church of Rome who generally agree on a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices. My point is that this religion cannot be true because people within this religion do not generally agree on a one specific fundamental belief needed for salvation. 4. You said you don't want to "waste your time" in dialoging with someone you know nothing about. I'm sorry but I don't think Jesus would agree with you. The Pharisees were the ones with the "credentials" and He was not concerned about their credentials? Did the Bereans ask for Paul's resume before they heard him out. No! They searched the scriptures daily before they accepted or rejected his claims. Brad, we definitely do not see eye to eye on this. The way people gain credibility with me is not by showing me their degrees. I could care less. The way trust is built in my eyes is testing the truthfulness of their claims in light of scripture. Brad, I don't remember ever asking you to dialogue with me. This last question, "was the blind man God?" wasn't even directed to you. It was directed to Tim. I could care less if you don't want to dialogue with me. Trust me, my feelings aren't hurt. You have added nothing to this topic. I'll be blunt. I'm a high school drop-out but at least I'm smart enough to google "Trinitarian Protestant Religion". Do I have an agenda? Yes! It is learning from others and proclaiming the truth to the gospel that I have come to know and love. Please do not chime in anymore. You are only slowing down this process. Tim seems much more passionate about the truth to the gospel and I'd much rather dialogue with him about the gospel and not about credentials. |
||||||
8 | do you believe in binity? | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234517 | ||
Hey Tim, I hope I didn't come off as sarcastic when I mentioned the fact that you were saved at the age of six. I love testimonies! I just heard Woodrool Kroll's (sorry for the spelling) testimony and he was saved at the age of 5. Tim, I believe in God and the supernatural and I truly do believe that you could be saved at the age of 6. It's been a long time but maybe I did know my address at the age of 6 but I certainly didn't know the nature of Jesus. I didn't know that the Son of God could also be God. I was probably wondering how Clark Kent could actually be Superman. I definitely didn't know at the age of 6 that I was a sinner in need of a savior. I'm curious though. You said you need to know the nature of Jesus in order to be saved. Did you know the entire nature of Jesus? Did you know of the Hypostatic Union and how He had two wills and natures? If you could understand this then your supernatural story is incredible! It is fascinating how you could understand that God loved and obeyed Himself that he sacrificed Himself to Himself in order to atone for the sins of mankind. Please let me know more. I love hearing testimonies! Also, did you discover God's plan of redemption on your own through reading parts of the Bible on your own or were you told the "gospel" by someone? My testimony goes as follows: I was an alcoholic and a pothead. I started going to church and was blessed with a pastor who preached repentence and daily reading of the Bible. I read the Bible and discovered that it is truly God's word and found His plan of redemption and accepted it. I knew I was a sinner in need of a savior and knew that Jesus was that savior. I accepted Him as my Lord and Savior and knew in my heart that He was the incarnate Son OF God. I immediately experienced conviction and by the grace of God I was freed from my bondage of sin that separated me from God. My pastor taught me to be a Berean. One problem! I never knew what the definition to the Trinity was before I was saved. I had no idea that Jesus was Yahweh. When my pastor got to John 8:24 in his verse by verse study I discovered, according to his understanding of this verse, that I was going to "die in my sins" and I immediately questioned my salvation. I worked out my salvation with "fear and trembling" and studied every aspect of this verse before I accepted or rejected my pastor's interpretation. I ended up rejecting his interpretation which landed me in my own home church. One thing I learned about Church history is that people will be persecuted or ostracized if you disagree with the majority. Nothing new is under the sun. Tim, I would love to address some of your points but we need to slow down for BradK. He is confused over the word Binity. By Binity I mean that the Father and Son are co-qequal, co-eternal, and con-substantial. you said that in John 8:24 that Jesus is claiming to be Jehovah. So is it fair to say that you believe that one will "die in their sins" if they don't believe that the Father and Son are co-equal, co-eternal and con-substantial (One being). I know there's no mention that one must understand this in order to be saved but you are saying that one must believe this right? In other words, believing that Jesus is the "being" of Jehovah is a requirement of belief according to your understanding of scripture. By the way, I gave DPMartin a chance to agree with you since you said you two are in agreement that Jesus is claiming in John 8:24 to be Jehovah. It didn't sound like he is in complete agreement with you. I didn't see anywhere in his post that Jesus is claiming to be Jehovah or that you will "die in your sins" if you don't think Jesus is Jehovah. His post is entitled "Andy I don't have an interpretation of...". Religion is defined as a specific set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. You see why I say the Trinitarian Protestant Religion can't be entirely true. People within the religion cannot agree on the requirement of belief needed for salvation. The religion has turned into chasing the "right" gospel. God Bless, Andy |
