Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus 396 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  ellderwho

  Mondo1 states:

  Of course you are, because you are 100% theologically biased and you don't know any better.

  Perhaps you have some special revelations we're not privey to.
• 

  Hellrider

  Mondo:

  You are right, and that is not my argument. If he wanted to say he was simply before Abraham, he would have used an aorist. This isn't what he said and what he did say really had no other way to be expressed than by how he did, unless he wanted to make a longer, drawn out sentence I suspect.

  ?? Well, what did he mean, then? If the point wasn`t to just claim that he had existed before Abraham, then what exactly did he mean?
• 

  Pole

  :Who is Jesus? Is he God?
  Clearly and beyond all doubt, he is an inferior hypostasis of the Father.
  Sorry, but I'm redaing Origen now preparing for yet another philosophy exam in my never-ending academic adventure and I couldn't help contributing to a discussion I have no interest in, just to indicate discussing this topic is a bit of dead-horse-flogging from my blatantly godless perspective.
  Enjoy it though.
  Pole
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Mondo1 said to me:

  you are 100% theologically biased and you don't know any better. The arguments on those sites are easily shot down, because they display a misunderstanding of basic Greek.

  I have never made a personal attack ("ad hominem") against you, so why do you feel the need to do so against me? It's fine to say that the ARGUMENT is flawed (if you can show how it is flawed), and it is fine to attack the ARGUMENT or the REASONING behind the argument, but why do you use the logical fallacy of attacking THE PERSON making the argument? What good does that accomplish, other than showing that you would rather make false statements regarding the person you are debating with than actually dealing with that person's arguments.

  And if you post logical fallacies such as ad hominem attacks, then why should people believe that you are using sound reasoning on the rest of your arguments? Your use of personal attacks causes people to doubt the rest of your statements.

  Also, your ad hominem statement could just as easily be directed back toward you (I am NOT going to actually use this logical fallacy against you however). A person COULD just as easily say this (I am NOT saying this, I'm simply showing that your ad hominem statement COULD be directed at you as well):

  'you are 100% theologically biased toward a pre-determined belief that no matter what, Jesus cannot be God, and you don't know any better.'

  Do you like it when people make personal attacks against you instead of your argument? I kindly request that you find a more effective way to make your case than using ad hominem statements against your "opponents."

  Just so you know, I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness for the first 19 years of my life, so do you honestly believe that I am just 100% biased toward the Trinity and would never even consider another's viewpoint?

  I highly recommend that you (and everyone else here) read the following information from Wikipedia.com (especially pay attention to the heading called "Ad Hominem Circumstantial":

  Ad hominem

  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Jump to: navigation, search

  An ad hominemargument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally argument against the person), personal attack or you-too argument, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.
  _______________________________________________________________________

  Ad hominem as logical fallacy

  A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

  1. A makes claim X.
  2. There is something objectionable about A.
  3. Therefore claim X is false.

  The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit.

  Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse (see also Argument from fallacy). As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its inherent incorrectness.

  In contrast, an argument that instead relies (fallaciously) on the positive aspects of the person arguing the case is known as appeal to authority.

  [edit]

  Usage

  [edit]

  In Logic

  An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect.

  Examples:

  "You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well."

  "You feel that abortion should be illegal, but I disagree, because you are uneducated and poor."

  Not all ad hominem fallacies are insulting:

  Example:

  "Paula says the umpire made the correct call, but this is false, because Paula is too important to pay attention to the game."

  This is an ad hominem fallacy, even though it is saying something positive about the person, because it is addressing the person and not the topic in dispute.

  [edit]

  Linguistically

  In common language, any personal attack, regardless of whether it is part of an argument, is often referred to as ad hominem.[1]

  [edit]

  Subtypes

  Three traditionally identified varieties are ad hominem abusive or ad personam, ad hominem circumstantial, and ad hominem tu quoque.

  [edit]

  Ad hominem abusive or ad personam

  Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions. The reason that this is fallacious is that — usually, anyway — insults and even damaging facts simply do not undermine what logical support there might be for one's opponent's arguments or assertions; argumentum ad personam short-circuits these potential arguments from logic in favor of a direct attack on the opponent's authority.

