₦airaland Forum

alBHAGDADI:
barristter07 jozzy4 OneJ Tatime

Are you guys running away from this?

Barristter07:
Una don check am .

His statement is a fulfilment of Isaiah 53:12 which says about the Messiah, he would

" poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; "

Ogbeni, How can Jesus pour an immortal soul to death ?

Barristter07:

Run from wetin ?

Do you saw where the writer quote this below

," or in the NWT,"... and apart from him not even one thing came into existence" (emphasis mine)."

Apart from Jesus ( because he was Created directly by his Father ) , isn't that clear enough?

alBHAGDADI:
A. Isaac was begotten sexually but the addition of "only" shows God was speaking of his status with Abraham not his birth. BTW, Ishmael no longer living with Abraham doesn't mean he stopped being his son. Nowhere is it stated.

B. You should answer that because you are the one claiming he was born, created or produced. You might as well tell us who is mother in heaven is.

I showed you that "only" was added when begotten was used to refer to him. That changes the literal meaning of begotten. If not, God would have just said my begotten son. Is Jesus the only son God has? No, because angels are referred to as sons of God. Those other sons are simply sons of God, which shows they were created. But for God to use only begotten son shows He wasn't speaking about creation, production or giving birth. He was talking about a unique relationship.

Hahahaha Lie small small nah

It doesn't change the fact that Isaac was begotten ( produced ) sexually like every other son , the word only shows he is one of such kind in the union of Abraham and his legal wife Sarah( the promise was made to both and their NAMES CHANGED ) just as Captivator educated you earlier on. Was Sarah's name not changed as well ?


So the question remains , how was Jesus begotten [ produced] that makes him only ?

Barristter07:

Run from wetin ?

Do you saw where the writer quote this below

," or in the NWT,"... and apart from him not even one thing came into existence" (emphasis mine)."

Apart from Jesus ( because he was Created directly by his Father ) , isn't that clear enough?

alBHAGDADI:
Mathew 20:28 doesn't say SOUL. It says LIFE. No version uses soul.

The body and soul make up the person. When the person dies, the soul leaves, it goes to paradise for those who believe in Jesus, but to hell fire for those who don't. But during the resurrection, the soul comes back into the body and is resurrected. That's when both are burnt and destroyed according to Jesus.

If the soul doesn't go on after death, then Jesus promise below to the thief would be a lie.

Luke 23:43
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

But I know that JW have a different version of that verse in their NWT bible. They shifted the coma to be before TODAY. How come no other version of the Bible did that?

You guys wrote your own book to suit your point of view.

alBHAGDADI:
You haven't explained anything at all.

You haven't explained why Isaac is Abraham's only begotten son even when the man had Ishmael.

Before Jesus was born by Mary, he was identified as a son to come to earth. Those were prophesies of his coming. His Sonship has nothing to do with given birth in heaven. He was not created as you claim.



So because JW are so-called ardent students of the scripture, it now means you shouldn't explain why Isaac is referred to as the only begotten son?

If Isaac is not the only son of Abraham, then shouldn't that tell you that when he is referred to as the only begotten son, it shouldn't mean the only son or given birth?

Jozzy4:
^^

Matthew 20:28 The Greek word is soul , same Greek word appears at Matthew 10:28 .

Jesus soul must die, is that immortal ?

alBHAGDADI:
My purpose is to answer the Arian challenge by giving an airtight, scriptural proof for the deity of Jesus Christ. This technique is so simple you should be able to sketch it out on a napkin from memory the next time someone knocks on your door.

Remember, you don't have to master every counter-argument to every verse thrown at you. All you need is one unequivocal textual proof to make your case. Here it is. It comes from the Gospel of John.

Most discussions of this nature focus initially on John 1:1. It says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." That's the way your Bible reads. But the Jehovah's Witness's New World Translation renders the verse this way: "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

The heated discussion that follows is almost never productive. Don't waste your time wrestling with Greek grammar neither of you understand. Just drop down two verses. Verse three says, "All things came into being by Him [the Word], and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." The NWT is virtually the same: All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."

