FrankForum (Frankness IS Forum)

No ads, no mods, Frankly Anonymous (you can join w/fake name/email, are not tracked)!
It is currently 19 Aug 2018, 15:06

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Extra Smileys: http://forums.mydigitallife.info/misc.p ... _Editor_QR

Not moderated, so you are on your own. Spambots, stalkers and anti-semites will be banned without notice. Else, POLICE YOURSELF.



Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: 04 Oct 2015, 02:39 
User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 13:11
Posts: 383
Quote:
John 8:58 Jesus said to them: "amen amen, I say to you; before Abraham was, I AM."
John 8:58 εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς: ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί (verb indicative present active 1st person singular).


Since John 8:58 is a rather 'difficult' verse for someone who is a unitarian, I decided to see what biblical unitarian had to say:
SOURCE: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/videos/john-8-58b

biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
1. Trinitarians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. That argument is not correct. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement

It's true that the 'I AM' (ego eimi) in John 8:58 is used by others who are not God, and here it is in John 9:9 as per the biblical unitarians' statement:

Quote:
NIV John 9:9 Some claimed that he was. Others said, "No, he only looks like him." But he himself insisted, "I am the man."
John 9:9 ἄλλοι ἔλεγον ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν, ἄλλοι ἔλεγον· οὐχί, ἀλλὰ ὅμοιος αὐτῷ ἐστιν. ἐκεῖνος ἔλεγεν ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι.

However, I AM (ego eimi) is also used in the LXX in Exodus 3:14 to refer to God Himself:
Quote:
Exodus 3:14 And God said to Moses: "I AM THAT I AM", and he said: "this will you say to the children of Israel: I AM has sent me to you".
Exodus 3:14 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς
Exodus 3:14 וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם׃

So, we can see that Christ could have been potentially quoting the LXX since I AM (ego eimi) does refer to the I AM in the old testament (in the LXX of course, which is a useful 'mirror'). Since biblical unitarian immediately goes to discard EGO EIMI as having 'potential' to refer to God and divert it to human reference-- they don't even want to entertain or consider the notion. Which is bad scholarship since it's biased and means you're automatically choosing the closest adjacent response even if it's incorrect.

biblicaluitarian.com wrote:
Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one.

What?! How in the world of flaming peanuts is a Bible translation reproducing EGO EIMI in John 8:58 a "bias". Hello? Discarding ego eimi in Exodus 3:14 is a bias, and yet the accuse the Bible of being biased. Wow.

biblicaluniarian.com wrote:
Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”

Huh? I AM is an incomplete statement and does not 'draw attention' to anything.
"before Abraham was, I AM" <-- incomplete and nonsensical if 'I AM' does not refer to God. But get this... if we were to accept the view that I AM + (insert whatever ecumenical phrase here) was to be the correct interpretation, look at what we get:
"before Abraham was, I AM the one you must look at"
"before Abraham was, I AM the one you must listen to"
"before Abraham was, I AM the one if you would know God"

They've essentially just contradicted themselves because of "before Abraham was" clause. So even turning I AM into some sort of 'emphasis' to Christ, would contradict their notion of Christ not having existed yet (since he was just 'a man' to them), but at the same time having to be 'looked at' / 'listened to' before Abraham! Huh???? That would mean believers before Abraham would have had to have listened to Christ which contradicts their belief.

biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
2. The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he” or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be”—John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament.

This is a problem exclusively of translations (notice now they've switched to using translations to support their view). This is often done to add flavour / assist with consistency, since English isn't as literal as Greek. Or, just a plain mistake. But let's go through their claim:
#1 they claim that "I am he" is the correct translation since it removes emphasis away from I AM
#2 they claim that only John 8:58 uses "I AM" instead of "I am he":

Quote:
KJV John 18:5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.
NIV John 18:5 "Jesus of Nazareth," they replied. "I am he," Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.)
BGT John 18:5 ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ· Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζωραῖον. λέγει αὐτοῖς· ἐγώ εἰμι. εἱστήκει δὲ καὶ Ἰούδας ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν μετ᾽ αὐτῶν.