  Examples:

  "You can't believe Jack when he says there is a Godbecause he doesn't even have a job."

  "Charles Manson wrote this song, so it must be unlistenable".

  [edit]

  Ad hominem circumstantial

  Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way. Such arguments are not necessarily irrational, but they are not correct according to strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.

  Examples:

  "Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."

  "He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!”

  Of course, such statements could also be reworded to avoid the logical fallacy:

  "Tobacco company representatives may be biased when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because of their own multi-million-dollar financial interests. Thus, such statements may be wishful thinking, or even outright lies, on their part."

  "He's physically addicted to nicotine. Therefore, his defense of smoking may be biased.”

  In the following example Jennifer's comment is an ad hominem circumstantial attack against Chris's statement:

  Chris: "Women should be able to be topless everywhere men can be."

  Jennifer: "You're just saying that because you want to see women's breasts."

  The Mandy Rice-Davies ploy, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?" is a use of this fallacy.

  [edit]

  Ad hominem tu quoque

  Main article: tu quoque

  Ad hominem tu quoque refers to an irrelevant accusation of hypocrisy. Accusations of hypocrisy are inadmissible in legal and scientific debate, and can be distractions from the business of politics. That is, it is not relevant to the credibility of a didactic argument whether its presenter has trod over the principle he espouses. For example, a corrupt lawyer who prosecutes embezzlers may be a sleaze, but in a properly organized legal system there can be no arguments against his defendant just because of that.

  [edit]

  Guilt by Association

  Guilt by Association is a type of ad hominem fallacy that attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.

  This form of the argument is as follows:

  A makes claim P.

  B's also make claim P.

  Therefore, A is a B.

  Examples:

  "You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, therefore you are a communist"

  This fallacy can also take another form:

  A makes claim P.

  B's make claim P and Q

  Therefore, A makes claim Q.

  Examples:

  "You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, and they believe in revolution. Thus, you are a danger to the State."
• 

  Hellrider

  ...and as usual, Mondo1 refuses to answer a direct question when he`s got no answer.

  I believe we can say that that is an established fact by now.
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Before I reply any more to Mondo1, I want to say something:

  I will be the first one to admit that I do not know all of the intricacies and details of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek. I have not gone to any Theological school or been through any formal Greek or Hebrew training. I rely on Interlinear Bibles, Commentaries, Strong's Concordance with Strong's Numbers, Strong's Dictionary, Vine's Dictionary, other Bible language dictionaries, Brown-Driver-Briggs, Thayer's, and other sources, along with the guidance and direction of The Holy Spirit, for my knowledge of Biblical Hebrew and Greek (I am not claiming to be inspired -- Jesus said that The Holy Spirit would guide Christians to all truth). I compare Scripture with Scripture just as the Bereans did, just as Paul did, just as Jesus did. I look at and compare different contexts, and idiomatic information.

  Since, in the eyes of Mondo1, I am "100% theologically biased and don't know any better", I think it would be a good idea at this point, for us to see what other Biblical scholars and Commentaries have to say about John 8:24 and John 8:58, as well as God's use of "I am He" in Isaiah:

  Comments from John Gill are below (if you want to find out more about who John Gill was, just visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gill_(theologian) ):

  Comments on John 8:58-59 from "John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible"

  before Abraham was, I am; [...] which is to be understood of the deity, eternity, and immutability of Christ, and refers to the passage in Exo. 3:14. "I am that I am--I am hath sent me unto you", the true Jehovah; and so Christ was before Abraham was in being, the everlasting I am, the eternal God, which is, and was, and is to come: he appeared in an human form to our first parents before Abraham was, and was manifested as the Mediator, Saviour, and living Redeemer, to whom all the patriarchs before Abraham looked, and by whom they were saved: he was concerned in the creation of all things out of nothing, as the efficient cause thereof; he was set up from everlasting as Mediator; and the covenant of grace was made with him, and the blessings and promises of it were put into his hands before the world began; the eternal election of men to everlasting life was made in him before the foundation of the world; and he had a glory with his Father before the world was; yea, from all eternity he was the Son of God, of the same nature with him, and equal to him; and his being of the same nature proves his eternity, as well as deity, that he is from everlasting to everlasting God; and is what he ever was, and will be what he now is: he is immutable, the same today, yesterday, and for ever; in his nature, love, grace, and fulness, he is the invariable and unchangeable I am.