Have your visitor read the verse out loud. Then take out a napkin or a piece of scratch paper and draw a large box. Explaining that this box represents everything that exists. Run a line right through the middle of the box, dividing everything that exists into two categories. It will look something like this:

https://www.str.org/sites/str.org/files/images/article%20images/everything%20exists.png

On the left side write "all things that never came into being,"
that is, all things that exist but have never been created. Ask your friend, "What goes in that box?" If he says "God" he got the right answer. God is the only thing that exists that has never been created. God alone is eternal and uncreated. Put the word "God" in the left-hand side of your box.

Label the right side "all things that came into being," that is, all created things. Write "all created things" there. Everything in this box was created through Jesus, according to verse three. Ask your friend if he understands that. Now write "created through Jesus" outside the box and run an arrow to the right side. Your box should now look something like this:

https://www.str.org/sites/str.org/files/images/article%20images/everthingthatexists.png

Take a moment to point out to your guest how this illustration is structured. The larger box includes everything there is, was or ever will be. Each particular existent falls into one of two categories: created or not created.

According to the law of excluded middle either a thing was created or it wasn't created--there is no third option--so the categories are all-encompassing. According to the law of non-contradiction a thing can't be both created and not created, so the categories are mutually exclusive. Any particular thing has to be one or the other. It's very simple.

Next you're going to determine what category Jesus belongs in. Take a coin out of your pocket. Tell your guest this coin represents Jesus Christ. Hand him the coin and ask him to place Jesus in the category where He belongs.

The first impulse of a Jehovah's Witness, of course, is to place Jesus in the category of "all things that came into being" because that's what their theology dictates. In keeping with the teaching of Arius in the early fourth century, there was a time "when the Word was not." Jesus was the first created being and everything else was created by Jehovah through Jesus.
But John 1:3 doesn't allow that option. Look at the wording carefully. John says, "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being," or in the NWT,"...and apart from him not even one thing came into existence" (emphasis mine).
John says the same thing two different ways for emphasis and clarity: everything that ever came into being owes its existence to Jesus, who caused it all to happen. If Jesus caused all created things to come into existence, then He must have existed before all created things
came into existence. Therefore, the Word could not have been created.

In other words, if Jesus created everything that has come into being, and Jesus also came into being (as they contend), then Jesus created Himself. He would have to exist as Creator before He existed as a created thing, which is absurd. Therefore, Jesus can't be placed in the square labeled, "all things that came into being."

Just a side note. Much is made of the Greek word dia , translated "by" in the first phrase, but can also be translated "through." But it makes no difference whether all things were created "by" Jesus or "through" Jesus with Jehovah as the agency (as the Witnesses suggest). The point is that in either case Jesus is existing before the creation of all things that ever came into being.

So, the coin can't be placed on the right. At this point your visitor may want to place Jesus somewhere on the paper outside the larger box. But, as we've seen, you can't do that. These categories are all-encompassing and mutually exclusive; there's no "place" outside to put Him. Everything goes on one side of the larger box or the other.

If Jesus can't be placed on the right side with created things, then He must go on the left with uncreated things, identifying Jesus as the uncreated Creator. Jesus is God.

https://www.str.org/publications/deity-of-christ-case-closed

barristter07 jozzy4 OneJ Tatime

I need your input here.

OneJ:
Pls consider this sentences below:

1) "The house was built through him "
2) The house was built by him"

Does both sentences mean exactly the same thing in English?. pls reply.

English are Greek are very different in very diverse ways.

"Dia autou "( means "through him" ) is right there in the Greek manuscript.

Why put "Godhead" in Col 2:9 when the manuscript says "deity"?
Is "deity" the same meaning as " Godhead?"

The popular rendition of John 1:1 in English is faulty.

Greek transliteration ( word for word to English ).

"in beginning was the word & the word was toward the god & god was the word"
.
(Source: John 1:1 wikipedia)


Greek language experts & Scholars revealed that John 1:1 & Acts 28:6, Acts 12:22 have the same Greek grammatical construction.
Compare how these verses are rendered in English & be honest to yourself .

