The Trinity

[Lon]

Was Rosen agreeing with me? I think not so either let Rosen speak for Rosen or show how what you say is true. However I doubt you will be capable of doing that because it does not appear that you even understood what I said to begin with.

:nono: Taught school for a living. All other contenders are wanna-be-es. Nice try though.

I already know what the excuse is for leaving out "hoti" which is that sometimes it is used to denote a quotation. However that too is mere speculation on the part of translators and arbitrary when it comes to deciding where and when. In addition you also ignored the fact that your interpretation of the passage essentially negates what it actually says.

You know you are myopic, which leads to one-sided contest and ignorance, no? I already said it was given both ways. Rosen did too. Pay attention. You were so quick to jump in, you didn't bother being pertinent/relevant to discussion. Of course the greater issue is whether Jesus is God, but your inept tumbling in has you not even arguing the same points we were discussing. All that was said at this point was that some translations have it "I am the Christ" and others "He is the Christ." On top of that, you went a completely different direction and made it say "He is I AM." That's a GREAT liberty of the text driven by commitment to cult rather than truth or Christ. Let's both really try hard to honor Truth and Christ BEFORE protecting our pet doctrines/heresies.

Just because you might have seen a few on TV like Jim Jones it is still nothing, a drop in the bucket, compared to the billion-plus mainstream Christians running around doing exactly what the passage says they would do: coming in the name of Yeshua and claiming that he is "I AM" just as you yourself do.

Gotcha, so out of billions, just the one million or so of you that got C minuses in English and language and then say "God caters to the dumbed down crowd." Gotcha. Me? I believe Scripture proves study, diligence, and love for the truth will not only produce a mutuality of love and unity, it will also produce a "workman approved by God."

Forty thousand dollars to be brainwashed and you are the one still playing amateur hour. :chuckle:

Workman vs. Lazy osmosis disdaining teachers? Amateur is really obvious to the rest of us. Every cult (discluding (not including) your own for the moment) are a bunch of whack amateurs, right? You agree? Yes? So now convince me your's alone isn't....

 

[Lon]

Yahwah states that He alone is God, and that there is no other. If God was a trinity He would not have stated that He alone is God, but He would have said, "we alone are God."

Good point for discussion. I believe often enough, a few of you mistake us for tritheists (3 gods). You are correct "God alone."

John 1:1 says "was with God and was God." All a tri-nitarian (oneness also emphasized) is saying is: There is One God (like you) and that the Father, Son, and Spirit are Him. When talking of God: One. When talking Father Son and Spirit: "Them" but fully embracing "One" as the answer as well.

I've given the example of Dolly the Sheep before: She is one sheep, ever will only be one sheep Yet, scientists took one of her eggs and the DNA from one of her cells and made another sheep. This sheep is nothing but Dolly. Because of this, there is certainly only one Sheep, but she exists as two separate sheep: two hearts, two sets of lungs, two mouths, etc. -- all one sheep.

Is this exactly how God is One? :idunno: and probably not BUT it gives language and understanding of how God can be Father Son and Spirit the way expecially John 1:1 describes Him.

 

[daqq]

I think Daqq was agreeing with me with respect to as to whether the passage was saying that the false teachers would say "I am Christ" or acknowledge Jesus as Christ. In this respect you agreed with me, as I agreed with my King James translation over whichever one had inserted quotation marks around "I am Christ."

Daqq, may I call your attention to something for a moment? The passage is repeated three times in the gospels, including Matthew 24:5, Mark 13:6, and Luke 21:8. The passage in Matthew has the words "I am Christ"



Thus it is not unreasonable to assume that the meaning of the gospel authors Mark and Luke is that "I am" refers to the assumed subject of "Christ" using the multiple gospels to confirm intent. Now, far be it for me to dispute that Jesus is "I AM" as is translated in John 8:58.

Joh 8:57-59 KJV
(57) Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
(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, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

The statement really doesn't have much sense in that context otherwise. From their reaction apparently the Jews understood Jesus to have that meaning as well.

Regardless, you cannot make Mark and Luke say "I AM" without contradicting the gospel of Matthew, and even if you were to do that then I don't see how you could somehow make John NOT say "I AM" which contradicts your premise that it is a false gospel to recognize Jesus as our same LORD who spoke to Moses.

No, you were not agreeing with me.
It seems you also do not even understand what was said.

:nono: Taught school for a living. All other contenders are wanna-be-es. Nice try though.


You know you are myopic, which leads to one-sided contest and ignorance, no? I already said it was given both ways. Rosen did too. Pay attention. You were so quick to jump in, you didn't bother being pertinent/relevant to discussion. Of course the greater issue is whether Jesus is God, but your inept tumbling in has you not even arguing the same points we were discussing. All that was said at this point was that some translations have it "I am the Christ" and others "He is the Christ." On top of that, you went a completely different direction and made it say "He is I AM." That's a GREAT liberty of the text driven by commitment to cult rather than truth or Christ. Let's both really try hard to honor Truth and Christ BEFORE protecting our pet doctrines/heresies.