  Joh 8:59

  - Then they took up stones to cast at him,.... Supposing that he had spoken blasphemy; for they well understood that he, by so saying, made himself to be the eternal God, the unchangeable Jehovah.

  Comments on Isaiah 48:12 from "John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible":

  I am he, I am the first, and I also am the last;the everlasting I AM, the immutable Jehovah, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, the first cause and last end of all things; phrases expressive of the self-existence, supremacy, eternity, and immutability of Christ, Rev. 1:8, and what is it that such a sovereign, eternal and unchangeable Being cannot do?

  Comments on Isaiah 41:4 from "John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible":

  I the Lord, the first, and with the last; I am he;the immutable Jehovah, the everlasting I AM, the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending, the first and the last; all which is said of Christ, and is the person here speaking, Rev. 1:8, phrases expressive of his eternity and deity; he is the first and the last in God's thoughts, purposes, and decrees; in the covenant of grace; in the creation of all things; in the salvation, justification, sanctification, adoption, and glorification of his people; and in the church, above and below

  Comments on Isaiah 47:8 from "John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible":

  that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else besides me: sole monarch of the world, empress of the whole universe; no competitor with me, none that can rival me. These words are sometimes used by the eternal and unchangeable Jehovah of himself, and indeed they suit with none but him; and it is the height of insolence and blasphemy in a creature to use them of itself; they fitly express that sovereignty, supremacy, infallibility, and even deity, which mystical Babylon assumes and ascribes to her head:

  Comments on Exodus 3:14-15 from "John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible":

  Exo 3:14 - And God said unto Moses, I am that I am,.... This signifies the real being of God, his self-existence, and that he is the Being of beings; as also it denotes his eternity and immutability, and his constancy and faithfulness in fulfilling his promises, for it includes all time, past, present, and to come; and the sense is, not only I am what I am at present, but I am what I have been, and I am what I shall be, and shall be what I am. The Platonists and Pythagoreans seem to have borrowed their

  t? ?? from hence, which expresses with them the eternal and invariable Being; and so the Septuagint version here is ? ?? : it is said (z) , that the temple of Minerva at Sais, a city of Egypt, had this inscription on it,"I am all that exists, is, and shall be.''And on the temple of Apollo at Delphos was written e? , the contraction of e?µ? , "I am" (a) . Our Lord seems to refer to this name, Joh_8:58 , and indeed is the person that now appeared; and the words may be rendered, "I shall be what I shall be" (b) the incarnate God, God manifest in the flesh:

  thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you; or as the Targum of Jonathan has it,"I am he that is, and that shall be.''This is the name Ehjeh, or Jehovah, Moses is empowered to make use of, and to declare, as the name of the Great God by whom he was sent; and which might serve both to encourage him, and strengthen the faith of the Israelites, that they should be delivered by him.

  Exo 3:15 - And God said moreover unto Moses,.... As a further explanation of the above name, and of the design and use of it:

  thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: for their further instruction in the said name, and for the confirmation of the mission of Moses, and the success of it:

  the Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you; he who is Jehovah, and the covenant God of the ancestors of the people of Israel, and of them, so he is called, Ecc_3:6 .

  this is my name for ever: meaning either "Ehjeh, I am", in the preceding verse, or, which is the same, Jehovah in this, and so both of them, and including also the name of the God of Abraham, &c. which he was always to be known by: and this is my memorial unto all generations; the name by which he should be made mention of both by himself and others, and by which he would be called to remembrance by his people, and what he had promised unto them, and done for them.
  

