Originally posted by josephwyeah from the guy who relies on unfounded assertions of others to make claims on his
robbie has heard all this before sumydid. I posted every relevant verse I could find one time or another these past 5 or 6 years, but to no avail.
I was one dunking away from becoming a JW some 30 years ago. I know the brainwashing. robbie is thoroughly immersed.
Unless by some miracle he sees the light.
behalf and who cannot tell the difference between a gamma and an iota yet knows
why a translation is inaccurate, your an embarrassment.
1 edit
Originally posted by DowardHow would you know unless you can examine the text for yourself, that is correct you
This site is quite interesting. The author clearly is a greek expert, and explains in detail why the translators translated "ego eimi" as "I am". It seems pretty clear that the author meant it to be read that way.
http://neirr.org/egoeimi.htm
cannot and that is why you are only able to proffer the opinions of others on your
behalf. I shall state it again for it seems you are having trouble with it, the term 'ego
eimi', is not in isolation, it is part of a greater grammatical construct which is idiomatic.
Originally posted by karoly aczelyes if they displayed the same wilful ignorance as these so called Christians, yes i think
I was just wondering, Robbie, do you call people "zoob" when you are giving bible lessons?
i would and I would probably accompany it with a slap around the head!
Originally posted by sumydidUninterested in your bitching nor in your dogma, if you have anything to state with
My posts were quite relevant. They may not rise up to the level of yours, but, all I was saying is that you are destroying threads by waltzing in here like a know-it-all and shouting down and instulting your contemporaries with whom you disagree.
And now I have something of relevance to say.
The Scriptures leave no doubt that Jesus Christ was/is divin ...[text shortened]... n God; the only God (i.e. Jesus Christ), who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.
regard to the original text, that is the Hebrew and the Greek text and how it has a
bearing on our understanding accurately what the Biblical writers were saying then
that is fine, otherwise spare me, please, i beg you.
John 8:58 - Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
not an accurate translation, ignores both the Greek idiomatic construct and is
ungrammatically correct from an English standpoint. It has been used to support a
bias, not found in the original Hebrew nor in the Greek of the Septuagint. To claim
that what Christ uttered is a reference to divinity is clearly a falsehood, he was
making reference to his pre human existence as an accurate understanding of both
the Hebrew and the Greek text demonstrates.
3 edits
-Removed-Clergymen of Christendom frequently cite Scripture texts to prove that Jesus had no
beginning. An example is their treatment of John 8:57, 58, where we read: “The
Jews then said to Him [Jesus], ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen
Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I
am.’”
That text in itself says nothing about how long Jesus existed before Abraham. But
Trinitarians reason that it means that Jesus has existed eternally. Typical of this is
what one commentator says: “It is important to observe the distinction between the
two verbs. Abraham’s life was under the conditions of time, and therefore had a
temporal beginning. Hence, Abraham came into being, or was born [genésthai,
Greek]. Jesus’ life was from and to eternity. Hence the formula for absolute, timeless
existence, I am [egò eimí, Greek].”
What is the real source of such reasoning? Hastings’ Encyclopaedia of Religion and
Ethics explains: “Christianity took over from Greek philosophy, and to some extent
developed independently, the profound and fruitful idea of the distinction between
time and eternity, and between becoming and being. First clearly stated by
Parmenides, c. 500 B.C. . . . , it is worked out in considerable detail by Plato, c.
390 B.C., especially in his Phaedrus and Symposium.”
Not once, however, does the Bible state that Jesus is coeternal with God. Though
Jesus enjoyed a prehuman existence of unspecified length in heaven, the Bible
shows that he had a beginning of existence. He is called “the image of the invisible
God, the first-born of all creation” and “the beginning [Greek, arké] of God’s
creation.”—Col. 1:15; Rev. 3:14.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou are the idiomatic part of the Greek. (Joking) The English appears
Uninterested in your bitching nor in your dogma, if you have anything to state with
regard to the original text, that is the Hebrew and the Greek text and how it has a
bearing on our understanding accurately what the Biblical writers were saying then
that is fine, otherwise spare me, please, i beg you.
John 8:58 - Jesus said to them, "Truly, n existence as an accurate understanding of both
the Hebrew and the Greek text demonstrates.
grammatically correct based on what Jesus (Yahshua) was saying and
it makes perfect sense when one considers the rest of what John was
saying. Maybe you should take an English grammar class.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou were very long-winded here and like a politician failed to answer
Clergymen of Christendom frequently cite Scripture texts to prove that Jesus had no
beginning. An example is their treatment of John 8:57, 58, where we read: “The
Jews then said to Him [Jesus], ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen
Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I
am.’”
That tex ...[text shortened]... rn of all creation” and “the beginning [Greek, arké] of God’s
creation.”—Col. 1:15; Rev. 3:14.
the question. That is, "I guess you either don't know or don't have an
opinion, on why they were going to stone Jesus?"
Originally posted by RJHindsmaybe you should feel your bum to bring you back to reality. We do not say, 'RJH, I
You are the idiomatic part of the Greek. (Joking) The English appears
grammatically correct based on what Jesus (Yahshua) was saying and
it makes perfect sense when one considers the rest of what John was
saying. Maybe you should take an English grammar class.
am', in English, we say, 'I am RJH'. Perhaps you should go to your local primary school
and they will verify this for you. Your wilful ignorance continues.
Originally posted by RJHindsif you would like to address any points the actual text makes, that would be fine. I am
You were very long-winded here and like a politician failed to answer
the question. That is, "I guess you either don't know or don't have an
opinion, on why they were going to stone Jesus?"
sure your opinions mean something to someone, someone who cares.
-Removed-Let me take a crack at answering that.
They thought Christ was making himself equal with God and that is blasphemy and according to Moses law the penalty was death by stoning.
That does not mean that Christ said he is God or that he is equal to God. Neither can you base sound doctrine of the assumptions of Pharisees who Christ condemned in the strongest language. Doctrine must come from the clear teachings of Christ and Paul or others who were sent by Christ to teach and to preach. Christ did not say to listen to the Phariseees.
But if you choose to listen to them here is what they also said :
Mat 27:42-43 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
They said that Christ said .. HE IS THE SON OF GOD.