It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by miriam0566
verse 58, when correctly translated is rendered "I have been". the reason for the confusion is the way koine greek renders actions that are present perfect (action that began in the past, and continues beyond our present). in koine, this tense is rendered in the present simple whereas the koine present perfect tense signifies an action that began in the past and finishes in the past (english past perfect).
even if jesus was claiming to be god, he would have said "I have been" since he did not stop existing until his death.
Originally posted by miriam0566
* also note- verse 31-37 jesus is referring to his father as a separate witness. this would not be possible if they were the same person.
this is assuming that thomas wasnt simply using a expletive. ever use the phrase "oh my god!"?
Originally posted by miriam0566
Consider also the long discussion at the end of John about the sending of the Advocate, the Holy Sprit. In John ch16 v7, Jesus says "II go, I will send him to you". We must bear in mind that the Holy Spirit of God is God himself. The Spirit of God is as much God as a man's spirit is the man (Paul draws this analogy in 1 Corinthians ch1 v11). No-one who is less than God can tell God what to do. No-one who is less than God can "send" God in the way that Christ is offering to send the Holy Spirit. Therefore Christ cannot be less than God.
again, you are operating on assumption. you assume that because jesus has the ability to send holy spirit, that this must imply that he is god. thing is, its part of jesus' job. a job given to him by God.
another key point that you are missing is that holy spirit is not a person. it is a force. while yes, the bible does sometimes describe it as a person (it also does this with sin and death and wisdom) holy spirit is liken more to water. often described as pouring or filling. even paul makes an analogy to holy spirit being wind that directs a boat.
how does showing jesus the same respect shown to God make him God?
Originally posted by miriam0566
Originally posted by oliveoil
Jesus' name is Emmanuel which is interpreted just as the scripture says literally in black and white.GOD WITH US. Not God is with us. Do you not believe scripture? Mathew is referring to a person and that person is Jesus born of a virgin.
ok, if the statement is literal then explain this...
john 1:[18] No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
if GOD WITH US so clearly shows that jesus is God, then why is John lying to us?
Jesus' name in Hebrew = God saves This explains why the the son of God became man. When Peter called Jesus "Son of the living God" He understood Jesus' sonship as unique and divine. Jesus' response: Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven.
Now you're the one who's using explanations which only work in English!
Would you like to quote me any other biblical examples of "God" being used as an expletive?
Yes I know this. Im just thinking ahead.Back to the Thomas surprise. Thomas was a devout Jew and would have never shouted MY GOD!!that would have been blasphemy. This person is reading the scripture out of context:bnghd:
Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by oliveoil
Thank you for that comment. I think we're on the same side of the argument, but the line you quote was actually remarking, critically, on the suggestion that Thomas' "My God!" was an explanation of surprise.
The problem is that we're debating with someone who distinguishes between "Son of God" and "God"
Originally posted by DISRAELI
The verb "I am" does not have a perfect tense, which is logical, because nobody speaking in the present can claim to have stopped existing. I think your second paragraph quoted is making the same point.
Nor have you completely got round the point of the reaction of the Jews.
Originally posted by miriam0566
Originally posted by DISRAELI
The verb "I am" does not have a perfect tense, which is logical, because nobody speaking in the present can claim to have stopped existing. I think your second paragraph quoted is making the same point.
thats not true because the perfect tense doesnt denote a finished action. in koine is does which is why the original greek wasnt written in the perfect tense (jesus didnt stop existing).
Originally posted by DISRAELI
You make the point that Jesus distinguishes between himself and the Father. This is true. Trinitarians accept that there is a difference between the Son and the Father. But this is not the same thing as saying that there is a difference between the Son and God. You mustn't confuse the two.
You must know this point, if you've been debating Trinitarians before, but I will spell it out again;
We regard; The Father as God, The Son as the same God, and the Spirit as the same God.
So passages which say that "Jesus is not the Father" are not relevant to a discussion of whether Jesus is God.
Now Thomas does not simply describe Jesus as "a" God. The phrase is very definitely "MY God". The one I worship, the one who owns me. Either way, this phrase ought to be applicable exclusively to the only God that he's got. I've got to assume that this is what he means.
As for this next suggestion;
this is assuming that thomas wasnt simply using a expletive. ever use the phrase "oh my god!"?
Now you're the one who's using explanations which only work in English!
Originally posted by DISRAELI
a) You have not justified translating EGO EIMI as a past tense. It is normally given in grammars as a present indicative. Please quote your authority for translating it in any other way.
b) I still maintain that if Jesus had meant the simple statement about the past which you are describing, he would have used the imperfect.
c) I would point out that the statement is introduced by the words AMEN AMEN LEGO HUMIN (truly, truly, I say to you), which is used in John's gospel to introduce statements of great importance and significance. I would say that the traditional understanding of it gives it that significance.
d) Your best, logical, way of breaking the claimed link between the John statement and the Exodus statement is to deny the I AM translation for ONE of them. If you deny that translation for BOTH of them, then the two parts of your argument cancel each other out, and the link becomes feasible again. If, for example, they can both mean "I was",then you are back where we started- they can still be linked.
Originally posted by DISRAELI
There was no need to correct me here, because
a) The koine Greek was precisely what I was talking about, not the English language.
b) I was actually trying to agree with you. I was just trying to establish an agreed terminology for discussing Greek tenses, because I got the impression that your textbooks and mine might have been using different labels. I was trying to avoid the confusion which can happen when people are employing different naming systems. Clearing the ground.