keypurr
Well-known member
Wow, that changes what was in most translations but I have no problem accepting your thoughts. For the son of man came down to dwell in Jesus.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app
This day have I begotten you
- Thread starter daqq
- Start date
Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app
That is not what it says, but nice try.
beameup
New member
A small child can know God and walk with God.
"much learning doth make thee mad" Festus to Paul
keypurr
Well-known member
That small child is most likely smarter than you.
Sent from my A622GL using TheologyOnline mobile app
beameup
New member
_______________________________________________________________________
It seems as though it is you that is a stumbling block to others understanding
"the simplicity that is in Christ". The Serpent has beguiled you, your mind is corrupted.
keypurr
Well-known member
Follow as a child if you wish, I grew up and asked questions. I discovered that Santa does not really have s toy shop at the north pole.
To understand God and his Son one must enlighten himself to what the scriptures contain. One needs to grow in Christ to really see what he is saying. One needs to study every word and prove there content before they can truly say they know Christ.
After seventy years of prayerful study I am still learning about my God and his son. You should be too for you display a lack of knowledge on who our Lord and his God are.
Sent from my A622GL using TheologyOnline mobile app
It actually does not change much of what is already in most translations but rather highlights what they choose not to highlight. The flow of the passage lends itself to this understanding because it says, "the heavens were opened unto him", then, "and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove", then, "and lighting upon him", everything written thus far concerns events stated only to have occurred to Yeshua himself; so then it flows naturally that, "he heard", but the next line begins with, "And lo" [hear], or "And behold" [see], so it makes perfect sense that after, "a voice from the heavens", we would read, "saying unto him" because that is the implied natural outcome of the passage by the context and the flow. There are manifold places where sentences are finished in this way by adding such words into the text, when and where it is implied, but theology always plays a part when such a choice needs to be made. It may not be explicitly stated in the text here but it is implied by the context and flow of the passage. If you simply read even the KJV with this in mind it can either be seen or denied because it is not actually written but implied sort of like what is called ellipsis:
Matthew 3:16-17 KJV
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying [unto him], This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
keypurr
Well-known member
I see it clearer now that you brought it to my attention. Funny how the mind assumes much and overlooks all that is there.
When I get a chance I will check out my other translations. The Aramaic is worded a little different from your last post but they seem comparable.
Sent from my A622GL using TheologyOnline mobile app
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
John 8....and the ' i am' statements.....
John 8....and the ' i am' statements.....
Hi, an excellent thread, and I agree with daqq in much of what hes shared so far, as the evidence also bears witness
Now concerning your 'assumption' above,....the phrase 'ego eimi' in this passage translated by some some bible translators as 'I AM'...does NOT necessarily refer to 'God', (all letters were capitalized in the earliest manuscripts, so leaving 'I AM' capitalized is of no special significance here, beyond translator's choice) since such is a common greek phrase used to identify oneself as the one being referenced within the context of any given situation, so that often a translation of 'I am (he)' fits the context better, since "I" is the one being referenced. The NIV gives a better translation of this passage IMO - “If you do not believe I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.” 'Ego eimi' is spoken by other people in the NT besides Jesus, and that didn't make them 'God'....its a self-reference pointing to the one being spoken about, per the immediate context of info. being shared.
'Ego eimi' in greek does not equate or uniquely or specially refer to the hebrew 'ehyeh asher ehyeh' or 'YHWH', the divine name in Ex. 3:14.
See here.
Another passage Trinitarians try to use to prove Jesus is 'God' is John 8:58, "before Abraham was, I AM" (again no capitalization in the original text,..translators made these modificaitons to support their own theological bias).
Brother Kel's article for the above here.
Daqq may chime in on this particular passage and critique my analysis on it
This seems to be a clear manipulation of the text for a theological bias.
John 8....and the ' i am' statements.....
Hi, an excellent thread, and I agree with daqq in much of what hes shared so far, as the evidence also bears witness
Now concerning your 'assumption' above,....the phrase 'ego eimi' in this passage translated by some some bible translators as 'I AM'...does NOT necessarily refer to 'God', (all letters were capitalized in the earliest manuscripts, so leaving 'I AM' capitalized is of no special significance here, beyond translator's choice) since such is a common greek phrase used to identify oneself as the one being referenced within the context of any given situation, so that often a translation of 'I am (he)' fits the context better, since "I" is the one being referenced. The NIV gives a better translation of this passage IMO - “If you do not believe I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.” 'Ego eimi' is spoken by other people in the NT besides Jesus, and that didn't make them 'God'....its a self-reference pointing to the one being spoken about, per the immediate context of info. being shared.