  Comments from Adam Clarke are below (if you want to find out more about who Adam Clarke was, just visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Clarke ):

  Comments on John 8:58-59 from "Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible":

  Joh 8:58 - Before Abraham was, I am - The following is a literal translation of Calmet’s note on this passage: - "I am from all eternity. I have existed before all ages. You consider in me only the person who speaks to you, and who has appeared to you within a particular time. But besides this human nature, which ye think ye know, there is in me a Divine and eternal nature. Both, united, subsist together in my person. Abraham knew how to distinguish them. He adored me as his God; and desired me as his Savior. He has seen me in my eternity, and he predicted my coming into the world." On the same verse Bishop Pearce speaks as follows: - "What Jesus here says relates (I think) to his existence antecedent to Abraham’s days, and not to his having been the Christ appointed and foretold before that time; for, if Jesus had meant this, the answer I apprehend would not have been a pertinent one. He might have been appointed and foretold for the Christ; but if he had not had an existence before Abraham’s days, neither could he have seen Abraham, (as, according to our English translation, the Jews suppose him to have said), nor could Abraham have seen him, as I suppose the Jews understood him to have said in the preceding verse, to which words of the Jews the words of Jesus here are intended as an answer."

  Joh 8:59 - Then took they up stones, etc. - It appears that the Jews understood him as asserting his Godhead; and, supposing him to be a blasphemer, they proceeded to stone him, according to the law.

  Lev_24:16 .

  Comments on Exodus 3:14 from "Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible":

  Exo 3:14 - I am that I am - ???? ??? ???? Eheyeh asher Eheyeh . These words have been variously understood. The Vulgate translates Ego Sum Qui Sum, I am who am. The Septuagint, ??? e?µ? ?? O? , I am he who exists. The Syriac, the Persic, and the Chaldee preserve the original words without any gloss. The Arabic paraphrases them, The Eternal, who passes not away; which is the same interpretation given by Abul Farajius, who also preserves the original words, and gives the above as their interpretation. The Targum of Jonathan, and the Jerusalem Targum paraphrase the words thus: "He who spake, and the world was; who spake, and all things existed." As the original words literally signify, I will be what I will be, some have supposed that God simply designed to inform Moses, that what he had been to his fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he would be to him and the Israelites; and that he would perform the promises he had made to his fathers, by giving their descendants the promised land. It is difficult to put a meaning on the words; they seem intended to point out the eternity and self-existence of God. Plato, in his Parmenides, where he treats sublimely of the nature of God, says, ??d ’ a?a ???µa est?? a?t?? , nothing can express his nature; therefore no name can be attributed to him. See the conclusion of this chapter, Exo_3:22 (note) and on the word Jehovah, Exo_34:6 (note), Exo_34:7 (note).

  Comments from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's (JFB's) Commentary are below :

  Comments on John 8:24 from JFB's Commentary:

  Joh 8:24 - if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins — They knew well enough what He meant ( Mar_13:6 , Greek; compare Mat_24:5 ). But He would not, by speaking it out, give them the materials for a charge for which they were watching. At the same time, one is irresistibly reminded by such language, so far transcending what is becoming in men, of those ancient declarations of the God of Israel, "I AM HE" ( Deu_32:39 ; Isa_43:10 , Isa_43:13 ; Isa_46:4 ; Isa_48:12 ).

  Comments on John 8:58 from JFB's Commentary:

  Joh 8:58 - Before Abraham was, I am — The words rendered "was" and "am" are quite different. The one clause means, "Abraham was brought into being"; the other, "I exist." The statement therefore is not that Christ came into existence before Abraham did (as Arians affirm is the meaning), but that He never came into being at all, but existed before Abraham had a being; in other words, existed before creation, or eternally (as

  Joh_1:1 ). In that sense the Jews plainly understood Him, since "then took they up stones to cast at Him," just as they had before done when they saw that He made Himself equal with God ( Joh_5:18 ).

  Comments on Isaiah 47:8 from JFB's Commentary:

  I am ... none ... beside me — ( Isa_47:10 ). Language of arrogance in man’s mouth; fitting for God alone ( Isa_45:6 ). See Isa_5:8 , latter part.