Gotcha, so out of billions, just the one million or so of you that got C minuses in English and language and then say "God caters to the dumbed down crowd." Gotcha. Me? I believe Scripture proves study, diligence, and love for the truth will not only produce a mutuality of love and unity, it will also produce a "workman approved by God."


Workman vs. Lazy osmosis disdaining teachers? Amateur is really obvious to the rest of us. Every cult (discluding (not including) your own for the moment) are a bunch of whack amateurs, right? You agree? Yes? So now convince me your's alone isn't....

You are both conflating; thank God neither of you were scribes of old time. Matthew was originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic and this is freely admitted by your own church fathers. They then took the Hebrew-Aramaic version that they got their filthy hands on and translated it into Greek. They also freely admit that this is what they did. No one knows what happened to the Hebrew-Aramaic manuscripts they had because they no longer exist, (how is that for supposedly being stewards of the holy scriptures and the truth, eh?). So what both of you are doing is conflating Mark and Luke with a corrupted version of Matthew which probably had Christos or ho Christos inserted into the text when it was rendered into Greek. But regardless we still have two accounts, Mark and Luke, which do not have Christos in them, and do contain "hoti", and yet the translators still refuse to render "hoti", (it goes untranslated), even though newer translations have begun to make such corrections in other critical places. One such place is Matthew 2:23 where the KJV again did not render "hoti" because it was apparently assumed to have indicated a scripture quote. However it is painfully obvious that in this instance also it was not indicating a quote because the statement is found nowhere in the Tanach:

Matthew 2:23 T/R
23 και ελθων κατωκησεν εις πολιν λεγομενην ναζαρετ οπως πληρωθη το ρηθεν δια των προφητων οτι ναζωραιος κληθησεται

Matthew 2:23 KJV
23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Also when the KJV capitalizes within a passage, such as in the above with "He", ("shall be called a Nazarene"), it does so because it views that statement as a quote. So clearly the KJV was in error here also.

Matthew 2:23 W/H
23 και ελθων κατωκησεν εις πολιν λεγομενην ναζαρετ οπως πληρωθη το ρηθεν δια των προφητων οτι ναζωραιος κληθησεται

Matthew 2:23 ASV
23 and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene.

Matthew 2:23 ESV
23 And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene.

The later versions realize it is not a quote, and so render "hoti" as "that", as should be done here. As I said, the decision is essentially arbitrary in many cases and there are other cases where there is error. In the instance with the passage concerned, again, as I said; both of you nullify the statement of Yeshua and make it of no effect by your understanding of it. How many would be deceived if someone entered into this forum in the name of Yeshua, claiming to be a Christian or claiming to be a believer, and at the same time claiming to be "I AM"?? The answer is clearly that NO ONE here would be deceived by such a one. You therefore make void the statement because, if understood the way you interpret it for your own benefit, the statement actually becomes UNTRUE. I certainly would not want that on my conscience but then again my conscience is not seared. Unfortunately it is clear that because you have translations that already support your dogma the both of you feel justified in standing your ground and will no doubt continue to do so. However inwardly you both should know that you now have no excuse for believing a lie and holding to it even after the error has been shown to you. You are not fighting for the truth but rather fighting for your dogmas, paradigms, and mindsets.

 

[Zeke]

 

[Zeke]

 

[CherubRam]

If what you say is so, explain the following

John 17:11 New King James Version (NKJV)

11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me,[a] that they may be one as We are.

John 17:21 New King James Version (NKJV)

21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.

John 10:30 New King James Version (NKJV)

30 I and My Father are one.”

Christ is speaking of "oneness in unity."

 

[Bright Raven]

Christ is speaking of "oneness in unity."

Greg Laurie states;

The Bible is clear in pointing out that Jesus Christ was and is God Himself. Even before the creation of the universe, Jesus was always there, as God without beginning or end.
Jesus said of Himself, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last." (Revelation 22:13 NKJV).

 

[Rosenritter]

Originally Posted by Daqq
No, you were not agreeing with me.
It seems you also do not even understand what was said.

I did not say I was in agreement with you, I said that we agreed in one aspect, as to whether the proper translation should use quote marks. How come you didn't respond to the question/comment that was directed to you? If you liberally change the text from "I am [Christ]" to "I AM" in two out of three gospels, for what reason do you reject the implied, "Before Abraham was, I AM" that fits even more naturally in John 8:58? Your method seems inconsistent.

Originally Posted by Daqq
Matthew was originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic and this is freely admitted by your own church fathers. They then took the Hebrew-Aramaic version that they got their filthy hands on and translated it into Greek. They also freely admit that this is what they did. No one knows what happened to the Hebrew-Aramaic manuscripts they had because they no longer exist, (how is that for supposedly being stewards of the holy scriptures and the truth, eh?).

