- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 17 2006,21:30) Hi Frank,
Are you yet teaching what God has shown you or only presenting the discoveries of others?
I am teaching what Yahweh has revealed to me through those who teach the truth.You are adhering to the shaky foundation and spoiled milk of the traditional Trintarian doctrine of a pre-existant son.
Hi Frank,
God wants to teach you by His Spirit from within. He wants to write His laws on your heart so that you will need no one to teach you.The demons and the apostles knew what the Son of God really meant and that is why he forbade them telling others.
He is the Son of Proverbs 30 and Ps 2.
Frank4YAHWEH can you explain is simple laymans terms what Jesus meant when he said “Before Abraham was, I am”.
I don't need an explanation about him not claiming to be Yahweh, but how this doesn't mean that he existed before Abraham.
In other instances where Jesus or anyone says I am, they are usually identifying themselves.
E.g., Q: Are you Jesus
A: I amOr “I am the bread of life.”
Jesus identified himself before Abraham's existence and the Jews complained bitterly about it.
John 8:56-59
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
57″ You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.Please explain simply in your own words (so we know you understand that which you teach) why the above verse is not saying that Jesus existed before Abraham.
Surely if what you say is true, then you can explain it simply and briefly too.
Thx
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 17 2006,22:30) Hi Frank,
God wants to teach you by His Spirit from within. He wants to write His laws on your heart so that you will need no one to teach you.The demons and the apostles knew what the Son of God really meant and that is why he forbade them telling others.
He is the Son of Proverbs 30 and Ps 2.
Are you saying that you yourself are being taught from within by what you refer to as “God's Spirit” and that you “need no one to teach you”?That is one of the stupidest statements that I have heard from you so far!
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 17 2006,22:37) Frank4YAHWEH can you explain is simple laymans terms what Jesus meant when he said “Before Abraham was, I am”. I don't need an explanation about him not claiming to be Yahweh, but how this doesn't mean that he existed before Abraham.
In other instances where Jesus or anyone says I am, they are usually identifying themselves.
E.g., Q: Are you Jesus
A: I amOr “I am the bread of life.”
Jesus identified himself before Abraham's existence and the Jews complained bitterly about it.
John 8:56-59
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
57″ You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.Please explain simply in your own words (so we know you understand that which you teach) why the above verse is not saying that Jesus existed before Abraham.
Surely if what you say is true, then you can explain it simply and briefly too.
Thx
“Before Abraham was, I am.” These words, spoken by our Savior in John.8:58, have led to much controversy and confusion. Some use this verse to prove the Messiah's pre-existence. Others use it to prove the trinity doctrine. And then there are those who use it to prove YAHushua is the great “I AM” Yahweh Himself .. Ex.3:14. The phrase “I am” is “ego eimi” in Greek. Since the Greek New Testament records YAHushua using “ego eimi” many times, Christian theologians term these sayings, “The I Am's of Jesus.” It is believed that each of these occurrences implies YAHushua's identity as the “I AM” of Ex.3:14. Can this be true? Can our Savior, the Son of YAHWEH, actually be the “I AM”?Ex.3:14-15 reads, “And Elohim said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And Elohim said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, YAHWEH, Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.”
Therefore, the “I AM” is identified as “YAHWEH.” And what does YAHWEH say in Ps.2:7?
Psalm 2:7 “I will declare the decree: YAHWEH hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day I have begotten thee.”
YAHWEH is the Father of YAHushua. YAHushua is the Son of YAHWEH. YAHushua is not YAHWEH and the Son is not the Father. Therefore, YAHushua (the Son of YAHWEH) cannot be the I AM (YAHWEH). That alone should be sufficient to discredit the belief that YAHushua was claiming to be the “I AM.” as in the sense he was Yahweh. But let's look into the matter a little farther. It is believed that John.8:59 further supports the position that YAHushua is the “I AM.” Why else would the Jews try to stone him? He obviously blasphemed in the eyes of the Jews, a stoneable offense. Or did he? Is the mere utterance of “ego eimi” a blasphemy? Does the use of “ego eimi” automatically identify the speaker as YAHWEH, the I AM?