'Ego eimi' in greek does not equate or uniquely or specially refer to the hebrew 'ehyeh asher ehyeh' or 'YHWH', the divine name in Ex. 3:14.
See here.
Another passage Trinitarians try to use to prove Jesus is 'God' is John 8:58, "before Abraham was, I AM" (again no capitalization in the original text,..translators made these modificaitons to support their own theological bias).
Brother Kel's article for the above here.
Daqq may chime in on this particular passage and critique my analysis on it
This seems to be a clear manipulation of the text for a theological bias.
Last edited:
Hi, an excellent thread, and I agree with daqq in much of what hes shared so far, as the evidence also bears witness
Now concerning your 'assumption' above,....the phrase 'ego eimi' in this passage translated by some some bible translators as 'I AM'...does NOT necessarily refer to 'God', (there is no capitalization either in the original text) since such is a common greek phrase used to identify oneself as the one being referenced within the context of any given situation, so that often a translation of 'I am (he)' fits the context better, since "I" is the one being referenced. The NIV gives a better translation of this passage IMO - “If you do not believe I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.” 'Ego eimi' is spoken by other people in the NT besides Jesus, and that didn't make them 'God'....its a self-reference pointing to the one being spoken about, per the immediate context of info. being shared.
'Ego eimi' in greek does not equate or uniquely or specially refer to hebrew 'ehyeh asher ehyeh' or 'YHWH', the divine name in Ex. 3:14.
See here.
Another passage Trinitarians try to use to prove Jesus is 'God' is John 8:58, "before Abraham was, I AM" (again no capitalization in the original text,..translators made these modificaitons to support their own theological bias).
Brother Kel's article for the above here.
Daqq may chime in on this particular passage and critique my analysis on it
This seems to be a clear manipulation of the text for a theological bias.
:thumb: Hi Freelight, yes we have chimed in on that, in fact, in one of Beameup's own threads:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?118676-I-AM-the-Name-of-God
But we can talk about it here too, as you can see in the link above, Beameup was already roasted there, (with the fire of scripture).
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Close to the fire.......
Close to the fire.......
While the roast is hot
Years back another poster and I had 2 threads on John 8:58, so we've hashed this pretty much over. I also had my "The Mighty I AM Presence" thread, which went deep into the divine name but in a universal esoteric fashion, recognizing the 'I AM' Presence within the soul as well,...drawing from a broad range of schools, using the Ascended Master teachings as a contextual overlay, but drawing both east and western religious traditions and occult teachings into the over-all matrix - this of course probably goes beyond your usual 'zone' of biblical studies being more 'eclectic' in inclusion,...but the correlaries are there.
Just on an ontological level,...the soul by its own consciousness has the 'I AM' factor in it, which is the individual nexus of self-cognition, or even existence itself (reducing in its pure essence), when taken within a wholly non-dual context,....all things existing within and because of consciousness,...deriving from the one universal original consciousness of 'God', apart from which nothing could exist. So we get deeper into the metaphysics of things, and the subjectivity of consciousness itself, which is highlighted wonderfully within 'non-dualism' in general, which from my view embraces the essential truth recognized in most all religious traditions, at least by their esoteric schools.
Since it appears that some tampering of the scriptures was done by taking out "today I have begotten you" in the gospels, it seems this was done as to not make so much damage on the 'eternally begotten Son' doctrine, and to hush those 'adoptionists' who saw Jesus as being 'begotten' as the Son and Christ at his baptism. I guess we have to follow the proverbial bread crumbs to the various 'doctorings' at work in the evolution of things.
There is the more liberal teaching that since Jesus was a man who became the Christ or Son of God by his faithfulness, devotion and perfection of living, that we all can attain to that level of 'sonship' and 'Christhood' as Jesus did, as our divine Exemplar. From more liberal new-age, esoteric or occult teachings, this is usually a high ideal or principle that Jesus represents for us. On the other hand there is the view of Jesus holding a 'special' and 'unique' place as the Son or Christ of God in his own right and rank,....while we are in another class as it were, yet under his 'headship', following his teachings, being perfected thereby.