You seem to be confusing "written in Hebrew" as synonymous with "truth." The New Testament was intended to be written and distributed in Greek, for that was the language that had spread outward from Jerusalem under the reign of Alexander. The Hebrew language had served its purpose for the preservation of the Old Testament until the arrival of the promised Messiah.

That is an interesting story you have concocted, that "people corrupted the manuscript and inserted words" but then if they had done so in one gospel, why wouldn't they have done the same in the others? Again, inconsistent reasoning, and spurious at that because your charges are without evidence of any sort. Not to mention they display a type of heated bias that may be clouding your judgment.

However it is painfully obvious that in this instance also it was not indicating a quote because the statement is found nowhere in the Tanach:

Matthew 2:23 T/R
23 και ελθων κατωκησεν εις πολιν λεγομενην ναζαρετ οπως πληρωθη το ρηθεν δια των προφητων οτι ναζωραιος κληθησεται


Matthew 2:23 KJV
23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.


Also when the KJV capitalizes within a passage, such as in the above with "He", ("shall be called a Nazarene"), it does so because it views that statement as a quote. So clearly the KJV was in error here also.

Daqq, the scripture does not say "Written in the Tanach" it says "spoken by the prophets." Do you understand the difference? I am not sure, so I'll spell this out for you. The Hebrew Old Testament is a collection of books with words. Some of these books are written by prophets. However, God has had more prophets than those that have books named after them. And out of all the prophets, including those that have books named after them, they spoke many more words than are written in the Old Testament.

So when the scripture says it was "spoken by the prophets" it means exactly that, "spoken by the prophets" not "written in the Tanach." Obviously the referred to oral prophecies were known by the people at the time.

Please dust off your reading and reasoning skills before casting accusations like that again. Thank you.

 

[daqq]

I did not say I was in agreement with you, I said that we agreed in one aspect, as to whether the proper translation should use quote marks. How come you didn't respond to the question/comment that was directed to you? If you liberally change the text from "I am [Christ]" to "I AM" in two out of three gospels, for what reason do you reject the implied, "Before Abraham was, I AM" that fits even more naturally in John 8:58? Your method seems inconsistent.

Because it is already all refuted in the link provided. Why did you not include the context from the thread where the link was provided? Why must this same topic be rehashed and explained again and again and over and over and over again? Do you really expect others to do such a thing in every other page of every other thread? Get real. You have no clue what is even being said because you do not listen or study what others have to say; and that is because you think you already know they are wrong. Not my problem.

You seem to be confusing "written in Hebrew" as synonymous with "truth." The New Testament was intended to be written and distributed in Greek, for that was the language that had spread outward from Jerusalem under the reign of Alexander. The Hebrew language had served its purpose for the preservation of the Old Testament until the arrival of the promised Messiah.

That is an interesting story you have concocted, that "people corrupted the manuscript and inserted words" but then if they had done so in one gospel, why wouldn't they have done the same in the others? Again, inconsistent reasoning, and spurious at that because your charges are without evidence of any sort. Not to mention they display a type of heated bias that may be clouding your judgment.

Do your own research because I have already posted the information in the thread which was linked to you previously as mentioned above. If you desire to remain blind to known FACTS that is not my problem.

Daqq, the scripture does not say "Written in the Tanach" it says "spoken by the prophets." Do you understand the difference? I am not sure, so I'll spell this out for you. The Hebrew Old Testament is a collection of books with words. Some of these books are written by prophets. However, God has had more prophets than those that have books named after them. And out of all the prophets, including those that have books named after them, they spoke many more words than are written in the Old Testament.

So when the scripture says it was "spoken by the prophets" it means exactly that, "spoken by the prophets" not "written in the Tanach." Obviously the referred to oral prophecies were known by the people at the time.

Please dust off your reading and reasoning skills before casting accusations like that again. Thank you.

Please dust off your brain and take it off the shelf. I have no problem reading what the text says. I know that is says "SPOKEN" in the passage which I used previously as an example. How can you be so blind? The whole point was that the KJV is what treated the statement as a QUOTE from scripture when it WAS NOT. This is the very reason why I stopped responding to you in the other thread: you cannot understand what other people write or say and then you make wild untrue statements about what they have indeed said. Then you continue on spewing your same old line as if you really showed someone how it is. Please dust off your brain before responding with such nonsense again. Thank you. :rotfl:

 

[RevTestament]

I think Daqq was agreeing with me with respect to as to whether the passage was saying that the false teachers would say "I am Christ" or acknowledge Jesus as Christ. In this respect you agreed with me, as I agreed with my King James translation over whichever one had inserted quotation marks around "I am Christ."

Daqq, may I call your attention to something for a moment? The passage is repeated three times in the gospels, including Matthew 24:5, Mark 13:6, and Luke 21:8. The passage in Matthew has the words "I am Christ"



Thus it is not unreasonable to assume that the meaning of the gospel authors Mark and Luke is that "I am" refers to the assumed subject of "Christ" using the multiple gospels to confirm intent. Now, far be it for me to dispute that Jesus is "I AM" as is translated in John 8:58.

