Posted on 04/15/2013 5:06:15 PM PDT by DouglasKC
“So, apparently, Christ’s point in this was to say that God was the God of Abraham IN THE PAST, but is not CURRENTLY the God of Abraham, Issac or Jacob. The verb, however, is in the present tense because it means continuous existence. “I am,” or “I am always.”
How did you determine the speakers view of any time element involved if there is one?
“Whatever the case, you would have to retranslate this passage as well:
Mat_22:32 I am (Ego Eimi) the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”
Not unless you can determine the view of time of the speaker here.
“Are you referring to Genesis 18? I ignored it earlier since I figured it was a diversion. You’re going to have to make an argument, and show how it is relevant to Christ being called the First and the Last, the Almighty.”
It was a simple question but if you would rather not...O.K.
“I showed you what the LXX said”
Not really. You didn’t give me any real reason to believe you over the folks of Gordon.edu. The “I am” rendering is most natural, since other scriptures with the same verb-form would be made unintelligible by it. I also didn’t really even comprehend the point of your argument, since you would think you would try to demonstrate how the LXX in Exodus uses a different word than that used by the New Testament. But you didn’t. You merely asserted that God, in both places, didn’t assert His own divinity (if you follow what you say logically). He just said “I am the Being,” and then you morphed this into “The One,” so God says to Moses “I am the one that I am the one, now go and say ‘The One’ have sent thee.” And then, of course, when asked by the Jews how He was before Abraham, Jesus, at least if we stick with your conclusions, is still using the same title of God and getting stoned for it.
I therefore do not truly see any purpose in your arguments, other than to be so jumbled up as to confuse people.
“How did you determine the speakers view of any time element involved if there is one?”
If you had read the scriptures, you would know that Christ is refuting the idea that there is no resurrection. If Abraham is doomed to cease to exist in the grave, then God cannot “still” be His God. He therefore says that God is (Ego Eimi) the God of Abraham, not “was” the God of Abraham, and therefore there must be a resurrection for Abraham to come to.
Hence why God’s title is so significant in Exodus. Because He is not saying He is “the one,” that utterly disrupts the use of the verb in the first place. (Why not just use the number one?) He is saying that He simply IS, with neither past, nor present nor future having any effect on Him. He always “is,” and therefore is from everlasting to everlasting. And if Jesus had meant to say He had only existed in the past, but was not eternal, He would have said so clearly to distinguish Himself from God. So therefore, it is unavoidable to conclude that Christ’s “Ego Eimi” is a direct reference to the ‘Ego Eimi” as translated in the LXX.
“It was a simple question but if you would rather not...O.K.”
Sorry, but when you can’t even identify the speaker of a quote with his quote, I can’t take you seriously when you try to assert you are arguing from the Bible. I’m not doing your work for you. You will have to provide some basis for your argument existing before I will start refuting it. So get to work, and then I will crush your hobbled together nonsense immediately thereafter.
Uuu what?
“If you wish to congratulate yourself that’s your affair but who are you to judge anyone, harshly or not?”
If you knew what was good for your soul you would congratulate me also, instead of clinging to your sophistry and diversions.
But as to judging, I judge your arguments for their lack of substance, and I judge your doctrine by the scriptures.
Gal 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
I don’t have time to play back and forth games with you. So, when you’re ready to climb off the cross and answer my replies in detail, that’s the next time you’ll see me respond.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
There are times when it is best to just shake the dust off my feet and go on. This is certainly one of those times.
read painfully
Thank you.
I wouldn't be blaming "people of that day" for any broad use of the term "god" when we are really talking about sacred, divinely-inspired Scripture. God-BREATHED the words exactly how they were to be written. It is quibbling to say Almighty God only meant gods in HIS caliber didn't exist since the Scripture here as well as in others specifically say NO gods before nor after Him were formed nor created. ONLY Jehovah is GOD. All other gods are false gods, they are not really gods at all. In fact, the LORD was speaking to Israel in that chapter of Isaiah challenging them to:
Let all the nations be gathered together, And let the people be assembled. Who among them can declare this, And show us former things? Let them bring out their witnesses, that they may be justified; Or let them hear and say, “It is truth.”
“You are My witnesses,” says the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, And besides Me there is no savior. I have declared and saved, I have proclaimed, And there was no foreign god among you; Therefore you are My witnesses,” Says the Lord, “that I am God. Indeed before the day was, I am He; And there is no one who can deliver out of My hand; I work, and who will reverse it?” (Isa. 43:9-13)
So, no, Jehovah in no way legitimizes other gods (small g), he obliterates the very notion that other gods are REAL at all. You cannot escape the truth that Scripture clearly states this throughout the Old Testament books and it is reiterated throughout the New Testament, too. That's is precisely why Jesus was understood to BE Almighty God incarnate (in the flesh) and it is why he was to be called Immanuel - which means GOD WITH US.
Though the term "lord" was used - and is still in use for certain titles of nobility in English - it was "adonai" and was a title given to human men. For example, Sarah addressed Abraham as lord. In the KJV, lord is used over 6000 times, though when used for the tetragrammaton for JHVH or YWVH or for Yahweh it is spelled in all upper case as LORD. When God said men were to have "no other gods before him", he certainly wasn't suggesting that other gods existed, just that we were to NOT worship nor follow after false gods who are NOT gods at all.
So, you do say that Jesus is Lord. Do you mean this in the sense that mere men are called lord or in the divine sense of LORD? I'm sure you must also know that Scripture calls Jesus both God and Lord - many times. Messianic prophesies say that the Messiah would be "God with us" as well as "Mighty God" AND "Everlasting Father". The only way this fits is if Jesus IS God in the flesh - since there ARE no other gods BUT Jehovah and no other LORDS or Saviors. Jesus is NOT a "unique god" but one WITH the only God. Either Jesus is God in human flesh - as Scripture overwhelmingly states - or he is merely a man with no divine nature at all. And, if he is merely a man, then he cannot be THE Savior of all mankind.
No argument from me! The ONLY authority is God and, since God inspired men of God to write the truths he revealed to them for the sake of all mankind, we can trust that the sacred Scriptures ARE God-ordained authority in its own right. The job of the "church" - really all believers who are indwelled with the Holy Spirit - is to uphold and spread to the world the truths God has given to us. Men fail, God's word never fails.
For the sake of the important subject of this thread and the allies I hope we are in the support of the doctrine of the Trinity, let's not turn this into yet another Catholic v. Protestant battle, shall we?
Have a blessed weekend.
WRT...Jehovah meaning “I AM”, I have read that it also means “the self-existent one”. Any thoughts?
When a painter paints a picture, what is in him is reflected in the painting he produces. When a sculptor creates a work of art, it is from his heart and mind that the source of the sculpture is born. The work is shaped by his creative ability. The creators of art leave their marks, something that is their own, something that reflects what they are. Is this the same with God? Has God left His fingerprints on creation? Of course He has.
Creation
Basically, the universe consists of three elements: Time, Space, and Matter. Each of these is comprised of three 'components.'
Time Past Present Future
Space Height Width Depth
Matter Solid Liquid Gas
TIME SPACE MATTER
As the Trinitarian doctrine maintains, each of the persons of the Godhead is distinct, yet they are all each, by nature, God.
With time, for example, the past is distinct from the present, which is distinct from the future. Each is simultaneous, yet they are not three 'times,' but one. That is, they all share the same nature: time.
With space, height is distinct from width, which is distinct from depth, which is distinct from height. Yet, they are not three 'spaces,' but one. That is, they all share the same nature: space.
With matter, solid is not the same as liquid, which is not the same as gas, which is not the same as solid. Yet, they are not three 'matters,' but one. That is, they all share the same nature: matter.
Note that there are three sets of threes. In other words, there is a trinity of trinities. If we were to look at the universe and notice these qualities within it, is it fair to say that these are the fingerprints of God upon His creation? I think so. Not only is this simply an observation, but it is also a good source for an analogy of the Trinity.
Great points...who was created in the image of God?
Man. We are made in the image of God. This applies also to the Godhead.
2 sexes, male and female.