If you could comment on these thoughts of Jesus special and unique Sonship compared or related to our 'sonship' with God, that would be super.
Close to the fire.......
:thumb: Hi Freelight, yes we have chimed in on that, in fact, in one of Beameup's own threads:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?118676-I-AM-the-Name-of-God
But we can talk about it here too, as you can see in the link above, Beameup was already roasted there, (with the fire of scripture).
While the roast is hot
Years back another poster and I had 2 threads on John 8:58, so we've hashed this pretty much over. I also had my "The Mighty I AM Presence" thread, which went deep into the divine name but in a universal esoteric fashion, recognizing the 'I AM' Presence within the soul as well,...drawing from a broad range of schools, using the Ascended Master teachings as a contextual overlay, but drawing both east and western religious traditions and occult teachings into the over-all matrix
- this of course probably goes beyond your usual 'zone' of biblical studies being more 'eclectic' in inclusion,...but the correlaries are there.Just on an ontological level,...the soul by its own consciousness has the 'I AM' factor in it, which is the individual nexus of self-cognition, or even existence itself (reducing in its pure essence), when taken within a wholly non-dual context,....all things existing within and because of consciousness,...deriving from the one universal original consciousness of 'God', apart from which nothing could exist. So we get deeper into the metaphysics of things, and the subjectivity of consciousness itself, which is highlighted wonderfully within 'non-dualism' in general, which from my view embraces the essential truth recognized in most all religious traditions, at least by their esoteric schools.
Since it appears that some tampering of the scriptures was done by taking out "today I have begotten you" in the gospels, it seems this was done as to not make so much damage on the 'eternally begotten Son' doctrine, and to hush those 'adoptionists' who saw Jesus as being 'begotten' as the Son and Christ at his baptism. I guess we have to follow the proverbial bread crumbs to the various 'doctorings' at work in the evolution of things.
There is the more liberal teaching that since Jesus was a man who became the Christ or Son of God by his faithfulness, devotion and perfection of living, that we all can attain to that level of 'sonship' and 'Christhood' as Jesus did, as our divine Exemplar. From more liberal new-age, esoteric or occult teachings, this is usually a high ideal or principle that Jesus represents for us. On the other hand there is the view of Jesus holding a 'special' and 'unique' place as the Son or Christ of God in his own right and rank,....while we are in another class as it were, yet under his 'headship', following his teachings, being perfected thereby.
If you could comment on these thoughts of Jesus special and unique Sonship compared or related to our 'sonship' with God, that would be super.
Hi Freelight, first allow me to say that they took up stones to cast at him not because he claimed to be Elohim Most High but because he strongly implied that the covenant to Abraham was not yet fully realized, for he says, "I am before Abraham comes to pass", (γενεσθαι). In other words, Before [the covenant of] Abraham comes to pass I am he/here, (as if to say right here right now; not a statement of pre-existence as the Trinitarian view automatically assumes), and that is because he says elsewhere, For all the Prophets and the Torah prophesied until Yohanan, (Matthew 11:13). So once again Matthew 11:11-13 completely overturns the mainstream Christian doctrinal mindset because instead of believing that Torah fully commenced at Golgotha, finally having been fully expounded and enacted through the Master Yeshua, they rather choose to believe that it was abolished at Golgotha. How ironic it is that the Chief Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, have more of an excuse than mainstream Christianity because in their day Messiah had not yet come to show them the true way of Torah: however, these modern Pharisees have utterly no excuse because they claim to have accepted Messiah while condemning those of the first century who did not recognize him in the Gospel records, and yet these modern Pharisees have his words right in front of them, in the same Gospel records, and yet they choose a delusion fed to them from Rome over the very words of Messiah. This is clearly evident in their Trinitarian biased rendering of γενεσθαι in the John 8:58 statement where they always render it as "was", ("before Abraham was"). But go look at how this form is rendered in nearly every other context and the falsehood is very clear to any honest reader, (one does not need to read Greek to see it but simply look into how the form is rendered in most other occasions). The form genesthai occurs thirty seven times, (see here), and does not commonly mean "was", as the Trinitarians would like everyone to believe. The reason they do not understand what is said in John 8:58 is because they do not believe the clear emphatic statement from Matthew 11:13. Yet in doing what they do with John 8:58 they actually, in theory, make void what Paul says about Messiah being the Seed of Abraham, (and thus the ultimate fulfillment of the covenant to Abraham and his Seed). As for the Son of man I will try to come back to that next in an attempt to keep this post from becoming too long; but Messiah must be formed in us according to Paul himself, thus, when we read of the Son of man in the Psalms have you noticed that it always appears to be speaking of the entire community of Yisrael or even all mankind? The author of Hebrews is not denying this or taking anything out of context, but rather, the translations generally make it appear that way. Yeshua is indeed the first and firstborn, but that is, among many brethren.