Were the English translators of KJV very honest or biased?
No reason why. "a god " in Acts 28:6,Acts 12:22 should be dubiously changed in John 1:1, except U wanna deny the naked truth.

(Google John 1:1 wikipedia).
It gives thorough exposure to this issue. Take time to Read & digest its entire content very well before U make baseless claims about a man made fallacy called Trinity.

search4truth:
I had to create a new moniker for this.

I think so many people are waking up in the organization. I myself just woke up too. Those defending the JWs and the organization with their soul, i was like that also. I think you should keep in your mind psalms 146:3. We shouldnt put our trust in princes nor any man who cant bring salvation. The organization has a lot of doctrines that have been changed consitently which they refer to as new light. If the GB claims to be inspired by the holyspirit then their doctrines shouldnt change because the bible says Gods word does not change. The one that got me was the watchtowers membership with the united nations. The watchtower definitely had no excuse for that because theyve consistently referred to the UN as babylon the great. Besides that, the elders have a secret book(Sheperd the flock of God book). According to the book, elders can coverup their own sins and still be elders in the congregation, the two witness rule in child rape cases and more.

The governing body takes bible passages out of context for their own selfish reasons.

Besides, a governing body member actually lied inder oath at the ARC(Australian royal commision) concerning the child rape cases.

Also the disfellowshipping rule is non-biblical and very inhumane. Which shows that the Jws love is conditional. They would all shun you immediately you dissasociate or when youre disfellowshipped.
This has broken so many families and even led some to commiting suicide.

Not only is the watchtower associated with the UN but also with the OSCE which is affliated with the UN.


That is why the governing body keeps telling the members that they should not lookup any other site apart from jw.org

They have also discouraged young ones from getting higher educations because they know an educated person would think critically(not all though) even though.
So to my fellow brothers thinking this is the perfect organization, you still have more to know about this hideous organization.

I cant even ask the elders this questions or prove anything to them as it might cause me to get shunned by my family. The GB requires unquestionable obedience from all its members less you face the consequences.

Dont forget how many people the no blood rule has killed. But now the governing body says receiving some blood components gotten from blood are now okay. Imagine how families that have lost a loved one to the no blood rule would feel. This is the same organization that did not allow vaccines and organ transplant in the past also leading to the death of many.

Less i forget was also the politics the GB played in the Mexican-malawi scandal leading to thousands of death of witnesses in Malawi.

For those willing to research, i would say you look up the organizations history also which would show you that this organization is based on a pagan origin. Because CT Russell was a freemason and he used freemason symbols on early watchtowers.
Jws say birthdays are bad because they are based on pagan worship, but why do they use wedding rings? Dont they know wedding rings originated from paganism. Same with so many occasions they do.
But yet the hypocrisy in this organization is so alarming.
Im tired of writing.

I couldnt butress on all this points. MAKE RESEARCH ON THESE POINTS because they are true.
I actually wished they werent true first time i made my research with my heart beat rapidly beating. Turns out they were true because non refutable evidences were given.

Note- Im presently PIMO(Physically in mentally out) just for the family.


Jwfacts.com
http://beroeans.net

alBHAGDADI:
You mean the same Michael who had to call on Lord Jesus before he could rebuke Satan?

Jude 1:9
But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

TATIME:
You mixed it all up once again my friend, The LORD in the Hebrew Scriptures(Old Testament) and The Lord in the Greek Scriptures(New Testament) was mixed up by UNINSPIRED translators. Please read Psalm 110:1 to verify, if the Lord is mentioned in the old Testament the confused translators taught it's the same person whereas there are two spirit persons referred to in the old Testament as Lord,compare Psalm 110:1 with Act 2:34 and Joel 2:32 with Roman 10:13

TATIME:
You mixed it all up once again my friend, The LORD in the Hebrew Scriptures(Old Testament) and The Lord in the Greek Scriptures(New Testament) was mixed up by UNINSPIRED translators. Please read Psalm 110:1 to verify, if the Lord is mentioned in the old Testament the confused translators taught it's the same person whereas there are two spirit persons referred to in the old Testament as Lord,compare Psalm 110:1 with Act 2:34 and Joel 2:32 with Roman 10:13

TruthinAction:
They are just agents of darkness disguised as ministers of light. They will have special compartment in the very hell they don't believe exist.