KJV John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
NIV John 15:5 "I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.
BGT John 15:5 ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος, ὑμεῖς τὰ κλήματα. ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ οὗτος φέρει καρπὸν πολύν, ὅτι χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν.

KJV John 13:19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.
NIV John 13:19 "I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am who I am.
BGT John 13:19 ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι λέγω ὑμῖν πρὸ τοῦ γενέσθαι, ἵνα πιστεύσητε ὅταν γένηται ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι.

KJV Genesis 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
NIV Genesis 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty; walk before me faithfully and be blameless.
Genesis 17:1 ἐγένετο δὲ Αβραμ ἐτῶν ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα καὶ ὤφθη κύριος τῷ Αβραμ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ θεός σου εὐαρέστει ἐναντίον ἐμοῦ καὶ γίνου ἄμεμπτος
Genesis 17:1 וַיְהִ֣י אַבְרָ֔ם בֶּן־תִּשְׁעִ֥ים שָׁנָ֖ה וְתֵ֣שַׁע שָׁנִ֑ים וַיֵּרָ֙א יְהוָ֜ה אֶל־אַבְרָ֗ם וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֵלָיו֙ אֲנִי־אֵ֣ל שַׁדַּ֔י הִתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ לְפָנַ֖י וֶהְיֵ֥ה תָמִֽים׃


So we can see right away 'ego eimi' is NOT always translated as 'I am he' but also as "I am" in other verses, so they've failed their second claim immediately saying that only John 8:58 does it.
And for their first claim we'll notice in John 13:19 the NIV uses "I am who I am" in attempt to connect it to Exodus 3:14, which is wrong to do* (the KJV simply just went with "I am he" which is also wrong to do). Both translations should have used "I AM". "I am he" would need another word such as: ἐγώ εἰμι , which is found in revelation 2:23.
*I say that it's wrong for the NIV because first "I am that I am" is more accurate than "I am who I am", and also due to the fact ego eimi is used-- so it should be I AM-- since that is *enough* for you to know it goes back to Exodus 3:14.
EGO EIMI is never "I am he" but "I am", and attempting to add another word to it because translations SOMETIMES incorrectly do is a complete idiotic claim.

But let's say 'ego eimi' should always be 'I am he', let's see how John 8:58 reads now:
"before Abraham was, I AM (verb indicative present active 1st person singular) he"

Of course biblical unitarian won't have a problem with that statement because they'll say "oh that just means this is proof the messiah that was spoken of in the O.T. is now come, because the "he" refers to messiah and not God". But there are indeed problems:
#1 ego eimi is using a present active participle, so if you say you were 'before' Abraham *and* 'ego eimi' (present active), that means you would be alive as a result of using a word that's active.
Quote:
The present active participle, like all present participles, is derived only from imperfective verbs, since it refers to an action that is currently taking place or which takes place repeatedly.
Source: http://www.alphadictionary.com/rusgrammar/presact.html

(note that's a page speaking about present active for Russian, but the concept is still the same)

Quote:
Acts 10:21 Then Peter went down to the men which were sent to him from Cornelius; and said: "Behold, I am who you seek: what is the cause therefore you have come?
Acts 10:21 καταβὰς δὲ Πέτρος πρὸς τοὺς ἄνδρας εἶπεν· ἰδοὺ ἐγώ εἰμι ὃν ζητεῖτε· τίς ἡ αἰτία δι᾽ ἣν πάρεστε;

Peter says I AM who you seek. If this wasn't active, then he wouldn't be present. Likewise if Christ *wasn't* present before Abraham, it would be violating the present active participle.