||||||
9 | I am Who I am in New Testament | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234510 | ||
Hey EdB, That's a good question. I think I accept the Tetragrammaton as THE Divine Name only because I think the Jews did. "A taboo on saying the name (Yahweh) aloud developed in Judaism, and rather than pronounce the written name, other titles were substituted, including Lord" (source: Wikepedia - Tetragrammaton). I've never heard anyone call God by the name of "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob". I have always thought this was a title like the President of the United States. Your question was interesting so I checked if any website might agree with you that this is God's name and not a title and I couldn't find any. If you google "Names of God" I found the BlueLetterBible to give the best explanation of all the names of God. God Bless, Andy |
||||||
10 | Is your religion a true religion? | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234499 | ||
Hey DPMartin, That was beautiful! When ever I feel that I'm clothed in Christ I feel like I'm doing everything in my power to obey His will. Your post reminded me of something C.H. Spurgeon said, "If you simply take the name of Christ upon you and call yourself His servant, yet do not obey Him, but follow your own whim, or your own hereditary prejudice, or the custom of some erroneous church - you are no servant of Christ. If you really are a servant of Christ, your first duty is to obey Him." God Bless, Andy |
||||||
11 | Was the blind man God? | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234498 | ||
Brad, I have no authority. The word of God is my authority. I claim to only be a Berean. You shouldn't trust what I say! I wouldn't accept or reject anything I say until you test it in light of scripture. I have included Bible references to support all my claims. Can you give me an example of where I didn't? I have even given you my online sources. I'm sorry Brad, but if you agree with Tim on this issue then I feel that you are in direct violation of #2. If you believe the gospel requires a person to believe in a Binity to be saved then this belief is a personal attack on the authority of the Bible. We as Christians need to feed off one another to fully understand the absolute truth to the gospel. If you have read my other posts then you know how passionate I am about the gospel I have come to know and love. As you probably know, there are differing views concerning the requirement of belief needed for salvation. Some people believe you need to believe in the Trinity to be saved. Many people such as Tim believe that you need to believe in a Binity to be saved. And others like myself don't believe one has to believe in any aspect of the Trinity to be saved. If people disagree within the Trinitarian Protestant religion on the requirement of belief needed for salvation then the religion can't be entirely true. What you are left with then is trying to figure out what the truth to the gospel really is. As you know, adhering to the truth of the gospel is very important. In fact Paul wishes that anyone who perverts the gospel to be accursed (Gal. 1:6-9). So Brad, do you want to "waste your time" talking about credentials or do you want to join me in trying to figure out the truth to the gospel? God Bless, Andy |
||||||
12 | Did I answer your question BradK? | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234497 | ||
Hey Brad, The reason I said look at john 8:24 in the Good News Bible was an example of how humanity can twist scripture to fit their bias. I think this is also the case for translating the meaning of the Tetragrammaton in Exodus 3:14 to "I am that I am". I responded to Tim (post ID 234494) if you want to read my response. I know you said that Tim has already given a "well-rounded" answer but I would strongly disagree. If you think that the verb "hayah" should be translated "I AM" then so be it. Your taking a 1 in 72 chance. And this 1 in 72 chance is connecting Exodus 3:14 to John 8:24 and perverting the gospel I have come to know. I know you say his answer is "well-rounded" but I don't see how. It boggles my mind if you agree with him. I love how you end your posts: Speaking the Truth in Love. That's what I'm doing. The truth to the gospel is sooooo important! Please Brad, don't take Tim's word for it and check into this stuff. There are so many great online Bible tools! God Bless, Andy |
||||||
13 | I am Who I am in New Testament | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234495 | ||
Hey EdB, That's why I said the MEANING to the Tetragrammaton! The MEANING to the Tetragrammaton is said to be "I am who I am" which I think is a poor translation. I have had a problem with people calling God "I AM" as well. Look at my other posts for an explanation. You're right, the Tetragrammaton isn't found until verse 15 and 16 translated LORD (all caps) in our Bibles. I would have to respectfully disagree with you that God's name is 'The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob' as I believe this to be a Title. I think the Tetragrammaton (YHWH - Yahweh) translated LORD in our Old Testaments over 6,000 times is actually the name of God. Isaiah 42:8 makes this pretty clear. I hope this helps! God Bless, Andy |
||||||