OneJ:
Anybody who claims that "I am" in John 8:58 is the same. "I am" in Exodus 3:14, is indeed a LIAR ,very dubious &crooked .

In Greek "ego himi on" which translates in English as "I am" simply means "I exist"
In John 8:58, Christ simply means "before Abraham was born, I was in existence (or I exist).

[b]
But Hebrew language has no present tense. Therefore, "I am that I am" does not even exist in Hebrew language.

No Jew uses that blasphemous phrase. " I am that I am" because it is not even in the original Hebrew masoretic scroll (read in the synagogues) from which the Old Testament was translated into English.

Exodus 3:14 authentic rendition is "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" that is "I will become who/ what I will become"

The Greek "ego himi on " (John 8 :58) has NO CONNECTION with "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" in Exodus 3:14.

damosky12:
You and Barristter07 are getting it wrong. You, specifically, are just being uncritical. Ego in the Greek means " I". "himi" is defined by the strong concordance as First person singular PRESENT INDICATIVE . Besides, do a little research, himi was used 146 times in the Bible, 136 of those times, it is used for AM (Present tense).

Why would Jesus have chosen that particular word? Besides, if all he said is "I exist before Abraham", what is blasphemous about that so much so that his Audience attempted to kill Him?

Don't you think he must have said something blasphemous? Don't you think He must have said he is that I AM that existed before Abraham?

For a parting, king James translators couldn't have been grammatically inefficient to have chosen I AM if the conventional " I was" is what us used. It is actually clear in the Greek words used.






The tenses of the Hebrew portion of the Bible (the old testament) is easily interpreted based on context.

See this: Ehyeh is the first person form of hayah , "to be". Hence, in Hebrew language, it means all of " I am, I was, I will be". Its about the BEINGNESS of the speaker.

Hence, I AM is just the apt translation. We really have no business trying to twist this up.



Asides this, think for a while... Why would Jesus' Audience have attempted to kill Him when He said "before Abraham was, I AM".

Would the Jewish audience want to kill a man for merely saying he existed before Abraham? Wouldn't that rather provoke them to mock him than to kill him? A man in his 30s saying he is older than Abraham would never have provoked an attempt to kill him... He must have said he is the I AM (just as the KJV aptly interpreted).


John 8:58-59
[58]Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
[59]. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple...


How plausible would it be to say they attempted to kill Jesus because he claims he is older than Abraham

To get things in perspective, the Jewish audience we read about would only want to kill a man for the sole reason of blasphemy or equating Himself with God (John 10:33).


It would be faulty to think Jesus merely said " he was existing before Abraham " and then to warranted such hostility. We know that doesn't add up.

The KJV got it right. He is the I AM.

OneJ:
.

Hahahahahahaaa!!!!!

My guy ,by fire by force U wanna make Greek word "ego himi" blend with English & retain the same meaning in Hebrew.

Hayah (verb)
Definition
1) to be ,to become, come to pass

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/ hebrew/nas/hayah.html

Contrary to your faulty claims, ehyeh asher ehyeh does not encompass "I am" ,"I was" ,"I will be".

In Hebrew, "I am" never referred to the present tense & it has no place in Hebrew language.
For instance, In English, we say "I am God", we can never say it in Hebrew.
Rather,we say:. "I God".

Present tense & future tense no be the same meaning for Greek & Hebrew.

EHYEH ASHER EHYEH (is a verbal construction& not a proper noun) literally translates as " I will be who/ what I will be".

When it is written in Hebrew, the fact that it begins with 'Aleph' (the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet) , is indicative of the future tense.

"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said," & you have seen Abraham"!
"I tell you the truth,"Jesus answered,"before Abraham was born, I am".
At this, they picked up stones to stone him,but Jesus hid himself slipping away from the temple grounds" John 8:57,58 .