We have 2 arms. 2 legs. 2 nostrils. 2 eyes. 2 brain halves. 2 lungs. 2 kidneys. 2 hands. 2 feet. 2 ankles. 2 femurs. 2 tibulas. 2 ears. Men have 2 testicles, women 2 ovaries. 2 breasts. You get the idea.
We are bi-symmetrical. The two parts of our body combine to make one just as the father and son make one in the Godhead.
When we marry two people become one.
Yes, we do reflect our maker and we do reflect the Godhead....our bodies scream it!
“When we marry two people become one.”
I’m not sure why you ping me when you know what my answer is. It’s the same answer I’ve challenged you on in several different anti-Trinitarian threads you have started.
Why should we believe that there are “two” Gods, as your religion teaches, and an open Godhead wherein men will join, when the scripture clearly teaches there is only one God?
Isa_44:8 ... Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
Isa_43:10 ... before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Deu 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.
Deu 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.
All your arguments are utterly moot, from the very beginning, since from the very beginning God has taught a monotheistic religion. There is no room for “two gods” becoming one in a “God family” in a world wherein there is “No God beside Him,” and no God formed before or after Him. So, you can go on and on with flaky arguments about husbands and wives, but it doesn’t matter one whit when the scripture does not teach polytheism.
As for men being made in the image of God, and your comments on “male and female”, two arms, two legs, flesh and body, etc. According to scripture, God is Spirit:
Joh_4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
And Spirit is not defined as flesh and bone:
Luk_24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
This image, therefore, cannot have anything to do with our physical parts. God isn’t up there with a human looking body, with us as exact duplicates, waiting to get married so we can have a “full image”. The reference, therefore, is to our spiritual nature, prior to the fall.
Pro 20:27 The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly.
From the Illustrious Matthew Henry:
“But it is the soul, the great soul, of man, that does especially bear God’s image. The soul is a spirit, an intelligent immortal spirit, an influencing active spirit, herein resembling God, the Father of Spirits, and the soul of the world. The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord. The soul of man, considered in its three noble faculties, understanding, will, and active power, is perhaps the brightest clearest looking-glass in nature, wherein to see God. 2. In his place and authority: Let us make man in our image, and let him have dominion. As he has the government of the inferior creatures, he is, as it were, God’s representative, or viceroy, upon earth; they are not capable of fearing and serving God, therefore God has appointed them to fear and serve man. Yet his government of himself by the freedom of his will has in it more of God’s image than his government of the creatures. 3. In his purity and rectitude. God’s image upon man consists in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, Eph_4:24; Col_3:10. He was upright, Ecc_7:29. He had an habitual conformity of all his natural powers to the whole will of God. His understanding saw divine things clearly and truly, and there were no errors nor mistakes in his knowledge. His will complied readily and universally with the will of God, without reluctancy or resistance. His affections were all regular, and he had no inordinate appetites or passions. His thoughts were easily brought and fixed to the best subjects, and there was no vanity nor ungovernableness in them. All the inferior powers were subject to the dictates and directions of the superior, without any mutiny or rebellion. Thus holy, thus happy, were our first parents, in having the image of God upon them. And this honour, put upon man at first, is a good reason why we should not speak ill one of another (Jam_3:9), nor do ill one to another (Gen_9:6), and a good reason why we should not debase ourselves to the service of sin, and why we should devote ourselves to God’s service. But how art thou fallen, O son of the morning! How is this image of God upon man defaced! How small are the remains of it, and how great the ruins of it! The Lord renew it upon our souls by his sanctifying grace!”
If the verb used, hayah, is understood to mean not just existence but action or identity to become, in the future then, I will be or I will become would be its meaning.
How does one understand Moses’ question “Who shall I say sent me?”
Are you going to ignore the other examples regarding space, time and matter?
Moses was surrounded with various pagan religious systems and their "gods" had names. Moses wanted a way to identify the true God to the Egyptians seeing as they probably never heard of the ONLY, TRUE God before. God's personal name is JEHOVAH, the I AM, the self-existent one. By this name, God was asserting He was the only God who had no beginning nor end.
But though we can learn much from nature still there is knowledge that only God can supply to us to keep us from drawing the wrong conclusions from our studies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.