Indeed, if Yeshua became a son of Elohim at his immersion, that is, by "adoption", then he becomes the Firstborn exemplar for us all; the Leader, the Prince of the host, the author of our true deliverance; for he goes before us and shows us the Way. Yohanan first reveals this very same thinking when he tells the rulers of the people that come to his immersion, the Pharisees, Sadducs, Scribes, and others sent from the chief Priests and Levites, that they cannot depend upon their physical lineage from father Abraham but must repent-teshuvah-change of heart and start anew, even as if they were gentiles or heathen entering into a new community of Yisrael, (and they clearly reject him for this). The same kinds of teachings may be found in the writings of the Dead Sea sect at Qumran, (Zadokites). Whenever anyone chose to join the community they were required to start as a "babe", anew, and become immersed into the community, or "grafted in", over a specified period of training and induction into the community which was about three years. Paul is teaching much of the same principles and especially when he says that Messiah must be formed in us.
Testimony is Spirit, the Testimony of Yeshua is the "Son of man", that is, the inner man or new man which Paul likewise speaks much about. He is not born of a woman because he is the Son of man; and each of the faithful will likewise produce this "fruit" in the kingdom of Elohim so long as he or she continue in the faithfulness and patience of the holy ones, (for the Father seeks an elohim seed, Malachi 2:15). The Son of man is therefore the second anthropos who is from the heavens, (1 Cor 15:47), even from the prophetic opening chapter of the Genesis creation account, (Gen 1:26-27), the first anthropos Adam is of dust of the earth, earthy or "dusty", choikos, (1 Cor 15:47, Genesis 2:7). Paul therefore informs us that the first man Adam was not created or formed in the sixth day but rather somewhere BEFORE that time because Moshe clearly tells us that it was before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had sprouted up. What then truly is it that Elohim says is "very good" at the end of the first chapter of Genesis? It is the second anthropos from the heavens which is deemed very good because the first man Adam had already fallen in the fourth day of creation, (when countable time also commenced as it says). Thus the making of man in the image of Elohim was not even fully complete until Golgotha, (the sixth day), because it was not already done but prophesied in the opening Genesis creation account. The second man of Genesis 1:26-27 is therefore a re-creation of fallen man in the image of Elohim: this is only done through the Testimony of Yeshua and all those who believe it and keep it to the end, (til the Son of man be come; for the kingdom of Elohim is within us). With this background now one may hopefully more clearly see what the author of Hebrews is speaking about when quoting Psalm 8 concerning the son of man:
Hebrews 2:6-8 The Scriptures (TS2009 with footnotes)
6 But somewhere one has witnessed, saying, “What is man that You remember him, or the son of man that You look after him?
7 “You have made him a little lower than Elohim.a You have crowned him with esteem and respect, and set him over the works of Your hands. Footnote: aAccording to the Greek text - messengers; however, this verse is quoted from Psa 8:5.
8 “You have put all in subjection under his feet.” Psa 8:4-6 For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left none that is not subjected to him. But now we do not yet see all subjected to him.
Yet if one reads this Psalm it is very clear from the context that this passage is not speaking about a singular individual called "the Son of man", but rather, every son of man though in a singular sense, and clearly as being "in Messiah", (according to the Hebrews context), and that is where it gets confusing. In the above passage we read, "But we do not yet see all [things] subjected to him", singular, "him", yet this speaks of the "him" which is a son of man in the Psalm. The son of man in the Psalm is every son of man even though son of man is singular. It is not that the author of Hebrews is making the Psalm say something that it is not but rather that we generally do not fully understand what the author of Hebrews is saying. In the same sense we speak of mankind by simply saying "man", (almost as if in the sense of a majestic or intensive plural).
Psalm 8 KJV
1 To the chief Musician upon Gittith, A Psalm of David. O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
7 All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;
8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.
9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!
King David in the above Psalm is clearly speaking of Genesis 1:26-28, where all things are commanded to be put under subjection to the second anthropos-man, (according to Paul), who is from the heavens, that is, the Son of man whom Yeshua clearly says, in John 3:13, descended from the heavens:
Genesis 1:26-28
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
How can these things come to pass? The Testimony of Yeshua tells us all about these things in parables, allegories, idioms, and sayings. For example, in the Parable of the Sower, the fowls of the air are the Wicked one, the Devil, and the Satan, (the epistle of Barnabas much expounds these things, and this thinking, which is where I first began to learn this way of thinking). Thus the Son of man must be formed in all of us and this comes to pass by the seed of the Word having been planted in the soil of our hearts. No son of man is ever going to literally physically rule over the literal physical fowls of the air and sky. But what is more important? Is it not that the Satan and Death be subdued? The last enemy that shall be destroyed is Death, (each in his or her own appointed times).
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Capitalizing on theological presuppositions........
Capitalizing on theological presuppositions........
Quickie
Re: the capitalizing of 'I AM' in John 8:58 in some translations:
Just wanted to say I edited/corrected my former statement in parenthesis "(there is no capitalization either in the original text)"....to "(all letters were capitalized in the earliest manuscripts{unicals}, so leaving 'I AM' capitalized is of no special significance here, beyond translator's choice)" in the modern versions, this concerning the capital letters 'I AM' being emphasized in some modern translations to propose an identification with YHWH in Ex. 3:14. As per our former challenges, we've rendered such an 'identification' to be dubious.
Jesus is clear on his stance of not being 'God', but emphasizing being God's Son :
We must note that all thru John, Jesus is always referring to the Father-God as greater than he, the ONE who sent him. The Universal Father always has primacy as the one eternal, infinite, absolute, ultimate, transcendental and ever-immanent DEITY.
Capitalizing on theological presuppositions........
Quickie
Re: the capitalizing of 'I AM' in John 8:58 in some translations:
Just wanted to say I edited/corrected my former statement in parenthesis "(there is no capitalization either in the original text)"....to "(all letters were capitalized in the earliest manuscripts{unicals}, so leaving 'I AM' capitalized is of no special significance here, beyond translator's choice)" in the modern versions, this concerning the capital letters 'I AM' being emphasized in some modern translations to propose an identification with YHWH in Ex. 3:14. As per our former challenges, we've rendered such an 'identification' to be dubious.
Jesus is clear on his stance of not being 'God', but emphasizing being God's Son :
We must note that all thru John, Jesus is always referring to the Father-God as greater than he, the ONE who sent him. The Universal Father always has primacy as the one eternal, infinite, absolute, ultimate, transcendental and ever-immanent DEITY.
Quickie
Re: the capitalizing of 'I AM' in John 8:58 in some translations:
Just wanted to say I edited/corrected my former statement in parenthesis "(there is no capitalization either in the original text)"....to "(all letters were capitalized in the earliest manuscripts{unicals}, so leaving 'I AM' capitalized is of no special significance here, beyond translator's choice in modern English versions), this concerning the capital letters 'I AM' being emphasized in the modern text to propose an identification with YHWH in Ex. 3:14. As per our former challenges, we've rendered such an 'identification' to be dubious.
Are you sure you meant "dubious"? You are too kind! :chuckle:
Such a practice might be considered justified, (by some), in John 18:6, but for some reason the KJV does not seize upon the opportunity and rather inserts "he" into the "I am he" statement. But if they truly knew the scripture they would use the name which Yohanan calls him, (it is at the other end of the Name). Apparently none of the super scholars and translators have recognized it, for if they did, no doubt they would have seized upon that too.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Kill them with kindness
Kill them with kindness
Well, I'm generally known for my 'kindness' around here, although I do have a my moments
Btw,...I added more to my last post
Yes,...'ego eimi' does not connote God's Hebrew divine name (ehyeh),but even in the Septuagint its rendered 'ego eimi ho on' as we've noted before,..."I am the BEING". Only the supreme Deity Himself could say 'I am the Self-existing One' whom besides there is no other, the very originator and sustainer of All That IS....as Being itself. - both the 'I Am' and 'I Will Be', the one who always IS, and the only source and power that brings all things into being (the creative/generational power of be-coming).
I've found some good articles here on various points and find some points of their Christology interesting. I'm still unconvinced by the data, that Jesus ever was claiming to be 'Ehyeh'...or 'The BEING'! 'Ego eimi' does not so translate. Am I missing something?
Kill them with kindness
Well, I'm generally known for my 'kindness' around here, although I do have a my moments
Btw,...I added more to my last post
Yes,...'ego eimi' does not connote God's Hebrew divine name (ehyeh),but even in the Septuagint its rendered 'ego eimi ho on' as we've noted before,..."I am the BEING". Only the supreme Deity Himself could say 'I am the Self-existing One' whom besides there is no other, the very originator and sustainer of All That IS....as Being itself. - both the 'I Am' and 'I Will Be', the one who always IS, and the only source and power that brings all things into being (the creative/generational power of be-coming).
I've found some good articles here on various points and find some points of their Christology interesting. I'm still unconvinced by the data, that Jesus ever was claiming to be 'Ehyeh'...or 'The BEING'! 'Ego eimi' does not so translate. Am I missing something?
Quickie
Re: the capitalizing of 'I AM' in John 8:58 in some translations:
Just wanted to say I edited/corrected my former statement in parenthesis "(there is no capitalization either in the original text)"....to "(all letters were capitalized in the earliest manuscripts{unicals}, so leaving 'I AM' capitalized is of no special significance here, beyond translator's choice)" in the modern versions, this concerning the capital letters 'I AM' being emphasized in some modern translations to propose an identification with YHWH in Ex. 3:14. As per our former challenges, we've rendered such an 'identification' to be dubious.
Jesus is clear on his stance of not being 'God', but emphasizing being God's Son :
We must note that all thru John, Jesus is always referring to the Father-God as greater than he, the ONE who sent him. The Universal Father always has primacy as the one eternal, infinite, absolute, ultimate, transcendental and ever-immanent DEITY.
Well, I'm generally known for my 'kindness' around here, although I do have a my moments
Btw,...I added more to my last post
Yes,...'ego eimi' does not connote God's Hebrew divine name (ehyeh),but even in the Septuagint its rendered 'ego eimi ho on' as we've noted before,..."I am the BEING". Only the supreme Deity Himself could say 'I am the Self-existing One' whom besides there is no other, the very originator and sustainer of All That IS....as Being itself. - both the 'I Am' and 'I Will Be', the one who always IS, and the only source and power that brings all things into being (the creative/generational power of be-coming).
I've found some good articles here on various points and find some points of their Christology interesting. I'm still unconvinced by the data, that Jesus ever was claiming to be 'Ehyeh'...or 'The BEING'! 'Ego eimi' does not so translate. Am I missing something?
Don't miss the fact that the Gospel of John is called a Gnostic Gospel, and for good reasons, (as opposed to the three Synoptics). Without the Gospel of John the Trinitarian claims would fade into nothinghood very quickly because most all passages which are used to make Yeshua into "God" come from the Gospel of John, (for example try making such a case from only Mark). And don't miss the fact that THE Son of God descended upon the man Yeshua at his immersion, (and therefore speaks through Yeshua). Thus one must pay diligent attention to exactly who is speaking where and that is especially true in the Gospel of John. Yet even in the passage which you added to your previous post Yeshua does not claim to be THE Son of God, but rather, A son of God. There is not an article with huios as is likewise the case in almost every other instance involving this theme. The same is even true when he is tempted of the devil in the temptation accounts; the devil does not say to him "If you are the Son of God", but rather "If you are a son of God", and this shows a huge bias on the part of all the translations I have ever had the pleasure of reading. If one was to do a full study on just this subject alone the same would be astounded at all the places where this has been done. Just the one example from what you added to your post previously above:
John 10:36 Textus Receptus
36 ον ο πατηρ ηγιασε και απεστειλεν εις τον κοσμον υμεις λεγετε οτι βλασφημεις οτι ειπον υιος του θεου ειμι
John 10:36 W/H
36 ον ο πατηρ ηγιασεν και απεστειλεν εις τον κοσμον υμεις λεγετε οτι βλασφημεις οτι ειπον υιος του θεου ειμι
If we simply read this from a strictly mechanical word order, (before adjusting the order for a smoother English rendering), the statement is clear in itself that the lack of an article, (anarthrous huios), means that in English either no article at all, or an indefinite article, "a", is the more likely intended reading:
"οτι ειπον υιος του θεου ειμι"
"Because I said, a son of Elohim I am?"
"Because I said, I am a son of Elohim?"
In fact, if Yeshua says, "I am THE Son of Elohim", then by default he exalts himself over those whom he claims as his brethren. Yeshua never exalts himself. Therefore it is rather not even likely that he said, "I am Son of Elohim", so the best reading is logically, "I am a son of Elohim." This is shown by the context; for they were already about to stone him, and the reason is given in the text, and this is his answer why they have no legitimate reason to stone him.
Hi, an excellent thread, and I agree with daqq in much of what hes shared so far, as the evidence also bears witness
Now concerning your 'assumption' above,....the phrase 'ego eimi' in this passage translated by some some bible translators as 'I AM'...does NOT necessarily refer to 'God', (all letters were capitalized in the earliest manuscripts, so leaving 'I AM' capitalized is of no special significance here, beyond translator's choice) since such is a common greek phrase used to identify oneself as the one being referenced within the context of any given situation, so that often a translation of 'I am (he)' fits the context better, since "I" is the one being referenced. The NIV gives a better translation of this passage IMO - “If you do not believe I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.” 'Ego eimi' is spoken by other people in the NT besides Jesus, and that didn't make them 'God'....its a self-reference pointing to the one being spoken about, per the immediate context of info. being shared.
'Ego eimi' in greek does not equate or uniquely or specially refer to the hebrew 'ehyeh asher ehyeh' or 'YHWH', the divine name in Ex. 3:14.
See here.
Another passage Trinitarians try to use to prove Jesus is 'God' is John 8:58, "before Abraham was, I AM" (again no capitalization in the original text,..translators made these modificaitons to support their own theological bias).
Brother Kel's article for the above here.
Daqq may chime in on this particular passage and critique my analysis on it
This seems to be a clear manipulation of the text for a theological bias.
After just having listened to Brother Kel's message I must say that he is on target when he speaks of Yeshua being "that Prophet" like unto Moshe, (from Deuteronomy 18:15-22), for Yohanan calls him "he who is to come" or "he who is coming", which is, "ho erchomenos", (as he sends two of his talmidim to ask Yeshua, in Matthew 11:3 and Luke 7:19). I really do think his best point though is the fact that no one was allowed to openly utter the Divine Name in that era, and yet, the Trinitarian view of John 8:58 would have us believe that here Yeshua is not only uttering the Divine Name out in the open but claiming the title for himself. Additionally the fact that he brings up how ego eimi is being used commonly, all the time, and by all sorts of various people, is a very strong point. The phrase is clearly being used as a common part of the common everyday vernacular of the common people. If it was the Divine Name it would not have been allowed to be spoken in the open by anyone. They would have in no way allowed the Divine Name to have been any sort of a common word or phrase used in everyday life by everyone, (desecration and sacrilege). The mainstream interpretation of John 8:58 is a preposterous notion when the remainder of the things herein which disprove that position are added together.
beameup
New member
Quickie
Re: the capitalizing of 'I AM' in John 8:58 in some translations:
Jesus is clear on his stance of not being 'God', but emphasizing being God's Son
"if ye believe not that I AM, ye shall die in your sins"
You better take a close look :sherlock: at that "burning bush", as there were TWO entities therein.
If you think that "burning bush" was HOT, well............
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. - Daniel 7:13-14
Thank you for providing such an exquisitely perfect example.
The above is exactly what I was just trying to explain, Freelight, how that we must diligently observe exactly who is speaking where in the Gospel of John. And herein it is very clear that Messiah, the Son of Elohim who descended from the heavens in the bodily form of a dove, is speaking through the man Yeshua. Unfortunately Beameup has taken the quote out of the passage and out of its context where the one speaking clearly states that he is from above and not of this world:
John 8:23-24 KJV
23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
And who is the "he" whose words they hear coming through the air? Ho Erchomenos.