His conversation with the Jews was strictly about if Jesus was older than Abraham.
Them no talk weda God na Jesus.

damosky12:
You and Barristter07 are getting it wrong. You, specifically, are just being uncritical. Ego in the Greek means " I". "himi" is defined by the strong concordance as First person singular PRESENT INDICATIVE . Besides, do a little research, himi was used 146 times in the Bible, 136 of those times, it is used for AM (Present tense).

Why would Jesus have chosen that particular word? Besides, if all he said is "I exist before Abraham", what is blasphemous about that so much so that his Audience attempted to kill Him?

Don't you think he must have said something blasphemous? Don't you think He must have said he is that I AM that existed before Abraham?

For a parting, king James translators couldn't have been grammatically inefficient to have chosen I AM if the conventional " I was" is what us used. It is actually clear in the Greek words used.






The tenses of the Hebrew portion of the Bible (the old testament) is easily interpreted based on context.

See this: Ehyeh is the first person form of hayah , "to be". Hence, in Hebrew language, it means all of " I am, I was, I will be". Its about the BEINGNESS of the speaker.

Hence, I AM is just the apt translation. We really have no business trying to twist this up.



Asides this, think for a while... Why would Jesus' Audience have attempted to kill Him when He said "before Abraham was, I AM".

Would the Jewish audience want to kill a man for merely saying he existed before Abraham? Wouldn't that rather provoke them to mock him than to kill him? A man in his 30s saying he is older than Abraham would never have provoked an attempt to kill him... He must have said he is the I AM (just as the KJV aptly interpreted).


John 8:58-59
[58]Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
[59]. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple...


How plausible would it be to say they attempted to kill Jesus because he claims he is older than Abraham

To get things in perspective, the Jewish audience we read about would only want to kill a man for the sole reason of blasphemy or equating Himself with God (John 10:33).


It would be faulty to think Jesus merely said " he was existing before Abraham " and then to warranted such hostility. We know that doesn't add up.

The KJV got it right. He is the I AM.

damosky12:
Kai! You like dogmatic argument. EVEN your definition contradicts your stance. Note the bolded; TO BE. TO BE is quite different from "to become" in that it deals with the PRESENT state of the subject. TO BE refers to the beingness of a being.

Now if hayah is the same word that is translated TO BE and TO BECOME, is it not logical enough that it refers to the BEINGNESS of God?
I BE who I BE, I will become who I will become, etc, is logically all summed up in I AM THAT I AM. It is clearly the same thing.






A well researched Wikipedia quote might do you some good...

"’Ehyeh is the first person form of hayah , "to be", and owing to the peculiarities of Hebrew grammar means both "I am", "I was", and "I will be" . Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am .

The whole article might help you too.




"they picked up stones to stone him" (John 8:58)


They picked up stones to stone an obviously young man because He said he is older than Abraham?

There CLEARLY isn't anything blasphemous about claiming to exist before Abraham.


If at all that were blasphemous, they would have attempted stoning him earlier right when he said: "your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad" (John 8:56). Don't you think this is more blasphemous than just saying he is older than Abraham?

Give it a thought, the man must have said something more unconventional to have attracted that outrage.... His language is quite clear in the Greek, "Before Abraham, I AM". He could have said: " before Abraham, I was" or "before Abraham, I have been...". But he didn't. Hence, the perceived blasphemy from His audience...

Give this some thought. Its quite lucid.

Jozzy4:
See how he is making up incoherent reasons why he has used I AM , So a young man that's not up to 40 years claiming to have exist before an Old man who have died a long time ago isn't blasphemous enough in the Eyes of His Audience who see the old man as their great grandfather ?
This thing is sensible enough, his age is what makes them outrage to have claimed that.



Answer the question posed to you on the context .

damosky12:
Kai! You like dogmatic argument. EVEN your definition contradicts your stance. Note the bolded; TO BE. TO BE is quite different from "to become" in that it deals with the PRESENT state of the subject. TO BE refers to the beingness of a being.

Now if hayah is the same word that is translated TO BE and TO BECOME, is it not logical enough that it refers to the BEINGNESS of God?
I BE who I BE, I will become who I will become, etc, is logically all summed up in I AM THAT I AM. It is clearly the same thing.