14 | I am Who I am in New Testament | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234494 | ||
Hey Tim, I don't understand your logic. Titles and participial forms don't mix. Let's start over. You said that "I AM" (ego eimi in the greek) is the Divine Title of Yahweh. Let's look at Exodus 3:14 in the Septuagint. "And God said to Moses, I AM THE BEING (ego eimi ho on); and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Isreal, THE BEING (Ho on) has sent me to you." It is a HUGE stretch to connect John 8:24 to Ex. 3:14. If Jesus was "clearly making that connection Himself" John 8:24 would read "...for unless you believe that THE BEING (HO ON), you shall die in your sins". Titles to names use the exact words and not participial forms. So the title using the Septuagint is THE BEING (HO ON). We definitely disagree on this as you say "God uses it in a unique way in Ex. 3:14. I don't think so. I believe this connection was made by our biased translators. In fact, I believe that this connection perverts the gospel as it adds to the doctrine of salvation making it a requirement to believe that Jesus is Yahweh (John 8:24). Finally, I can't tell you what to believe. If you think the verb "hayah" should be translated as "I am" that's your choice. But I think it is very suspicious that it is only translated as "I am" in 1 verse out of 72 (Ex. 3:14). My source for that is BlueLetterBible. The evidence is clear. Knowledge is increasing because of the internet. I thank God I can check into this stuff through the use of incredible online Bible tools. God Bless, Andy |
||||||
15 | Was the blind man God? | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234493 | ||
Hey Tim, Thanks for all the scripture on what we are required to believe. It was like playing the game I-SPY the perversion. And I spied your perversion to the gospel only because I know your interpretation to John 8:24. Look at all the beautiful verses that tell people they are required to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. And then there's John 8:24 that sticks out like a sore thumb. This is the only verse that supposedly requires a person to believe that Jesus is actually Yahweh Himself and not the Son of God. Isn't this suspicious to you Tim? And then you said in one of your posts that the context calls for this "I AM" to be a Divine title. Did you read the next verse (8:25). The response of the Jews screams the exact opposite of a Divine title when they ask "Who are you?" Why did they ask that? Didn't Jesus just tell them in verse 24 that He is Yahweh. Tim, I'm sorry but I have to call you out that you are perverting the gospel with your interpretation to John 8:24. Your adding to the gospel by requiring a person to believe in a Binity in order to be saved. You are adding to the doctrine of salvation with the wrong interpretation of John 8:24. I would even start at the foundation and make sure Exodus 3:14 (I am that I am) should even be translated that way. Are you going to let one controversial verse (John 8:24) which is built upon another ambiguous verse (Exodus 3:14) add to the truth of your gospel. This sure changes John 3:16 to read, For God so loved the world that He sent Himself. I don't think you're going to answer my question if the Trinitarian Protestant Church can be a true religion. Who am I kidding, I think I know the answer. The answer is NO! There could be partial truth to the religion but it's really about trying to find the right gospel within the Trinitarian Protestant religion. A religion can't be entirely true if people within the religion can't even agree on the requirement of belief needed for salvation. I hope this post is not too divisive but their is nothing more divisive than telling someone they will "die in their sins" because of a poor interpretation one way or another. Tim, this is important so let's feed off of one another and let's get the gospel right. So let me start with the first question. Did the blind man in John 9:9 claim he was God when he said the "Divine Name - I am" (ego eimi in greek) when saying he was the blind man. By the way, I would like to congratulate you on being saved at the age of six. That's awesome! I don't think I even new my phone number or address when I was six let alone know the nature of Jesus and that the Son of God can also be God. That's incredible! God Bless, Andy |
||||||
16 | What's your interpretation DPMartin? | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234492 | ||
Hey DPMartin, I loved your last response to the requirement of belief needed for salvation when I asked if one needs to believe in a Binity in order to be saved. Can you give your interpretation of John 8:24 then. Is Jesus claiming to be yahweh? If you believe He is then you have to believe in some aspect of the Trinity unless you will "die in your sins". I'm curious to know what's your interpretation. It sure doesn't seem to me that this "I AM" statement is a Divine title because the circumstantial evidence is the Jews asking him, "who are you" in verse 25. I'm curious of your interpretation to this verse. |
||||||
17 | Tim, what's the gospel truth? | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234466 | ||