Joh 8:57-59 KJV
(57) Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
(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, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

The statement really doesn't have much sense in that context otherwise. From their reaction apparently the Jews understood Jesus to have that meaning as well.

Regardless, you cannot make Mark and Luke say "I AM" without contradicting the gospel of Matthew, and even if you were to do that then I don't see how you could somehow make John NOT say "I AM" which contradicts your premise that it is a false gospel to recognize Jesus as our same LORD who spoke to Moses.

But he was not speaking to Moses in the passage "Before Abraham was, I am."
Jesus was referring to Genesis when El Shaddai appeared to Abram - not Exodus. So the proof texting utterly fails...
It also goes to show that is why the Jews picked up stones to throw at Him, because like them, the Septuagint and Athanasian Christians all errantly apply El Shaddai to the Father. For example the Apostles Creed...

 

[CherubRam]

Greg Laurie states;

The Bible is clear in pointing out that Jesus Christ was and is God Himself. Even before the creation of the universe, Jesus was always there, as God without beginning or end.
Jesus said of Himself, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last." (Revelation 22:13 NKJV).

Anything that has no beginning does not exist. God says that He formed before any other. That is why His name means "Life Began."

 

[Bright Raven]

Anything that has no beginning does not exist. God says that He formed before any other. That is why His name means "Life Began."

Well then, in your world, God does not exist. In my world God does exist and the word of God say that Jesus was with God in the beginning and that He is God.

John 1:1 New King James Version (NKJV)

The Eternal Word
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

[patrick jane]

Anything that has no beginning does not exist. God says that He formed before any other. That is why His name means "Life Began."

:nono: :kookoo:

 

[Rosenritter]

Please dust off your brain and take it off the shelf. I have no problem reading what the text says. I know that is says "SPOKEN" in the passage which I used previously as an example. How can you be so blind? The whole point was that the KJV is what treated the statement as a QUOTE from scripture when it WAS NOT. This is the very reason why I stopped responding to you in the other thread: you cannot understand what other people write or say and then you make wild untrue statements about what they have indeed said. Then you continue on spewing your same old line as if you really showed someone how it is. Please dust off your brain before responding with such nonsense again. Thank you. :rotfl:

No, Daqq. Discard the spurious logic and read what it says. "He" it says. To somehow READ MORE into that and assume that a capital letter means "we think it was written on the Tanach" is a rather moronic STRAW MAN argument.

Is that a quote? Yes, it is. Whom is it quoting? The prophets that spoke of which the Gospels refer to.

 

[daqq]

No, Daqq. Discard the spurious logic and read what it says. "He" it says. To somehow READ MORE into that and assume that a capital letter means "we think it was written on the Tanach" is a rather moronic STRAW MAN argument.

Is that a quote? Yes, it is. Whom is it quoting? The prophets that spoke of which the Gospels refer to.

:crackup: You are still not getting the point. That was another example of "hoti" having been assumed to have signified a scripture quote by the KJV because sometimes that may indeed be the case. The entire example is related to the passages in question which, in Mark 13:6 and Luke 21:8, also include "hoti" but do not include "ho Christos". You still do not get the point: the translators refuse to render "hoti" in the case of Mark 13:6 and Luke 21:8 because the KJV already messed it up and to fix it now would prove them wrong about John 8:58. The greater point of what I brought here from the other thread speaks of this critical relationship with how John 8:58 is interpreted. Since some translations, (but more so mainstream Christians who post in forums such as these), capitalize "I AM" in John 8:58 my remarks included this relationship. Thus the point is that if you are going to view the I AM statement of John 8:58 to be a claim to God Almighty status then treat the statements in Mark 13:6 and Luke 21:8 the same and include what is actually written there because if you do then hopefully you will immediately see the folly of your way, (and drop the nonsensical interpretation of John 8:58 as a claim to Godhood status because it is false). That information was in the first post I made on this topic in this thread a page or two back. I cannot make you or anyone else read.

Additionally, how many times was it said to you in the ECT thread that to those without all things are done in parables? It truly must have been at least six or seven times! To whom is the statement made in John 8:58? And where, when, and to whom does Yeshua speak the words found in Mark 13:6 and Luke 21:8? The statement in Mark and Luke is made to Peter, James, John, and Andrew, and it is made to those four disciples PRIVATELY, (Mark 13:3). The John 8:58 statement is made to THOSE WITHOUT. Therefore you have taken a statement made to those without and taken the same position that they did when they heard the words: the only difference being that you are glad that you think Yeshua claimed to be Almighty God. meanwhile Yeshua tells his disciples privately to watch out for outsiders like yourself who will come in his name claiming that he is "I AM" just as you and so many others do. In addition to this the whole explanation for John 8:58 is given in the thread that was already linked to and it is preposterous to claim that in that passage Yeshua claims to be Almighty God or even God. Over and above that he clearly says beforehand that if he testifies of himself his testimony is not true; and in that case he is speaking of the Son, and again, he speaks of the Son in the third person, (just as he always does of the Son of Man), because the Elohim Son is not the man Yeshua. The man Yeshua is the Anointed one. The Son of Elohim is Himself the Anointing which abode-remained upon the man Yeshua.