Several individuals aside from YAHushua used “ego eimi” as well. In Lu.1:19, the angel Gabriel said, “Ego eimi Gabriel.” In John.9:9, the blind man whose sight was restored by YAHushua said, “Ego eimi.” In Acts 10:21, Peter said, “Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek.” Obviously, the mere use of “ego eimi” does not equate one to the “I Am” of Ex.3:14. But perhaps the Saviors use of it was somehow different. After all, he came down from heaven.
If, in fact, YAHushua spoke Greek to the Jews (which I doubt), he used the phrase “ego eimi” at least twenty times and yet, in only one instance did the Jews seek to stone him (John.8:58). YAHushua said, “I am the bread of life” to a large crowd, in John.6:35 & 48, yet no one opposed him. In verse 41, the Jews murmured because he said, “I am (ego eimi) the bread which came down from heaven.” But in verse 42, the Jews questioned only the phrase, “I came down from heaven” and ignored “ego eimi.” The same is true of verses 51 & 52.
In John.8:12, 18, 24, & 28, YAHushua used “ego eimi” with Pharisees present (vs.13) and yet, no stoning. He, again, used it four times in John.10:7, 9, 11, & 14 with no stoning. YAHushua said to his disciples, “…that…ye may believe that I am (ego eimi)” in John.13:19 without them batting an eye.
An interesting account occurs in John.18 when the Jews came to arrest YAHushua in the Garden of Gethsemane. When the chief priests and Pharisees said they were seeking YAHushua of Nazareth, YAHushua said to them, “Ego eimi.” At that they fell backward to the ground. It is not made clear why they fell to the ground, but what followed will make it clear that YAHushua was not claiming to be the “I AM.” as in I am Yahweh.
After YAHushua's arrest, the Jews took him to Annas first (vs.13). Then they took him to Caiaphas (vs.24) and eventually to Pilate (vss.28,29). A parallel account is found in Mt.26:57-68. Notice, in particular, verse 59. The same men that had fallen backward to the ground were in attendance when the council sought false witnesses against YAHushua to put him to death. Verse 60 says they couldn't find any. Eventually two came forward. Interestingly, they didn't bear false witness about what YAHushua said in John.8:58, but about his reference to destroying the temple and building it again in three days. Where were all those witnesses from John.8:58?
The point about Mt.26 is, why would false witnesses be sought if they had true witnesses in attendance? The arresting officers heard YAHushua say “Ego eimi.” They could have stoned him right there in the garden for blasphemy, but they didn't. They could have reported the supposed blasphemy to the council, but they didn't. Why not? Because it wasn't blasphemy, nor was it a stoneable offense. He was merely identifying himself as “I am YAHushua of Nazareth.”
This brings us back to John.8:58. Why did the Jews seek to stone him on that occasion? The context of John.8 shows that YAHushua;Accused the Jews of “judging after the flesh” (vs.15).
Said they would die in their sins (vss.21,24).
Implied they were in bondage (vss.32,33).
Said they were servants of sin (vs.34).
Said they were out to kill him (vss. 37,40).
Implied they were spiritually deaf (vs.43,47).
Said their father was the devil (vs.44).
Said they were not of Elohim (vs.47).
Accused them of dishonoring him (vs.49).
Accused them of not knowing YAHWEH (vs.55).
Accused them of lying (vs.55).
Aside from that, the Jews misunderstood YAHushua's words leading them to believe;That he accused them of being born of fornication (vs.41).
YAHushua had a devil (vs.52).
That he was exalting himself above Abraham (vs.53).
That he saw Abraham (vs.56).