  Comments on John 8:58 from "The People's New Testament":

  58. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. A solemn and official declaration, preceded by "Verily, verily." The utterance is a remarkable one. It does not merely assert that he was before Abraham, but before Abraham was, I AM. It identifies with the I AM of the Old Testament. Divinity has no past tense, no future tense, but always the present.

  So, Mondo1, do you also claim that John Gill, Adam Clarke, and Jaimieson, Fausset, & Brown, were all just "100% theologically biased and didn't know any better"? Or did they (or at least some of them) actually base their statements on their understanding of the Hebrew and Greek texts?

  Is everyone who does not agree with your beliefs "100% theologically biased"? Is it possible for people who do not hold your beliefs to be objective in their reasoning?
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Some more important information:

  Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament comments on John 8:58:

  Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

  Before Abraham was (prin Abraam genesqai). Usual idiom with prin in positive sentence with infinitive (second aorist middle of ginomai) and the accusative of general reference, "before coming as to Abraham," "before Abraham came into existence or was born." I am (egw eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesqai (entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between en in Numbers 1:1 and egeneto in Numbers 1:14. See the contrast also in Psalms 90:2 between God (ei, art) and the mountains (genhqhnai). See the same use of eimi in John 6:20; John 9:9; John 8:24,28; John 18:6.

  Also, according to "Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament," Isaiah 43:10, translated into Biblical Greek, reads this way:

  ina pisteushte--oti egw eimi

  "egw eimi" were the exact words used by Jesus in John 8:58.
• 

  Butters

  Jesus is Jesus... God is God...

  Butters.
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Some more of my thoughts on Jesus' use of "I AM" (egw eimi in Greek):

  The Septuagint was a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (by Jews) into Greek a couple of centuries before Jesus was born. It was later used by Jesus and the Apostles. In fact, most of the quotes from the Old Testament in the New Testament are quotes from the Septuagint.

  In the Septuagint at Exodus 3:14, God told Moses: "I AM THE BEING" and He called Himself simply "THE BEING", whereas in the Hebrew text that we have, it reads "I AM WHO I AM" and then simply "I AM."

  So, Jesus would have known which translation was more accurate, the Hebrew or the Septuagint, and His listeners (the Jewish leaders) would have known both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint.

  If Jesus had spoken in Greek a literal, word-for-word quote of "I AM" from the Hebrew text of Exodus 3:14, He would have said "EGW EIMI."

  And that is exactly what Jesus did say in that verse. Then the Jews picked up stones to kill Him.

  What is your reply to that Mondo1? (no rush, whenever you get a chance)
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Mondo1 said:

  (Quoting UnDisfellowshipped:) Jesus was Lord before coming to earth (See Psalm 110:1). (End of Quote)

  That is a prophecy. In Acts 2:34-35 we find it fulfilled when Jesus "ascended into heaven." Hebrews 1:13, which in context is a post-resurrection statement, finds it fulfilled then as well.

  True, it was a prophecy. But have you ever read what Jesus Himself said about that Verse? You need to:

  Matthew 22:43-46 (ESV):

  He said to them, "How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,"'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet'?If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?" And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.

  Jesus said that David claimed that The Messiah was HIS Lord, and that David referred to the Messiah as Lord in Old Testament times. If it was only a prophecy about the future, why did David say MY Lord, instead of THE Lord? David clearly viewed The Messiah as his Living Lord at the time he spoke those words.

  Also, Hebrews 11:26 shows that Moses knew he was serving the Messiah. Jacob worshiped Jesus as Lord God Almighty in the following Verses:

  Genesis 48:3, 15, 16 (ESV):

  And Jacob said to Joseph, "God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me, [...] And he blessed Joseph and said, "The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day, the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys; and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth."

  Jacob worshiped THE Angel of The Lord who was God Almighty, The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but who was a different Person from The Father.

  He was The Angel OF Jehovah, while at the same time, He WAS Jehovah (but not The Father).