A well researched Wikipedia quote might do you some good...

"’Ehyeh is the first person form of hayah , "to be", and owing to the peculiarities of Hebrew grammar means both "I am", "I was", and "I will be" . Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am .

The whole article might help you too.




"they picked up stones to stone him" (John 8:58)

They picked up stones to stone an obviously young man because He said he is older than Abraham?

There CLEARLY isn't anything blasphemous about claiming to exist before Abraham.

If at all that were blasphemous, they would have attempted stoning him earlier right when he said: "your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad" (John 8:56). Don't you think this is more blasphemous than just saying he is older than Abraham?

Give it a thought, the man must have said something more unconventional to have attracted that outrage.... His language is quite clear in the Greek, "Before Abraham, I AM". He could have said: " before Abraham, I was" or "before Abraham, I have been...". But he didn't. Hence, the perceived blasphemy from His audience...

Give this some thought. Its quite lucid.

OneJ:
Damosky "ehyeh asher ehyeh" is NOT "hayah" . Your "I BE who I BE (present tense) is not " I will be what / who I will be" (future tense).
That future tense is more like a trustworthy promise or future assurance. No be exactly the same thing.
For instance, President & Deputy President no be the same thing or meaning even though both of them they bear "president"
.
The Tanakh or Hebrew scrolls. never had "I am " in Exodus 3:14.
Therefore not possible for the Jews to conclude that "I am" implied that Christ made reference to himself at Exodus 3:14.

With the passage of time, most Bible translators allowed Greek thought & grammatical nuances to colour their translation of the original Hebrew language. It's like thinking in English & writing it down in French. na big blunder be that !

It's similar to Col 2:9, "deity" in the manuscript was translated as. "Godhead".
Way back in time, the Greeks worshipped numerous pantheon of gods. Today ,them dey claim say na Trinity. Lols.

damosky12:
First, BLASPHEMY is the Greek word, blasphēmia, which specifically means to vilify a diety. DIETY or God is involved in a statement before it can be said to be blasphemous. You can not blaspheme against Buhari for instance, same way you have not blasphemed by saying you exist before Plato...
A statement must have involved God or a god to be tagged blasphemous. Hope you get?

Secondly, you dont jump into the middle of a convo to make a point. Read the conversation over. It might help. You should have learnt "context" in school...

OneJ:
.

Hahahahahahaaa!!!!!

My guy ,by fire by force U wanna make Greek word "ego himi" blend with English & retain the same meaning in Hebrew.

Hayah (verb)
Definition
1) to be ,to become, come to pass

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/ hebrew/nas/hayah.html

Contrary to your faulty claims, ehyeh asher ehyeh does not encompass "I am" ,"I was" ,"I will be".

In Hebrew, "I am" never referred to the present tense & it has no place in Hebrew language.
For instance, In English, we say "I am God", we can never say it in Hebrew.
Rather,we say:. "I God".

Present tense & future tense no be the same meaning for Greek & Hebrew.

EHYEH ASHER EHYEH (is a verbal construction& not a proper noun) literally translates as " I will be who/ what I will be".

When it is written in Hebrew, the fact that it begins with 'Aleph' (the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet) , is indicative of the future tense.



"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said," & you have seen Abraham"!
"I tell you the truth,"Jesus answered,"before Abraham was born, I am".
At this, they picked up stones to stone him,but Jesus hid himself slipping away from the temple grounds" John 8:57,58 .

His conversation with the Jews was strictly about if Jesus was older than Abraham.
Them no talk weda God na Jesus.

See why the Jews claimed it's "blasphemy"

"We are not stoning you for any of these",replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God... . Jesus answered them :"why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I SAID," I AM GOD'S SON?"


The Jews made a false allegation of blasphemy against Jesus. but Christ refuted it ( "because I said I am God's son ?" Jesus replied them).

We have heard from the horse's mouth ,so to say, "I am God's son". Not God the son.

OneJ:
Damosky "ehyeh asher ehyeh" is NOT "hayah" . Your "I BE who I BE (present tense) is not " I will be what / who I will be" (future tense).
That future tense is more like a trustworthy promise or future assurance. No be exactly the same thing.