YAHushua's words in verse 58 were the culmination of an encounter that was so offensive to the Jews that they couldn't restrain themselves anymore. They simply couldn't take it anymore so they sought to stone him, not because of two simple words, “ego eimi,” but because he was making himself out to be greater than their beloved father Abraham. They sought to stone him illegally. So what does John.8:58 really mean? Although I do not believe we can be certain what YAHushua meant due to a variety of reasons, I offer the following explanation.Let's look at the context of YAHushua's statement. It begins in verse 51 with the thought of eternal life; “If a man keep my saying, he shall never see deat
h.” The Jews thought since Abraham and the prophets were dead, YAHushua must have a devil. The context is eternal life. Then in verse 56 YAHushua says Abraham “rejoiced to see my day.” He did not say he saw Abraham as the Jews misunderstood. How did Abraham see YAHushua's day?Heb.11:13 says, “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.”
They saw YAHushua's day of the reigning King, by faith.
YAHushua then resumed the context of his initial conversation by saying, “Before Abraham was, I am.” “Was” is from the Greek “ginomai” meaning, “to come into being, … to arise.” What YAHushua actually meant was, “Before Abraham comes into being (at his resurrection unto eternal life), I will.” Confirmation of this understanding comes to us from Figures of Speech Used in the Bible by E.W. Bullinger, pgs. 521,522. Under the heading “Heterosis (Of Tenses),” subheading “The Present for the Future,” he writes, “This is put when the design is to show that some thing will certainly come to pass, and is spoken of as though it were already present.” He then lists some examples such as Mt.3:10b,
Matt. 3:10b “…therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is [shall be] hewn down;” and Mk.9:31a, “For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is [shall be] delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.”
Included among this list of examples of Heterosis is John.8:58. In other words, although properly written, “Before Abraham comes to be, I am,” with “I am” in the simple present tense, the meaning points to the future, “Before Abraham comes to be, I will.”
Some people believe this verse should be translated, “Before Abraham existed, I existed.” However, neither Greek verb is in the perfect tense (past tense). “Was” is in the aorist tense and “am” is in the present tense. Let's look a little closer at “was.” Concerning the aorist tense, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey says, “It has time relations only in the indicative, where it is past and hence augmented.” The verb ginomai (was) is in the infinitive, not the indicative. Therefore it should not be translated in the past tense. This same reference says of the infinitive, “The aorist infinitive denotes that which is eventual or particular, …” Abraham will eventually resurrect which is why the Greek uses the aorist infinitive. The meaning is, “Before Abraham comes to be” not “Before Abraham was (or existed).”
In conclusion, YAHushua was not declaring that he is the great “I AM” of Ex.3:14. YAHushua was not declaring himself to be YAHWEH. And YAHushua was not declaring his pre-existence here in this text. He is the Son of YAHWEH and the Son of the great “I Am.”Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Aug. 18 2006,19:55) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 17 2006,22:30) Hi Frank,
God wants to teach you by His Spirit from within. He wants to write His laws on your heart so that you will need no one to teach you.The demons and the apostles knew what the Son of God really meant and that is why he forbade them telling others.
He is the Son of Proverbs 30 and Ps 2.
Are you saying that you yourself are being taught from within by what you refer to as “God's Spirit” and that you “need no one to teach you”?That is one of the stupidest statements that I have heard from you so far!
Hi Frank.
Really??
Have you not yet had the Law of the Spirit written in your heart??
Keep searching Frank as the blessing is for you too and you will not need the advice of Mr Buzzard to find the truth anymore.
I am surprised that you have not yet found the answer to this promise in 1 Jn 2 25f
” 25(BK)This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.
26These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to (BL)deceive you.27As for you, the (BM)anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing (BN)teaches you about all things, and is (BO)true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.
28Now, (BP)little children, abide in Him, so that when He (BQ)appears, we may have (BR)confidence and (BS)not shrink away from Him in shame at His (BT)coming.”
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 18 2006,20:11) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Aug. 18 2006,19:55) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 17 2006,22:30) Hi Frank,
God wants to teach you by His Spirit from within. He wants to write His laws on your heart so that you will need no one to teach you.The demons and the apostles knew what the Son of God really meant and that is why he forbade them telling others.
He is the Son of Proverbs 30 and Ps 2.
Are you saying that you yourself are being taught from within by what you refer to as “God's Spirit” and that you “need no one to teach you”?That is one of the stupidest statements that I have heard from you so far!
Hi Frank.
Really??
Have you not yet had the Law of the Spirit written in your heart??
Keep searching Frank as the blessing is for you too and you will not need the advice of Mr Buzzard to find the truth anymore.
I am surprised that you have not yet found the answer to this promise in 1 Jn 2 25f
” 25(BK)This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.
26These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to (BL)deceive you.27As for you, the (BM)anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing (BN)teaches you about all things, and is (BO)true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.
28Now, (BP)little children, abide in Him, so that when He (BQ)appears, we may have (BR)confidence and (BS)not shrink away from Him in shame at His (BT)coming.”
The study that I presented by Anthony Buzzard was not on “God's law”, but on the false traditional paganistic doctrine of the so called “Holy Trinity”.Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth.
(Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree of Jehovah. He has said to Me, You are My Son; today I have begotten You. )Jesus was never “begotten” until He came in the flesh ie. was born of Mary. Before that He was always the Word of God. Interestingly, He is also the Word of God in Rev 19:13 And He had been clothed in a garment dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
So if the Word was with God and was God in the beginning, is it wrong to think of the Word as being God in the end, because He is still with God?
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Aug. 18 2006,19:55) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 17 2006,22:30) Hi Frank,
God wants to teach you by His Spirit from within. He wants to write His laws on your heart so that you will need no one to teach you.The demons and the apostles knew what the Son of God really meant and that is why he forbade them telling others.
He is the Son of Proverbs 30 and Ps 2.
Are you saying that you yourself are being taught from within by what you refer to as “God's Spirit” and that you “need no one to teach you”?That is one of the stupidest statements that I have heard from you so far!
I agree Frank….. the Bible is totally clear that God gives teachers to the church as gifts….(1 Cor 12:28 NASB) And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.
so to say that one does not need teachers is to deny God and disobey Him, and to also admit that they themselves are unteachable…. thus disqualifying themselves from being able to teach others….
1 Timothy 3:1-7
1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
Titus 1:6-9
6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
“The …. qualifications in the list are bound up with Christian witness: “hospitable” and “able to teach.” The Christian pastor/elder/overseer must not be a hermit or a recluse, must not be someone who wants always to be isolated from people. It won’t do to have a pastor who is a great reader of books and a disciplined thinker, but who loves the church only in the abstract, while being unable to stand people. The ministry is about touching people’s lives.
The entry “able to teach” we’ll come back to for more probing consideration, but here we may at least say that the criterion presupposes knowledge of the truth and of God, and the ability to communicate such truth. Occasionally you’ll find people who are wonderful communicators, but they don’t have much to communicate. Alternately, you find some people who have massive knowledge, but just cannot get it across to anybody. In both cases, they’re ruled out of this office. Ability to teach presupposes knowledge of the Scriptures and of the God of the Scriptures, and the ability to communicate such knowledge.” (D. A. carson)
blessings
Hi E,
Do you think true teachers would take care to reveal and to abide in the scriptures to create their doctrines?
Or perhaps they should have free reign to speculate away and propound teachings from outside the Word and God will be happy with them?Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Aug. 19 2006,15:06) Included among this list of examples of Heterosis is John.8:58. In other words, although properly written, “Before Abraham comes to be, I am,” with “I am” in the simple present tense, the meaning points to the future, “Before Abraham comes to be, I will.”
Some people believe this verse should be translated, “Before Abraham existed, I existed.” However, neither Greek verb is in the perfect tense (past tense). “Was” is in the aorist tense and “am” is in the present tense. Let's look a little closer at “was.” Concerning the aorist tense, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey says, “It has time relations only in the indicative, where it is past and hence augmented.” The verb ginomai (was) is in the infinitive, not the indicative. Therefore it should not be translated in the past tense. This same reference says of the infinitive, “The aorist infinitive denotes that which is eventual or particular, …” Abraham will eventually resurrect which is why the Greek uses the aorist infinitive. The meaning is, “Before Abraham comes to be” not “Before Abraham was (or existed).”
In conclusion, YAHushua was not declaring that he is the great “I AM” of Ex.3:14. YAHushua was not declaring himself to be YAHWEH. And YAHushua was not declaring his pre-existence here in this text. He is the Son of YAHWEH and the Son of the great “I Am.”
To Frank4YAHWEHSo I take it that you are saying the following:
“Before Abraham comes to be, I am”
Is that correct?
Also you are saying this in the sense that Abraham will come to be in the resurrection, is that correct?
Hi Oxy,
So you say“Interestingly, He is also the Word of God in Rev 19:13”
Is this not the same Word who was with the Father?
He is a being here but you say was not a being when he was with the Father in the beginning?
Why do you say this?Hi E,
You say
“Ability to teach presupposes knowledge of the Scriptures and of the God of the Scriptures, and the ability to communicate such knowledge.”So do you disqualify yourself because you teach trinity theory and other things that are not revealed in the scriptures?
That would be wise.
Hi E,
You say
“so to say that one does not need teachers is to deny God and disobey Him, and to also admit that they themselves are unteachable…. thus disqualifying themselves from being able to teach others….”God wants all men to know Him and learn PRIMARILY from Him through the scriptures.
Men totally reliant on men to hold their hand and to tell them what they should believe speaks of the blind following the blind into the pit.
We are meant to see after being reborn.
We can then see the kingdom[Jn 3]
Paul was impatient with those who had not yet learned the basics of our faith,
like doctrines come from scripture,
and told them they should be teachers by now, but they still needed milk.We are meant to have our own fountain flowing up to eternal life.
We are meant to drink from our own cistern.Prov 5.15
” 15Drink water from your own cistern
And fresh water from your own well.”Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 21 2006,02:51) Hi Oxy,
So you say“Interestingly, He is also the Word of God in Rev 19:13”
Is this not the same Word who was with the Father?
He is a being here but you say was not a being when he was with the Father in the beginning?
Why do you say this?
Jesus is in human form now, ever since being born a man. Prior to His birth as the only begotten of the Father I'm not sure what “form” He had, but it seems to me that His glory was greater than that when He came to earth.Quote (Oxy @ Aug. 21 2006,09:50) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 21 2006,02:51) Hi Oxy,
So you say“Interestingly, He is also the Word of God in Rev 19:13”
Is this not the same Word who was with the Father?
He is a being here but you say was not a being when he was with the Father in the beginning?
Why do you say this?
Jesus is in human form now, ever since being born a man. Prior to His birth as the only begotten of the Father I'm not sure what “form” He had, but it seems to me that His glory was greater than that when He came to earth.
Hi Oxy,
So he assumes a form rather than partaking of flesh?Hi Frank,
Translations are only a problem to those who are not led by the Spirit. Those who are sons of God are helped to discern the accuracy of truth as written by the Spirit of truth within them.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 21 2006,19:56) Hi Frank,
Translations are only a problem to those who are not led by the Spirit. Those who are sons of God are helped to discern the accuracy of truth as written by the Spirit of truth within them.
Yes Nick, I agree! Trinitarian translations are not a problem to me since I have figured out why they chose to translate select passages as they did. KJV is one of the worst translations for this since the translators were Trinitarians.
Quote (Oxy @ Aug. 21 2006,09:50) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 21 2006,02:51) Hi Oxy,
So you say“Interestingly, He is also the Word of God in Rev 19:13”
Is this not the same Word who was with the Father?
He is a being here but you say was not a being when he was with the Father in the beginning?
Why do you say this?
Jesus is in human form now, ever since being born a man. Prior to His birth as the only begotten of the Father I'm not sure what “form” He had, but it seems to me that His glory was greater than that when He came to earth.
Hi Oxy,
Is Jesus God in human form?
So he was not conceived of Mary and she was a surrogate mother?
In which way then is he like to us?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