Hey Tim, I have no idea what you mean by "you were baiting us". How did I know you wouldn't be the one to answer my question about the requirement of belief needed for salvation? However, Mr. Martin and you did disagree in your responses. If he would have agreed with you he would have said, "Yes, you do have to believe in a Binity because Jesus is saying in John 8:24 that you 'will die in your sins' if you don't belive that He is Yahweh (I AM)." Mr. Martin also never mentioned that I "must understand and accept the true nature of Jesus in order to be saved". If you read his post it sounds like I have to trust that Jesus is the Son of God and not Yahweh Himself. If Jesus is saying that He is Yahweh in John 8:24 then He is obviously saying that He is co-equal, co-eternal and con-substantial with the Father. Thus, if you believe this interpretation of John 8:24 then you must have to believe in at least a Binity in order to be saved. So, Mr. Martin would have said, "Yes, you have to believe in a Binity unless you will 'die in your sins'". Instead, He said that all I have to do is believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. You actually just admitted that some people disagree about the requirement of belief needed for salvation in your last post. You said, "MOST Christians feel that a full understanding of the Trinity is not necessary for salvation". WHAT? MOST? Shouldn't your sentence read, "ALL CHRISTIANS" or "NO CHRISTIANS"? So, In response to your first question, I couldn't have asked a more honest question in my life. I want to know how the Trinitarian religion can be true if a number of pastors disagree on the doctrine of salvation. WHAT GOSPEL IS TRUE? Shouldn't there be an exact formula revealed our Bibles of the exact requirement of belief needed for salvation. How do I witness to people? Do I tell people they will 'die in their sins' if they don't believe Jesus is Yahweh or do I tell people they will "die in their sins" if they don't think Jesus is the only begotten Son of God? My question remains: Can the Trinitarian Protestant religion even be true if scholars, theologians and pastors disagree on the requirement of belief needed for salvation? My agenda is seeking truth within the Trinitarian Protestant Religion? I hope you can help. God Bless, Andy |
||||||
18 | I am Who I am in New Testament | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234465 | ||
The Tetragrammaton (YHWH - Yahweh) is the Divine name of God. The words translated "I am who I am" in our Bibles is the MEANING of the Divine name Yahweh. Just look up Tetragrammaton on Wikipedia. The reason I said it is poorly translated as "I am who I am" is that it is a reach to translate the transliterated word hayah to "I am". Just go to BlueLetterBible.org and look up strongs #H1961. Out of 72 verses the transliterated word hayah is only translated as "I am" in 1 verse (Exodus 3:14). If you research the Tetragrammaton on the internet you will find that the MEANING of Yahweh found in Ex. 3:14 has been variously interpreted. Some interpretations : "He Brings Into existence whatever exists"; "I will be that which I now am"; "I will be that I will be"; "I will become whatsoever I please"; "I am the existing One"; "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be". The Septuagint (Greek translation of Old Testament) translates the meaning as I am the Being (ego eimi ho on). The only reason I believe that our Bibles today translate the MEANING of Yahweh as "I am who I am" is because they want you to make a connection to Jesus' "I am" statements in John chapter 8. Just look at the Good News Bible translation at John 8:24 if you don't believe me. I believe this is a perfect example of translational bias. The study of the Divine Name of God (Yahweh) is a fascinating study. God Bless, Andy | ||||||
19 | Did I answer your question BradK? | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234464 | ||
Sorry BradK, I am new to this forum and had no idea that question was 11 years old. You said that you are challenging my answer and I don't know what you are challenging. You can look at any Bible concordance and you will find that I am Who I am is not in the New Testament. The closest you will find is Paul saying "I am what I am" in 1 Corinthians 15:10. The Tetragrammaton (YHWH-Yahweh) is the Divine Name of God. The words translated "I am who I am" in our Bibles is the MEANING of the Divine Name Yahweh. Just look up Tetragrammaton on Wikipedia. The reason I said it is poorly translated as "I am who I am" is that it is a reach to translate the transliterated word hayah to "I am". Just go to BlueLetterBible.org and look up strongs #H1961. Out of 72 verses the transliterated word hayah is only translated as "I am" in 1 verse (Exodus 3:14). If you research the Tetragrammaton on the internet you will find that the meaning of Yahweh found in Exodus 3:14 has been variously interpreted. Some interpretations: "He Brings Into Existence Whatever Exists"; "I will be that which I now am"; "I will be that I will be"; "I will Become whatsoever I please"; "I am the Existing One"; "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be". The only reason I believe that our Bibles today translates the MEANING of Yahweh as "I am who I am" is because they want you to make a connection to Jesus' I am statements in John chapter 8. Just look at the Good News Bible translation at John 8:24 if you don't believe me. So BradK, I hope I answered your question "on what basis". I hope you research the Divine name of Yahweh. I think you will find the study of the name of Yahweh to be fascinating and I hope it won't be a "waste of your time". God Bless, Andy | ||||||
20 | I am Who I am in New Testament | John 8:24 | Andy S. | 234449 | ||
The MEANING of the tetragrammaton (YHWH - Yahweh) which is poorly translated in our Old Testaments (Exodus 3:14) as "I am who I am" is not found in our New Testament. | ||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |