John 8:58

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
As a neutral observer, i think Joseph is winning this argument.

I appreciate your observation Duke, but just to clarify, it will be God's Word that "wins the argument" at the end of the day.

josephw notwithstanding. 😉

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Going a little further, let us look at the claim that Jesus is actually quoting from Exodus 3:14, which reads in many dubious translations of the Bible as,

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you - Exodus 3:14 (King James version)

Let us examine the verse ...[text shortened]... ting from Exodus 3:14 as has been alleged by trinitarians and those with extra Biblical beliefs.

How you can possibly claim to be a Bible expert with crazy analysis like these two posts (not to mention the rest of the wacky claims you make) is totally out on the fringe. Would that it stayed there.

Originally posted by josephw
John 5:14-18
Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.
And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
Bu ...[text shortened]... dreds of verses throughout scripture that clearly portray the prophesied messiah as God Himself.

Exactly.

This, Robbie, is current Christian dogma, derived as it is from the Bible. I have no idea what that stuff you spout is. Oh, wait, I do. Your dogma is made up by men.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nonsense I have just demonstrated that the Jews were asking Jesus about his age, what is it about that that yet fails you? Here it is again,

“You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

that is not a question about who he is, his identity, its a question about his age, note the terms fifty years old.

Simplistic to the core, aren't you?

You can't even tell us what passages actually mean IN ENGLISH, let alone the original Greek or Hebrew.

Originally posted by josephw
I'd like to see a thread get six posts deep before someone starts calling names! 😉

Fortunately we know crazy when we see it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Just a few verses later a blind man is cured by Jesus and he uses exactly the same words that Jesus does in John 8:58, here they are,

Some claimed that he was. Others said, "No, he only looks like him." But he himself insisted, "I am the man." John 9:9 - NIV , 'I am' 'ego eimi'.

So if we are to follow the trinitarians logic this blind man must ...[text shortened]... culous powers of transformation on Greek phrases?

Looks like its back of the net time - Vince

Comprehension is not your forte, is it? Not only with Bible verses, but also in understanding other humans. Is it that you just don't think it's worth the effort? Is that it? No, I give you too much credit, it's more likely you're just dim.

Originally posted by josephw
John 5:18 c&d[b].., but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Maybe you can't "locate" where Jesus said He was equal with God, but the Jews had no problem understanding what Jesus meant by what He said.

Trust The Word robbie. It's in plain simple English. I think you need to let go of your powers of "logic and reason" a ...[text shortened]... .

Your ability to use reason and logic doesn't trump God's Word. In fact, it is a hindrance.[/b]

Your interpretation cannot be sustained from the context,

1. Jesus never actually claimed that he was equal to God.

2. It was the unbelieving Jews who reasoned that Jesus was attempting to make himself equal with God by claiming God as his Father. While properly referring to God as his Father, Jesus never claimed equality with God. He straightforwardly answered the Jews: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.” This rules out your silly claim that the Jews 'understood what Jesus meant'. Clearly they were wrong about him breaking the Sabbath and they were wrong about him making himself equal to God.

Your faith is based on what Jesus enemies claimed, not what Jesus himself stated. I reject your premise entirely on the basis that it does not say what you want it to say, it cannot be established from the Bible, it runs contrary to the context and is based on what Christ enemies were saying. If we are to follow your example we should also believe that Jesus had a daemon because his enemies said so. I am sorry but its nonsense.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Comprehension is not your forte, is it? Not only with Bible verses, but also in understanding other humans. Is it that you just don't think it's worth the effort? Is that it? No, I give you too much credit, it's more likely you're just dim.

your text is unworthy of serious comment.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
“You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
that is not a question about who he is, his identity, its a question about his age, note the terms fifty years old.

Pity you don't recognize sarcasm when you see it!

Do you think the Jews thought there was a real chance that Jesus claimed to have seen Abraham?

How old do you think they thought he would have to be to have seen Abraham? Maybe a bit more than fifty years?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Your interpretation cannot be sustained from the context,

1. Jesus never actually claimed that he was equal to God.

2. It was the unbelieving Jews who reasoned that Jesus was attempting to make himself equal with God by claiming God as his Father. While properly referring to God as his Father, Jesus never claimed equality with God. He straight ...[text shortened]... also believe that Jesus had a daemon because his enemies said so. I am sorry but its nonsense.

Your dogma mainly consists of men naysaying the Bible, so it's not exactly like you have a leg to stand on here.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
your text is unworthy of serious comment.

Or perhaps just beyond your level of understanding.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
As a neutral observer, i think Joseph is winning this argument.

On what do you base your observation?

Perhaps you don't understand the argument. Some Christians claim that in John 8:58, Jesus is claiming to be God with the following:
"“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”.
RC disputes that this was Jesus' intent in uttering those words.

What leads you to believe that Joseph is winning the argument? Much of what he has countered with not only does not address the words uttered in John 8:58, it references words not even attributed to Jesus, i.e., John 5:18, 2 Corinthians 4:6, 2 Corinthians 5:19.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
On what do you base your observation?

Perhaps you don't understand the argument. Some Christians claim that in John 8:58, Jesus is claiming to be God with the following:
"“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”.
RC disputes that this was Jesus' intent in uttering those words.

What leads you to believe that Joseph ...[text shortened]... nces words not even attributed to Jesus, i.e., John 5:18, 2 Corinthians 4:6, 2 Corinthians 5:19.

The argument is not a new one, so yes i understand it. As soon as i saw the title of the thread i had a flash back to the first year of my theology degree where a number of JW arguments were put forward, including this one. (And that was 20 years ago!). As always, such verses are translated in a way that is consistent with their belief system and here in John 8:58 Robbie has again translated in a way deliberately consistent with JW theology.

The disfellowshipped or former Jehovah's Witnesses in this panel discusstion together have about 100 accumulated years of experience with them.

It includes two who believed that they were members of the 144,000. It includes one who was assigned to answer all doctrinal questions of people below the Mason/Dixon line.

They discuss the history of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

YouTube

I watched 31 minutes of it before deciding to recommend it.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
The argument is not a new one, so yes i understand it. As soon as i saw the title of the thread i had a flash back to the first year of my theology degree where a number of JW arguments were put forward, including this one. (And that was 20 years ago!). As always, such verses are translated in a way that is consistent with their belief system and here in John 8:58 Robbie has again translated in a way deliberately consistent with JW theology.

Doesn't seem that you addressed the question: "What leads you to believe that Joseph is winning the argument?" or other salient points of my post. Any chance that you will?

As always, such verses are translated in a way that is consistent with their belief system and here in John 8:58 Robbie has again translated in a way deliberately consistent with JW theology"

This doesn't seem to make much sense. Is the NIV translation, that RC cited, a JW translation? In what way is the NIV translation inconsistent with other translations?