 

[Lon]

You are both conflating; thank God neither of you were scribes of old time. Matthew was originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic and this is freely admitted by your own church fathers.

I've never been impressed with any cultists academic prowess/ability. It'd take quite an exception. You lost before you even engaged.

They then took the Hebrew-Aramaic version that they got their filthy hands on and translated it into Greek.

Possible? Yes. Likely? No. Matthew was a tax collector, not a scholar YET in the next breath you'll say he was 'unlearned' talking out of both sides of your mouth, yes? Every cultist I've ever run across is inconsistent and self-contradictory. Every last one of you

They also freely admit that this is what they did.

Let me guess: we didn't land on the moon either? lain: Learn to discern fruity conspiracy theories from actual historical foundations.

Matthew was Jewish, true. His focus on the Lord Jesus Christ was as Messiah. He was interested in convincing Jews that He was the Christ.
Does that make Matthew a book written in Hebrew? Likely not. We have no (zero) Hebrew fragments of Matthew. That likely will mean nothing to you. You are too busy being ignorantly arrogant. When will God and Truth be more important than your pet pseudo-intellectual cult? Frankly, without ANY evidence such is a deduction. That's not the way I do "intelligent." You go ahead and build your cult house of cards any way you like. You'll NEVER convince me this 'no-evidence' way. Sorry. I'll stick with "Truth" because God CANNOT produce error. A little tough on the love here, but please self-analyze your bad-ol'-self. "Possible" and "likely" are two different things. Ephesians 4:14 2 Timothy 4:3 (applies to both of us, let's adhere to what is clear and eject what is flimsy and obscure/unlikely. Orthodoxy serves that purpose. Let's only toss out what is clearly untenable whether it agrees with your or my preference/private interpretation. I want to be molded into God's image, not He mine. You?

No one knows what happened to the Hebrew-Aramaic manuscripts they had because they no longer exist, (how is that for supposedly being stewards of the holy scriptures and the truth, eh?).

Exactly. Think. :think:

So what both of you are doing is conflating Mark and Luke with a corrupted version of Matthew which probably had Christos or ho Christos inserted into the text when it was rendered into Greek.

See? Leave conjecture behind and move on to what is sound doctrine.

Spoiler

But regardless we still have two accounts, Mark and Luke, which do not have Christos in them, and do contain "hoti", and yet the translators still refuse to render "hoti", (it goes untranslated), even though newer translations have begun to make such corrections in other critical places. One such place is Matthew 2:23 where the KJV again did not render "hoti" because it was apparently assumed to have indicated a scripture quote. However it is painfully obvious that in this instance also it was not indicating a quote because the statement is found nowhere in the Tanach:

:nono: You are missing the point. The point is that oti is translated two-ways. It is incorrect to think it isn't translated at all. It is a conjunction tying two ideas together.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Matthew 2:23 T/R
23 και ελθων κατωκησεν εις πολιν λεγομενην ναζαρετ οπως πληρωθη το ρηθεν δια των προφητων

Spoiler

οτι ναζωραιος κληθησεται

Matthew 2:23 KJV
23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Also when the KJV capitalizes within a passage, such as in the above with "He", ("shall be called a Nazarene"), it does so because it views that statement as a quote. So clearly the KJV was in error here also.

Matthew 2:23 W/H
23 και ελθων κατωκησεν εις πολιν λεγομενην ναζαρετ οπως πληρωθη το ρηθεν δια των προφητων οτι ναζωραιος κληθησεται

Matthew 2:23 ASV
23 and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene.

Matthew 2:23 ESV
23 And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene.

The later versions realize it is not a quote, and so render "hoti" as "that", as should be done here. As I said, the decision is essentially arbitrary in many cases and there are other cases where there is error. In the instance with the passage concerned, again, as I said; both of you nullify the statement of Yeshua and make it of no effect by your understanding of it.

How many would be deceived if someone entered into this forum in the name of Yeshua, claiming to be a Christian or claiming to be a believer, and at the same time claiming to be "I AM"?? The answer is clearly that NO ONE here would be deceived by such a one. You therefore make void the statement because, if understood the way you interpret it for your own benefit, the statement actually becomes UNTRUE.

:nono: Look:
Go to the store and buy eggs.
Go to the store that [you may] buy eggs.
Go to the store then buy eggs.
Go to the store to buy eggs.

Would you tell me that the 3 after become 'untrue?' :think:

I certainly would not want that on my conscience but then again my conscience is not seared.

Really? In the example, the 3 who conveyed buying eggs at the store without "that" have seared conscious?

Unfortunately it is clear that because you have translations that already support your dogma the both of you feel justified in standing your ground and will no doubt continue to do so. However inwardly you both should know that you now have no excuse for believing a lie and holding to it even after the error has been shown to you. You are not fighting for the truth but rather fighting for your dogmas, paradigms, and mindsets.