#2 By biblical unitarians saying ego eimi should always be 'I am he', that gives even less credibility to their position, since Christ would be claiming God "I am He" before Abraham. How is that? Well let's read the whole passage:

Quote:
John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
John 8:56 Ἀβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἠγαλλιάσατο ἵνα ἴδῃ τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἐμήν, καὶ εἶδεν καὶ ἐχάρη.
John 8:57 Then said the Jews to him: "you are not yet fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham?"
John 8:57 εἶπον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι πρὸς αὐτόν· πεντήκοντα ἔτη οὔπω ἔχεις καὶ Ἀβραὰμ ἑώρακας;
John 8:58 Jesus said to them: "amen amen, I say to you; before Abraham was, I AM."
John 8:58 εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς: ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί (verb indicative present active 1st person singular).
John 8:59 Then they took 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.
John 8:59 ἦραν οὖν λίθους ἵνα βάλωσιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν. Ἰησοῦς δὲ ἐκρύβη καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ.

Soon as Christ makes the statement that He was aware of Abraham's actions. they questioned Him. Then Christ takes it 'one step further' to say *before* Abraham was, I am. THEN they took the stones to stone Him, because they would have realized what was said with present active participle.

biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
At the Last Supper, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said, literally, “Not I am, Lord” (Matt. 26:22 and 25). No one would say that the disciples were trying to deny that they were God because they were using the phrase “Not I am.” The point is this: “I am” was a common way of designating oneself, and it did not mean you were claiming to be God.

biblical unitarian has a bad habit of 'cycling' through the same argument at odd intervals. It's true "I am" doesn't necessarily mean you're claiming to be God, but in John 8:58 Christ used it at the end of the sentence abruptly and prefixed it with "before Abraham". None of the disciples have ever claimed they were before Abraham *with* ending their statements in I AM.
So here they're trying to down-play the unique construction of John 8:58 and focus on ego eimi when it is wholly possible to be quoting back to Exodus 3:14.

===The biblical unitarian calvinist claim===

biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
3. The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the mind of God as God’s plan for the redemption of man. A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge.

Actually... no. Saying that extrapolating Christ existing in God's foreknowledge as a figurative existence is a "careful reading" means you're only making an assumption from an English translation. EIMI in the Greek is a present active participle as previously mentioned. It *cannot* be bent to meaning figurative or passive. If someone says "ego eimi", that's a literal statement of existence. For example we can take any random verse, such as Revelation 22:16:
Quote:
NIV Revelation 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."
Revelation 22:16 Ἐγὼ Ἰησοῦς ἔπεμψα τὸν ἄγγελόν μου μαρτυρῆσαι ὑμῖν ταῦτα ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ῥίζα καὶ τὸ γένος Δαυίδ, ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς ὁ πρωϊνός.

With the "biblical unitarian" interpretation, we could say that Christ is "figuratively" the root / lineage of David and the morning star. No... Christ *IS* the root / He *is* from the line of David (re: Mary), and He *is* the morning star.

Yep, they broke the doctrine and flunked basic Greek participles.

biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
4. In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus’ “I am” statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God’s “I am” statement in Exodus 3:14. However, the two statements are very different. While the Greek phrase in John does mean “I am,” the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means “to be” or “to become.” In other words God is saying, “I will be what I will be.” Thus the “I am” in Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, so the fact that Jesus said “I am” did not make him God.

Wow... As we've saw previously the LXX (which *was* translated by Jews who KNEW Biblical Hebrew) uses the same starting phrase in John 8:58, and in fact may be exactly where Christ is quoting from:
Quote:
Exodus 3:14 And God said to Moses: "I AM THAT I AM", and he said: "this will you say to the children of Israel: I AM has sent me to you".
Exodus 3:14 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς
Exodus 3:14 וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם׃

So even if we wanted to play the Hebrew word games (which there's no point since they don't even know Hebrew), the same I AM is found in the LXX. It's also no secret that the N.T. quotes from the LXX since it was familiar to many Jews and believers of the time.

biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
5. Trinitarians claim that the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus because he was claiming to be God (John 8:59), but that is an assumption. There is a different explanation that is supported by better evidence: the Jews picked up stones to kill Jesus because they understood he was claiming to be the Messiah.

Oh no, here we go again. If we were to take into consideration that Christ was claiming I AM from Exodus 3:14 (which the Jews would have been familiar with in either the Greek or Hebrew), then that *would* put Him on par with God. If He was claiming to be Messiah, that would be the same thing as Messiah *is* God.

biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
At Jesus’ trial, the High Priest asked, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt. 26:63). First of all, we should notice that no one at the trial asked Jesus if he were God. However, if they thought he had been claiming to be God, that would have certainly been a question they would have asked. The High Priest asked Jesus in very clear terms if he was the Christ because that is what the Jews knew Jesus was claiming to be. Second, when the Jews heard Jesus’ clear answer (“Yes, it is as you say”), they accused him of blasphemy and said, “He is worthy of death” (Matt. 26:66). They felt he was worthy of death in the record in John 8, but in that record they picked up stones to kill him, while after hearing his “blasphemy” at the trial, they took him to Pilate and got the Romans to execute Jesus.

Sort of, biblical unitarian is not considering the notion that the Messiah *is* God / that the Son of God *is* God / that Christ *is* God. If you ignore this information then that allows you to add artificial separation between the two.

It *was* known that Messiah was God:
Quote:
NIV Jeremiah 23:5 "The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. 6 In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteous Savior.
Jeremiah 23:5 ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται λέγει κύριος καὶ ἀναστήσω τῷ Δαυιδ ἀνατολὴν δικαίαν καὶ βασιλεύσει βασιλεὺς καὶ συνήσει καὶ ποιήσει κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 6 ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτοῦ σωθήσεται Ιουδας καὶ Ισραηλ κατασκηνώσει πεποιθώς καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ὃ καλέσει αὐτὸν κύριος Ιωσεδεκ
Jeremiah 23:5 הִנֵּ֙ה יָמִ֤ים בָּאִים֙ נְאֻם־יְהוָ֔ה וַהֲקִמֹתִ֥י לְדָוִ֖ד צֶ֣מַח צַדִּ֑יק וּמָ֤לַךְ מֶ֙לֶךְ֙ וְהִשְׂכִּ֔יל וְעָשָׂ֛ה מִשְׁפָּ֥ט וּצְדָקָ֖ה בָּאָֽרֶץ׃ 6 בְּיָמָיו֙ תִּוָּשַׁ֣ע יְהוּדָ֔ה וְיִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל יִשְׁכֹּ֣ן לָבֶ֑טַח וְזֶה־שְּׁמ֥וֹ אֲֽשֶׁר־יִקְרְא֖וֹ יְהוָ֥ה׀ צִדְקֵֽנוּ׃ ס


And in the case of LORD, יְהוָ֥ה׀ (YHVH) is used. So whoever 'the King' (messiah) is, will be YHVH. And obviously will come from the line of David. So, Messiah *is* God.

BUT, there *were* Pharisees that disputed the deity of Messiah in the sense how could Messiah be God if He is David's son (of course this was brought up last time in another post about biblical unitarian):
Quote:
Matthew 22:41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them
Matthew 22:42 Saying: "what do you think of Christ? whose son is he?" They say to him: "the Son of David."
Matthew 22:43 He says to them: "How then does David in spirit call him Lord, saying:
Matthew 22:44 "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit you on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Matthew 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?"
Matthew 22:46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither did any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

So Messiah *is* God per: Jeremiah 23:5 / Matthew 22:45.

To conclude, let's attempt the biblical unitarian claim and ignore Greek participles; and take their interpretation of John 8:58 and apply it to 2 Tim 1:9:
Quote:
2 Timothy 1:9 He has saved us and called us with a holy calling; not according to our works but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began
2 Timothy 1:9 τοῦ σώσαντος ἡμᾶς καὶ καλέσαντος κλήσει ἁγίᾳ, οὐ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἰδίαν πρόθεσιν καὶ χάριν, τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων,

If Jesus Christ didn't exist before the world began, but was a mere "thought" in the mind of God-- how could grace have been given in eternity past? That would mean that...
Christ existed in God's foreknowledge in which that foreknowledge was then foreknowledgedx2 to have grace, but it couldn't have been given since it was just foreknowledge attempting to act on foreknowledge.

Doctrine broken.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 04 Oct 2015, 04:52 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Note: the Hebrew text doesn't align rightly: if the magnification is too big, the words scramble. Same problem exists in MS Word. Greek is okay. Each skin has different problems with magnification. So if the Hebrew looks funny, try lowering the zoom.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2016, 00:21 
User avatar

Joined: 09 Feb 2016, 00:11
Posts: 4
hupostasis

I appreciate the great length that you have gone to in addressing this issue. However, please note, that just because one person does not correctly exegete a specific text, that in itself does not negate the system. I think you will acknowledge that most trinitarians do not even understand their own doctrine much less be able to exegete many of the texts which are used to support or deny their doctrine. Does that make sense?

The one error I saw in the above is the focus on ego eimi rather than o wn. Jehovah's name in the Septuagint is NOT ego eimi - that is simply a common phrase reading to identify something - which is the predicate nominative (often implicit but identifiable in the context cf Jn9:9 as noted). Therefore Jesus could not have been using ego eimi to identify himself as Jehovah.

This is further substantiated by John's use of o wn in Rev 1:4, etc.

Therefore, the issue remains - what is the implicit predicate nominative in v24, 28, 58? Well, it s/b pretty obvious because it is explicit in the context. I am certain you can identify it at the beginning of the context (which, btw, flows through Ch9 and is quite magnificent).

Best,

Greg


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2016, 05:54 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
John uses ho own, CHRIST used ego eimi. Maybe you're not aware of this feature of Greek grammar, but Christ is EMPHASIZING the fact HE is the Name, when HE uses 'ego'. It's a stress pronoun, much as it is in even other languages, like Spanish, YO soy.

There's no excuse to deny Trinitarianism. Their position is poorly stated, but Bible depicts Trinity from Genesis 1:1 (Christ) forward.

PS Glad you could join, rebut me anyway you like! It's no holds barred, here.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2016, 04:18 
User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 13:11
Posts: 383
GregLogan wrote:
hupostasis
I appreciate the great length that you have gone to in addressing this issue. However, please note, that just because one person does not correctly exegete a specific text, that in itself does not negate the system.

biblicalunitarian.com is ran by multiple people, and not just one person. I've found that a lot of the views present there are ones that are typically propagated elsewhere, perhaps what you're getting at is that the answers to the problems can vary (or you think you have better solutions). But that's a strong malady of denominations, you never get a consistent answer to problems.

I've noticed a common argumentional pattern for unitarians is to first state that not all unitarians believe in XYZ, and then proceed to say that trinitarians get a lot of things wrong. Unfortunately I'll have to say it's not relevant, since two wrong explanations are still wrong explanations.

GregLogan wrote:
I think you will acknowledge that most trinitarians do not even understand their own doctrine much less be able to exegete many of the texts which are used to support or deny their doctrine. Does that make sense?

Yes, most people who passively believe in the trinity have no reason to investigate it, or the Bible in general (so they're stuck with "three in one" instead of "three AND one"). But, they'll still say Jesus Christ is God (same essence); which means they'll have LESS PROBLEMS when interpreting other passages in the Bible. So it's still not really relevant to explaining why unitarianism has problems.

GregLogan wrote:
The one error I saw in the above is the focus on ego eimi rather than o wn. Jehovah's name in the Septuagint is NOT ego eimi - that is simply a common phrase reading to identify something - which is the predicate nominative (often implicit but identifiable in the context cf Jn9:9 as noted). Therefore Jesus could not have been using ego eimi to identify himself as Jehovah.

This is further substantiated by John's use of o wn in Rev 1:4, etc.

Therefore, the issue remains - what is the implicit predicate nominative in v24, 28, 58? Well, it s/b pretty obvious because it is explicit in the context. I am certain you can identify it at the beginning of the context (which, btw, flows through Ch9 and is quite magnificent).


Exodus 3:14 is in present active. Unfortunately biblicalunitarian claims the Hebrew is translated wrong (when it isn't, but they HAVE NO CHOICE but to say it is) which is why I switched over to the LXX since it was easier to show their errors in action while they were trying to debate ego emi.


Report this post
Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited