Trinity- True or False (page 10)

LittleToe

Maybe his brain exploded. Ah well, there's no making omelettes without breaking a few eggs.

Would that be deemed canabalism, in this case?

Sunspot

Maybe his brain exploded. Ah well, there's no making omelettes without breaking a few eggs.
Would that be deemed canabalism, in this case?

Not unless you planned to eat his brain, LT.

JosephMalik

So saying "I am" is no less a claim of deity, than saying "I am the Being". I would think...but correct me if I`m wrong, I`m no expert.

Hellrider,

What makes you think that saying “I am” has anything to do with Deity in the first place? And what is Diety. Does it mean Supreme Being or simply a nonhuman of importance or something such? What evidence do you offer for such a conclusion?

And why does everyone ignore the question and context for why such a statement was uttered? It had nothing to do with a Hebrew text written thousands of years earlier in the book of the Law. So why are such scripture matches made and do they prove anything? If so how?

Scripture matching, word matching, and such are guesses not facts or proof in and of themselves. Take the word “world” for example. Do you think “planet” or “humanity?” Or the word “all.” Do you think “everything” or only that what is being discussed specifically in the text? So it is not scripture that is at fault for the many misconceptions regarding it like the Trinity. We have to take the blame for such misconception and not continue to believe such things simply because so many others do.

Joseph

M.J.

You gotta give the guy some credit for coming out here, taking a beating, then coming back for more. I don't think I would put myself through that, particularly if everyone was taking a dump on my most cherished beliefs. I hope he comes back to this thread.

Great post, Ozzie, BTW. I enjoyed that one.

Cygnus

Hellrider,

First of all, I agree with all those who also agree with the WT that "Before Abraham was, I am" is a bad translation. Just on a grammatical basis, it is clumsy, and very poor English. It makes no sense, even a second grader would know enough that speech such as that is unacceptable. The basic meaning of the Greek in Jesus' words at Jn 8:58 are "I was, and I am." Jesus was asserting that he did exist back then "before Abraham" and has continued to exist. That's also a bit clumsy though as well. So I really think that "Before Abraham even existed, I have been!" solves it quite nicely, by satisfying the grammatical linguistics, and getting across the idea that Jesus had an existence prior and continued that existence as he was speaking.

The way I see it, and I'm certainly not insisting that everybody see it my way, is that the texts are a hodge-podge of ideas about a Jesus that evolved out of storytelling and myth. Paul is chiefly responsible for the creation of Christianity but he wasn't much concerned with who Jesus was "before Abraham" or even when he walked the earth. Paul's Jesus was a supernatural resurrected savior. The gospels are inherently so self-contradictory regarding so many stories about Jesus a reasonable person can't accept them as having literally occurred. Even Matthew has Jesus preaching the "Kingdom of Heaven" and Luke renders it the "Kingdom of God." Well, which is it? Which word did Jesus use? Did he say heaven or god?

That's why I've taken up a position that to fanatically insist that one interpretation is infinitestimably better than another is absurd. The texts themselves can't be reconciled and so trying to play Bible hop-scotch or connect-the-dots to what Jesus allegedly said, or what was recorded that he said, to other parts of the so-called scriptures and build a dogma around it is foolishness.

Cygnus

And I'm glad to see my old friend Joe Malik here because he asks some good questions and can get you to think matters like this through for yourself. What he was saying was basically what I was saying about jumping all over the Bible, having Jesus say "ego eimi" as if it were something more meaningful than a simple common Greek phrase (c.f. John 7 and the formerly blind man who also says "ego eimi"), and somehow the Jews paralleled that to Exodus 3:14, not in Hebrew or Aramaic, but in Greek, in particular the LXX. And, of course, Jesus didn't say ego eimi ho on, or, crudely, "I am the Being" as YHWH did, or was translated to have said.

JosephMalik

Even Matthew has Jesus preaching the "Kingdom of Heaven" and Luke renders it the "Kingdom of God." Well, which is it? Which word did Jesus use? Did he say heaven or god?

Cygnus,

Just another example that we must understand what is being taught contextually and not depend on the actual words used for proof. In such texts we can see that our Lord’s message was not always quoted exactly by the authors of scripture. Here and in some other very important texts His words were interpreted, sometimes changed dramatically for the audience to which such message was being given. And the very existence of Jesus as both the human being and the non-human Word becomes not only historically relevant but a seamless reality with a simply Greek expression such as “I am.”

Joseph

Leolaia

The point about John 8:58 is imho less about Exodus 3:14 than the use the same predicateless ego eimi in Isaiah 40-55 (used to indicate Yahweh's uniqueness) and especially the su ei (second person equivalent of ego eimi) in Psalm 90:2 LXX which is parallel in form: "Before (pro) the mountains were brought into existence (genéthénai) ..., from age to age, you are (su ei)". The use of the present tense for God in the LXX is here in contrast to the created origin of the mountains, such that the present tense evokes Yahweh's uncreated eternality; Jesus uses very similar language. The ego eimi, moreover, is a leitmotif in John occurring over and over; it has theological significance as most scholars recognize.

Hellrider

Good post, Leiolaia! Wow, you really know these things (and the girl in the picture is very cute )

JosephMalik

it has theological significance as most scholars recognize.

Leolaia,

All scripture has theological significance naturally. But just what that significance is becomes the real question that must be answered. Actually the words “ego eimi” do not appear in OT texts. This is a translation from the Hebrew verses after all as is the Septuagint. And such use in historical accounts does not force identity so as to make such use in a Hebrew text prove the identity of someone using them in a Greek texts does it? If so how? And scholars if we can call them that do not all agree so their opinions are not facts or real proof of anything. The responsibility for what we believe and teach must of course rest with ourselves. It is on our shoulders and not dependent upon the opinions of scholars.

Joseph

Trinity- True or False

Share this