John 8:58

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
my reasoning was not based upon the way that the new world translation is translated you buffoon, I did not refer to it at all until i was asked what it said to which I explained that even it sticks to the grammatically incorrect Greek idiom rather than the correct English one rendering an 'awkward', translation, so you have been proven a liar once a ...[text shortened]... y lies and subterfuge and all you can hope to do is smear others with your own rotten sayings.

The vast majority of the Greek language authorities disagree with you on the translation. They all have had formal training and we haven't, so it is more likely that those with PHDs and Master Degrees in biblical languages will be more correct. I just happen to agree with those in the majority and you don't. So I don't see how you have proved that I have lied about this.

The Instructor

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
as you said, who cares what you think, we are interested in facts not opinions.

The facts are everyone throughout time except you view differently.
Kelly

From Arianism and Its Influence Today by Ryan Turner
copied from CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry)
http://carm.org/arianism-and-its-influence-today

The True Nature of Jesus

Despite the best efforts of the Witnesses, there is no Biblical support for the contention that Jesus is inferior to the Father. In fact, one can make a strong positive case for the deity of Christ. First, in John 20:28, Thomas states to Jesus, “My Lord and my God.” Metzger points out that it is strange that Jesus made no effort to correct him, but Jesus accepts and commends Thomas’s statement of faith (v. 29).7 Second, in Acts 7:59,Stephen prays to Jesus. Metzger makes an insightful comment, “If therefore the opinion of the Jehovah’s Witnesses be correct, namely, that Jesus is only a spirit creature, then Stephen was an idolater in praying to one who was not truly God.”8 Third, in Galatians 1:1, Metzger comments, “Paul clearly distinguishes Jesus Christ from men and ranges him with God the Father.”9 He uses two prepositions with man and men, but only one preposition with reference to God the Father and Jesus. Paul was Jewish and a strict monotheist something which he does not dispute. In fact, “Even those whom he combats in this Epistle to the Galatians, the Judaizers, so far as we can see, had no quarrel with Paul’s lofty view of Christ.”10

Fourth, John 10:30 records Jesus as stating, “I and my Father are one.” The Jews attempt to stone him because they understood him to be claiming deity (v. 33), which was something Jesus did not dispute. Metzger points out the Witnesses attempts to get around the obvious implications of this passage, “The marginal note of their translation, suggesting that ‘are one’ means ‘are at unity,’ is an alternative interpretation which is so lacking in justification that the translators did not dare to introduce it into the text itself.”11 Again, the Jews understood his claim and attempted to kill Him. Metzger comments, “Psychologically, there was no reason for them to become angry at Jesus if all he asserted was his being one in purpose and outlook with the Father.”12

Fifth, Metzger points out that the New Testament writers often quote passages in the Old Testament that refer to Jehovah and refer them to Jesus.13 Joel 2:32 states, “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” However, Romans 10:13 quotes the exact passage, but refers to Jesus as “the Lord” of the passage in 10:9. “If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord” and then in verse 13 states, “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” There is a clear correlation between Jesus and deity.14 Metzger does well to conclude the evidence stating, “As has often been pointed out, Jesus’ statement is either true or false. If it is true, then he is God. If it is false, he either knew it to be false or he did not know it to be false. If while claiming to be God he knew this claim to be false, he was a liar. If while claiming to be God he did not know this claim to be false, he was demented. There is no other alternative.”15

[My bolding ]

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Just for clarification, we dont have a problem with Jesus saying that he existed before Abraham, that is in fact what the verse says, what it does not say is that he is claiming as the neo platonists would have us believe, 'his own timeless existence', to say as much is nonsense and unsupported by the language of the text. To say that I have existed before someone is not the same as saying I have existed since before time, is it.

How about when Jesus says He is the alpha and Omega ? Why would Jesus state this ? Just asking........ Jehovah also states that He is the Alpha and Omega.


Manny

Originally posted by menace71
How about when Jesus says He is the alpha and Omega ? Why would Jesus state this ? Just asking........ Jehovah also states that He is the Alpha and Omega.


Manny

Verses please?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Verses please?
Kelly

The following statements in quotes are believed by many to be from our resurrected Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:

Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

(Revelation 1:7-8 NKJV)

And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death."

(Revelation 1:17-18 NKJV)

And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

(Revelation 21:6-8 NKJV)

“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”

(Revelation 22:12-13 NKJV)

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
The following statements in quotes are believed by many to be from our resurrected Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:

Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.

[b]“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, ...[text shortened]... ning and the End, the First and the Last.”

(Revelation 22:12-13 NKJV)

The Instructor[/b]

Thank you very much.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The facts are everyone throughout time except you view differently.
Kelly

its simply a constant battle against ignorance,

an argumentum ad populum Latin for "appeal to the people" is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

if many have translated it that way, then its so,

your argument is a logical fallacy, do you understand what a fallacy is, its a non truth, an unreality, a falsehood, that is the extent of your argument, its nonsense and betrays a lack of understanding, now you have the opportunity to educate yourself, i suggest that you do it, pronto.

Originally posted by menace71
How about when Jesus says He is the alpha and Omega ? Why would Jesus state this ? Just asking........ Jehovah also states that He is the Alpha and Omega.