No, just not very impressed with the mind of all the cultist contenders. Such never impresses me. Granted I'm arrogant about my academic prowess and what it actually means. I tend to see through dross and "not likely" better than most of you. Then again, I was getting A's in languages including English back in school. A's tend to inflate the head. It'd make it nearly impossible for a C student to convince me of anything. For me, logically, "This is as it should be." You might not be able to appreciate that. It'd be sad if 'ever' had to be added to that

 

[daqq]

I've never been impressed with any cultists academic prowess/ability. It'd take quite an exception. You lost before you even engaged.


Possible? Yes. Likely? No. Matthew was a tax collector, not a scholar YET in the next breath you'll say he was 'unlearned' talking out of both sides of your mouth, yes? Every cultist I've ever run across is inconsistent and self-contradictory. Every last one of you


Let me guess: we didn't land on the moon either? lain: Learn to discern fruity conspiracy theories from actual historical foundations.

Matthew was Jewish, true. His focus on the Lord Jesus Christ was as Messiah. He was interested in convincing Jews that He was the Christ.
Does that make Matthew a book written in Hebrew? Likely not. We have no (zero) Hebrew fragments of Matthew. That likely will mean nothing to you. You are too busy being ignorantly arrogant. When will God and Truth be more important than your pet pseudo-intellectual cult? Frankly, without ANY evidence such is a deduction. That's not the way I do "intelligent." You go ahead and build your cult house of cards any way you like. You'll NEVER convince me this 'no-evidence' way. Sorry. I'll stick with "Truth" because God CANNOT produce error. A little tough on the love here, but please self-analyze your bad-ol'-self. "Possible" and "likely" are two different things. Ephesians 4:14 2 Timothy 4:3 (applies to both of us, let's adhere to what is clear and eject what is flimsy and obscure/unlikely. Orthodoxy serves that purpose. Let's only toss out what is clearly untenable whether it agrees with your or my preference/private interpretation. I want to be molded into God's image, not He mine. You?

Exactly. Think. :think:

See? Leave conjecture behind and move on to what is sound doctrine.

:nono: You are missing the point. The point is that oti is translated two-ways. It is incorrect to think it isn't translated at all. It is a conjunction tying two ideas together.


:nono: Look:
Go to the store and buy eggs.
Go to the store that [you may] buy eggs.
Go to the store then buy eggs.
Go to the store to buy eggs.

Would you tell me that the 3 after become 'untrue?' :think:


Really? In the example, the 3 who conveyed buying eggs at the store without "that" have seared conscious?
No, just not very impressed with the mind of all the cultist contenders. Such never impresses me. Granted I'm arrogant about my academic prowess and what it actually means. I tend to see through dross and "not likely" better than most of you. Then again, I was getting A's in languages including English back in school. A's tend to inflate the head. It'd make it nearly impossible for a C student to convince me of anything. For me, logically, "This is as it should be." You might not be able to appreciate that. It'd be sad if 'ever' had to be added to that

All you are doing is revealing more and more about yourself. It was already stated that those things were freely admitted by your church fathers and that they could be found in the thread that I already linked to:

The so-called church fathers admit that the Psalm 2:7 decree in full form was in the "original Matthew", (which was either in Hebrew or Hebrew-Aramaic), which they also then freely admit that they translated into Greek. Whatever happened to the original work nobody knows. Epiphanius calls "the Gospel of the Ebionites" instead the "Hebrew Gospel", but he is now assumed to have confused the matter, either that or he was correct and the issue has been purposely confused to hide what was done, for "the Gospel of the Hebrews" is now thought to possibly have been the original Gospel of Matthew which fairly clearly appears to have been written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. It almost appears that the Gospel of the Hebrews, (original Matthew), was so heavily redacted and mutilated that it had to be translated into Greek by the guilty so as to destroy the innocent. The companion passage in question is Matthew 3:13-17 which in the Gospel of the Hebrews, (or Ebionites), is now suggested to have been a conflation of Mark and Luke, because of what is believed to have been originally written in Luke 3:22 by not a few scholars, as exhibited in the Codex Bezae (D).

Emphasis mine:

And after a good deal more it continues that:

After the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John; and as he came up from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Ghost in the likeness of a dove that descended and entered into him: and a voice from heaven saying: Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased: and again: This day have I begotten thee. And straightway there shone about the place a great light. Which when John saw (it saith) he saith unto him: Who art thou, Lord? and again there was a voice from heaven saying unto him: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. And then (it saith) John fell down before him and said: I beseech thee, Lord, baptize thou me. But he prevented him saying: Suffer it (or let it go): for thus it behoveth that all things should be fulfilled.