For instance, President & Deputy President no be the same thing or meaning even though both of them they bear "president"
.
The Tanakh or Hebrew scrolls. never had "I am " in Exodus 3:14.
Therefore not possible for the Jews to conclude that "I am" implied that Christ made reference to himself at Exodus 3:14.

With the passage of time, most Bible translators allowed Greek thought & grammatical nuances to colour their translation of the original Hebrew language. It's like thinking in English & writing it down in French. na big blunder be that !

It's similar to Col 2:9, "deity" in the manuscript was translated as. "Godhead".
Way back in time, the Greeks worshipped numerous pantheon of gods. Today ,them dey claim say na Trinity. Lols.

Jozzy4:
Verse 33 they said he blasphemed for making himself a god .

Verse 34 he quote their own scripture where humans are called gods

Verse 35,36, he made it clear that he never claimed equality by calling himself Son of God

The Logic is, if humans can be called god and it doesn't mean they are equal to God, likewise him .

So can you please answer the question raised on the context of Exodus 3:14,15 ??

I read every of the conversation, don't think am jumping into anything , its like Fear dey catch you . sorry

Please face the Issue: Is Jesus the God of Abraham , Isaac and Jacob ?

I don't know why this is taking years for you to answer

damosky12:
You didn't even show us where you are quoting from...
Now...
Again, learn to read Bible in context...

John 10:30-33
[30] I and my Father are one.
[31]Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
[32]Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
[33]The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

See what Jesus said that sparked this particular outrage in bold. "I and God are ONE". The Jews understood this CLEARLY. His reply (to their outrage) even makes it clearer. His usage of " the Son of God" in verse 36 is clearly not the normal usage for child of God to the Jews... There was more to it. It means GOD incarnate (which will mean to be One with God). Note what He said originally, "I and the Father are ONE".

What Jesus replied with can be understood in context... " If the scriptures call mere men God, how would you say to the one who came from God because He says He us God incarnate (One with God).

So clear.

Get your thoughts in perspective.

I have answered a few questions on this already. Jesus is God. Jesus is the I AM. He us the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in human flesh.




You are either a little immature or just naive.




Answered.

Jozzy4:
Not according to scripture!

Sorry .

Mr Mature, you have just tell another lie as usual.

Act 3:13

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.

Jesus is not the God of Abraham , Isaac and Jacob. The Bible calls him a servant of that one


Clearly, you were just making noise since

damosky12:
That was a CLEAR contextual exegesis... You probably couldn't read through.





LOL. He is happy. He thinks he just gave a good shot. Infantile...


You didn't need Acts 3:13 to make your point na.... Even John 3:16 speaks of God and Jesus. He calls Jesus His Son, not servant this time... Jesus spoke several times about the father. This itself implies that they are separate? Doesn't it?

Apply common sense now...


John 1:1,3,14
[1]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[3]All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The WORD was God (you guys contest this though). The WORD was in involved in the creation of ALL THINGS.

[14]And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

That same Word (which is God), for the sake of washing away the sins of man, became flesh (man)... The man it became is Jesus.

That Jesus (though being God) became man. It is the MAN he became that makes Him called a "servant", " son", "only begotten" of God. The humanity of Jesus is what Peter spoke about there in Acts 3.


Note, it is the same Jesus that said:

John 14:9
[9he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

How? See...

John 17:21
[21]...that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

What is One? How could just any servant be ONE with God? You know what ONE is?

Yet again,

John 10:30
[30]I and my Father are one.

Even the Jews (the adherents of the law themselves) got the message here...

You know what ONE is?

One is ONE. ONE can not mean Two o. It can not mean separation o. ONE is 1.


If God became flesh, that flesh could be said to be sent from God (came to fulfill HIS will), yet, that flesh is still God. That flesh is ONE with God.



The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob came as a man. That He became man (though the man came to do His will; servant) implies that the man He became is ONE with Him. He is the man, the man is Him.

Hope you comprehend.

You have any issue with this, be specific which area and let's iron it out.

Selah.