Manny

I am only interested in linguistics. It is absolutely apparent that the verse at John 8:58 has been rendered that way it has because of a blatant religious bias for the reasons that i have mentioned, which strangely enough, no one here seems to be able to dispute or even understand and instead we are treated to silly logically fallacies, attempts to substantiate the verse by imposing a theological argument on the text rather than purely looking at the language and accusations against my person, its pathetic, it really is.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The vast majority of the Greek language authorities disagree with you on the translation. They all have had formal training and we haven't, so it is more likely that those with PHDs and Master Degrees in biblical languages will be more correct. I just happen to agree with those in the majority and you don't. So I don't see how you have proved that I have lied about this.

The Instructor

The vast majority of the Greek language authorities disagree with you on the translation. Rybka 4

an argumentum ad populum Latin for "appeal to the people" is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

many have translated it therefore it must be so

your argument is fallacious, a logical fallacy, an untruth, a non reality, please educate yourself and stop projecting your ignorance.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The vast majority of the Greek language authorities disagree with you on the translation. Rybka 4

an argumentum ad populum Latin for "appeal to the people" is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

m ...[text shortened]... lacy, an untruth, a non reality, please educate yourself and stop projecting your ignorance.

An argument ad populum is neither proof that the argument is false. It is simply logically weak or not rigorous.

You neither can insist that an argument ad populum is proof of the falsehood of the proposition.

A majority of people also say that 2 + 2 = 4. That could be used as an argument ad populum just as well.

Do you think Paul was wrongly influenced by neo-platonic philosophy when he referred to "the Lord" in quoting Joel 2:32 making "the Lord" Jesus Christ ?

Compare:

Romans 10:13 -"For whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Joel 2:32 - "And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah shall be saved ..." (Recovery Version)

Paul has above told us that this Lord is the Lord Jesus Christ on whom we must call to be saved -

Romans 10:9,12,13 -"That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. ... For the same Lord of all is rich to all who call upon Him; For 'Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.' "


Was the Apostle Paul under the influence of neo-platonian philosophy making him equate Jehovah the Lord in Joel 2:32 with the Lord Jesus Christ in Romans 10 ?

Originally posted by sonship
An argument ad populum is neither proof that the argument is false. It is simply logically weak or not rigorous.

You neither can insist that an argument ad populum is proof of the falsehood of the proposition.

A majority of people also say that 2 + 2 = 4. That could be used as an argument ad populum just as well.

Do you think Paul was wrongly hovah the Lord in [b]Joel 2:34 with the Lord Jesus Christ in Romans 10 ?[/b]

its a logical fallacy, a non reality. I am uninterested in your extra Biblical neo platonic paganism, i am interested in language, not attempts to impose an exegesis upon language where none exists in the text. Your theology is meaningless in this context. The translations that you use to perpetuate your paganism are biased as are the translators who rendered the verses, the fact of which i have proven, with reference.

Why does the NIV state that Jesus is the firstborn ABOVE all creation?

Why is the the text in John not rendered as, 'Vine, I am', or 'Shepherd, I am'? but it seems entirely appropriate to do so at John 8:58

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its a logical fallacy, a non reality. I am uninterested in your extra Biblical neo platonic paganism, i am interested in language, not attempts to impose an exegesis upon language where none exists in the text. Your theology is meaningless in this context. The translations that you use to perpetuate your paganism are biased as are the translators who rendered the verses, the fact of which i have proven, with reference.

its a logical fallacy, a non reality. I am uninterested in your extra Biblical neo platonic paganism, i am interested in language, not attempts to impose an exegesis upon language where none exists in the text. Your theology is meaningless in this context. The translations that you use to perpetuate your paganism are biased as are the translators who rendered the verses, the fact of which i have proven, with reference.

Are you interested in revelation from God ?
Other than a display of sheer will power and rhetoric do you have an answer ?

I see vast paranoid conspiracy theory in your reply. Everyone not adopting your Michael the angel elevated to Son of God is pagan influenced.

You're the one under the thick pagan influence Robbie. You utterly hate the incarnation of God to be the man Jesus. I think Satan is behind your revulsion. No, I don't think it. I know it.

Did you ever go to Jehovah and spend a good deal of time in prayer asking God to show you why you just hate this teaching ? Maybe you should spend an hour pouring out your heart to God for more light on Who Jesus Christ really is.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] its a logical fallacy, a non reality. I am uninterested in your extra Biblical neo platonic paganism, i am interested in language, not attempts to impose an exegesis upon language where none exists in the text. Your theology is meaningless in this context. The translations that you use to perpetuate your paganism are biased as are the translators who ould spend an hour pouring out your heart to God for more light on Who Jesus Christ really is.

Once again, lets see if you will have the honesty to answer,

1. Why does the NIV state that Jesus is the firstborn ABOVE all creation?

2. Why is the the text in John not rendered as, 'Vine, I am', or 'Shepherd, I am'? but it seems entirely appropriate to do so at John 8:58

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] its a logical fallacy, a non reality. I am uninterested in your extra Biblical neo platonic paganism, i am interested in language, not attempts to impose an exegesis upon language where none exists in the text. Your theology is meaningless in this context. The translations that you use to perpetuate your paganism are biased as are the translators who ould spend an hour pouring out your heart to God for more light on Who Jesus Christ really is.

I appreciate your sentiments but to me its an adulteration of the pure word of God, I cannot abide it. Why should something pure and Holy be treated with such contempt, trampled upon as if its of no consequence, infused with pagan elements like a virus, no, i will not stand for it Jaywill.