And on this account they say that Jesus was begotten of the seed of a man, and was chosen; [Luke 9:35 ASV] and so by the choice of God he was called the Son of God from the Christ that came into him from above in the likeness of a dove. And they deny that he was begotten of God the Father, but say that he was created as one of the archangels, yet greater, and that he is Lord of the angels and of all things made by the Almighty, and that he came and taught, as the Gospel (so called) current among them contains, that, 'I came to destroy the sacrifices, and if ye cease not from sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you'[SIZE=-1].[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]*Snip*
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]These fragments show clearly that the Gospel was designed to support a particular set of views. They enable us also to distinguish it from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, for, among other things, the accounts of the Baptism in the two are quite different. Epiphanius is only confusing the issue when he talks of it as the Hebrew Gospel - or rather, the Ebionites may be guilty of the confusion, for he attributes the name to them.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] The Gospel according to the Twelve, or 'of the Twelve', mentioned by Origen (Ambrose and Jerome) is identified by Zahn with the Ebionite Gospel. He makes a good case for the identification. If the two are not identical, it can only be said that we know nothing of the Gospel according to the Twelve. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
The Gospel of the Ebionites

Concerning the Gospel of the Nazoreans, (which they also say is the Gospel of the Ebionites), we find these statements from Jerome:

10. In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use, which we have recently translated out of Hebrew into Greek, and which is called by most people the authentic (Gospel) of Matthew, the man who had the withered hand is described as a mason who pleaded for help in the following words: "I was a mason and earned (my) livelihood with (my) hands; I beseech thee, Jesus, to restore me to my health that I may not with ignominy have to beg for my bread." (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2 [on Matthew 12:13])

21. But in the Gospel which is written in Hebrew characters we read not that the veil of the temple was rent, but that the lintel of the temple of wondrous size collapsed.
(Jerome, Epistula ad Hedybiam 120.8)
The Gospel of the Nazoreans

And Eusebius:

18. But since the Gospel (written) in Hebrew characters which has come into our hands enters the threat not against the man who had hid (the talent), but against him who had lived dissolutely - for he (the master) had three servants: one who squandered his master's substance with harlots and flute-girls, one who multiplied the gain, and one who hid the talent; and accordingly one was accepted (with joy), another merely rebuked, and another cast into prison - I wonder whether in Matthew the threat which is uttered after the word against the man who did nothing may not refer to him, but by epanalepsis to the first who had feasted and drunk with the drunken. (Eusebius, Theophania 22 [on Matthew 25:14-15]
The Gospel of the Nazoreans

Surely there was an original Matthew written in either Hebrew or Hebrew-Aramaic and surely the early "church fathers" got their hands on copies of it and fully admit that they translated it into Greek. We will apparently never know what ever happened to the Hebrew-Aramaic copies but it is fairly clear that the Gospel of the Ebionites also contained the statement from Psalm 2:7, and that Gospel may have actually been the original Matthew, even though it is surmised that the Ebionite Gospel closely followed the Gospel of Luke, (stated in the link provided), for the statement that "he prevented him" and what follows is now only found in the current version of the Gospel of Matthew. Oh what a tangled web the church fathers have woven for their offspring: and by deleting the second half of the Psalm 2:7 decree they have nullified their tainted version of the Anointed One.

:sheep:

So you paid $40,000 to come here, call everyone who disagrees with you a cultist, and then proceed to make a buffoon of yourself? If I were you I would certainly find a better way to spend so much mammon, (if I had any). :chuckle:

 

[Lon]

All you are doing is revealing more and more about yourself. It was already stated that those things were freely admitted by your church fathers and that they could be found in the thread that I already linked to:

:doh: "the APOCRYPHA!!!!" Please leave this discussion to those of us with A's behind our education! Now sit down over there in the corner and be quiet!

So you paid $40,000 to come here, call everyone who disagrees with you a cultist, and then proceed to make a buffoon of yourself? If I were you I would certainly find a better way to spend so much mammon, (if I had any). :chuckle:

No. You wouldn't. This much is clear. No sit down over there in that corner and leave the adults to "intelligent" conversation :doh: I'm sorry to be mean but your ignorance is hurting you. Knock it off.

 

[Rosenritter]

:crackup: You are still not getting the point. That was another example of "hoti" having been assumed to have signified a scripture quote by the KJV because sometimes that may indeed be the case. The entire example is related to the passages in question which, in Mark 13:6 and Luke 21:8, also include "hoti" but do not include "ho Christos". You still do not get the point: the translators refuse to render "hoti" in the case of Mark 13:6 and Luke 21:8 because the KJV already messed it up and to fix it now would prove them wrong about John 8:58. The greater point of what I brought here from the other thread speaks of this critical relationship with how John 8:58 is interpreted. Since some translations, (but more so mainstream Christians who post in forums such as these), capitalize "I AM" in John 8:58 my remarks included this relationship. Thus the point is that if you are going to view the I AM statement of John 8:58 to be a claim to God Almighty status then treat the statements in Mark 13:6 and Luke 21:8 the same and include what is actually written there because if you do then hopefully you will immediately see the folly of your way, (and drop the nonsensical interpretation of John 8:58 as a claim to Godhood status because it is false). That information was in the first post I made on this topic in this thread a page or two back. I cannot make you or anyone else read.

Additionally, how many times was it said to you in the ECT thread that to those without all things are done in parables? It truly must have been at least six or seven times! To whom is the statement made in John 8:58? And where, when, and to whom does Yeshua speak the words found in Mark 13:6 and Luke 21:8? The statement in Mark and Luke is made to Peter, James, John, and Andrew, and it is made to those four disciples PRIVATELY, (Mark 13:3). The John 8:58 statement is made to THOSE WITHOUT. Therefore you have taken a statement made to those without and taken the same position that they did when they heard the words: the only difference being that you are glad that you think Yeshua claimed to be Almighty God. meanwhile Yeshua tells his disciples privately to watch out for outsiders like yourself who will come in his name claiming that he is "I AM" just as you and so many others do. In addition to this the whole explanation for John 8:58 is given in the thread that was already linked to and it is preposterous to claim that in that passage Yeshua claims to be Almighty God or even God. Over and above that he clearly says beforehand that if he testifies of himself his testimony is not true; and in that case he is speaking of the Son, and again, he speaks of the Son in the third person, (just as he always does of the Son of Man), because the Elohim Son is not the man Yeshua. The man Yeshua is the Anointed one. The Son of Elohim is Himself the Anointing which abode-remained upon the man Yeshua.

Daqq, i wish you would check your own arguments to see if they made sense. "I AM" and "I am Christ" work equally well for the Christian who knows to beware of false prophets EVEN IF they profess with their mouth that Jesus is Christ and especially if Jesus is God. If the KJV had "I AM" there you would be screaming your head off twice as loudly.

Now if you can be calm for a moment, please explain how John 8:58 is a parable and explain its symbols and meaning, preferably from scriptural passages for source reference.

John 8:56-59 KJV
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it , and was glad. [57] Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? [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, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

It's not in the form of a story and there is no possible symbolism that I can see. Please enlighten us and explain the meaning of this parable.

 

[daqq]

:doh: "the APOCRYPHA!!!!" Please leave this discussion to those of us with A's behind our education! Now sit down over there in the corner and be quiet!

No. You wouldn't. This much is clear. No sit down over there in that corner and leave the adults to "intelligent" conversation :doh: I'm sorry to be mean but your ignorance is hurting you. Knock it off.

Whether or not you consider Eusebius and Jerome apocrypha has no bearing on what was said and you either know it or are too blind to see what was just posted again right in front of your eyes. I clearly said that your church fathers, (three times now), freely admitted that they had Hebrew or Aramaic versions of Matthew and that they themselves claimed that they translated what they had into Greek. It is exactly as I said it was and you simply have no argument against the FACTS that are right in front of you. In addition all one needs to do is look at the KJV of the Mark and Luke passages to see that even though Christos is not in any manuscripts the KJV translators took the liberty of inserting it in italics. This goes beyond the pale and reveals that what they did was INTENTIONAL misdirection so as to uphold the "I AM God-Man" dogma which you and most of modern Christianity worship.

Ye olde king James adulterated version:

Mark 13:5-6 KJV
5 And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you:
6 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Luke 21:8 KJV
8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

Christos is not even in the Textus Receptus which the KJV is essentially rendered from. It is inserted so as to protect the "I AM" dogma that "Jesus is God" in John 8:58 without any regard for what is upright, honest, and truthful. The Young's Literal Bible is rendered from the same text as the KJV and it shows nothing of the sort even though Young, like the KJV, still did not translate "hoti" in either of the passages:

Mark 13:5-6 YLT
5 And Jesus answering them, began to say, 'Take heed lest any one may lead you astray,
6 for many shall come in my name, saying--I am he, and many they shall lead astray;

Luke 21:8 YLT
8 And he said, 'See--ye may not be led astray, for many shall come in my name, saying--I am he, and the time hath come nigh; go not on then after them;

Therefore I have no other choice but to take your comments quoted herein above as coming from a cry-baby child throwing a temper tantrum: "Sit down in the corner and listen up to me because I paid big bucks for my education and therefore I AM right and you are wrong!" :baby: (lol).

This is what the scripture says concerning you and your kind:

Acts 8:9-23 ASV
9 But there was a certain man, Simon by name, who beforetime in the city used sorcery, and amazed the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:
10 to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is that power of God which is called Great.
11 And they gave heed to him, because that of long time he had amazed them with his sorceries.
12 But when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13 And Simon also himself believed: and being baptized, he continued with Philip; and beholding signs and great miracles wrought, he was amazed.
14 Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit:
16 for as yet it was fallen upon none of them: only they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
18 Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money,
19 saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit.
20 But Peter said unto him, Thy silver perish with thee, because thou hast thought to obtain the gift of God with money.
21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right before God.
22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee.
23 For I see that thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.

Understand magos? You are nothing more than a word sorcerer tinkering with holy writings and thinking yourself to be some mighty one. You are not far from Elymas Bar-Jesus the son of Jesus who is likewise the spirit of all word sorcerers such as yourself.