Son of Man

JLPMGHRS​

​

​

Read this after reading the above post, so after reading it, I don't think so, (BTW I don't believe that he was crucified but anyway) he was simply answering the question, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," said Jesus, i.e. A: Are you CatStevens from Hipforums ,B: I am, as for "You have heard the blasphemy'' blasphemy by claming to be the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One. A: an atheist B: A Christian, A: I'm the son of God, B: Blasphemy.​

*Peace and love* ​

Yours Sincerely,​

Cat Stevens​

 

Anima_Mercury​

yes , I am I don't why some mebers doubt it ​

​

Muslims should believe in Jesus peace be upon him =) and I Do love Jesus (pbuh) he did so much effort to convey the message I believe that ppl misunderstood his true message, so I think I should clarify that, and that's why I studied the Bible =) ​

​

​

Thanks ^^​

​

​

​

​

*Peace and love* ​

Yours Sincerely,​

Cat Stevens​

 

Anima, there's tons of websites that'll show you too how to refute claims from other religions. Here's my thing though...While always quoting the Bible Cat also claims that the same Bible is corrupt. So, you're quoting something that in your own eyes isn't true?

 

Portalguy​

And I already discussed this issue dude, here ,here ,here and here etc =), I think what ya are quoting as a proof of his divinty , it isn't so.​

*Peace and love* ​

Yours Sincerely,​

Cat Stevens​

 

So, you double check the quoted Bible verses with the Qu'ran? Why not just quote the Qu'ran?

 

Portalguy​

Sadly, Christians do not believe in Qur'aan ​

*Peace and love* ​

Yours Sincerely,​

Cat Stevens​

 

hahaha... Christian your worst nightmare

Es el colmo, bolu


♥ Love ♥

V

 

I don't have nightmares Anima. Well, there's one where I'm trapped in this car and it keeps playing that Gwen Stefani song ,"Hollaback Girl". But, I don't think that has anything to do with Cat's Bible knowledge. When people challenge me on faith related topics it strengthens me.

 

I think all of your answers are right on the mark. Called that only while He lived in the flesh.

 

Cat,

Regarding the "I AM" passages, we discussed this at great length already. As I remember it, I pointed out the origin and meaning of "I AM" and your only answers were: (1) "I AM" cannot be found in two english translations of the Bible, to which I pointed out that (a) "I AM" is found in over 50 other english translations of the Bible, and (b) the two versions you were quiting from were paraphases and therefore not useful for your cause at all. Your second answer was (2) that others also said "I am" to which I responed: No duh, that's a common phase! But you're completely ignoring the context in which Jesus used the phase.

I'm curious, do you have anwers for these objections?

 

I already answered these questions , and added new comments do ya remember that, you said you wanna time a week or so to read them, I don't know if ya ever read them or not, check them out, these weren't my only answers and I can give ya short comments on your post​

check post#20 of this thread read point No.3​

When I gave examples from two different translations it doesn't mean that it cannot be found in two translations only, check post#20 No.3 & 4==> the three last paragraphs (leave the last one)​

And you choose what ya like ​

check this ​

The same thing goes to that verse in John 8 ​

​

*Peace and love* ​

Yours Sincerely,​

Cat Stevens​

 

On the paraphase thing, I explain that here

As for post #20 point NO. 3, I'll take a look at that:

To argue this, Cat, is misleading. I pointed this out to you before. We don’t argue that John 8:58, proves that Jesus is God but rather that John 8:58 proves that Jesus claimed to be God. The difference here is subtle but important. If what you say really were the case, then it makes it seem almost as if the divinity of Jesus hinges on passages like this one. In reality passages like this form a cumulative case for the divinity of Christ. We could point out, for example, that since Christ claimed the prerogatives of God (He claimed the ability to forgive sin for example) and since He claimed to be God (John 8:58, et al.), one must either believe Jesus was a blasphemous liar, a lunatic, or He really was who He said He was. To say that Jesus was a good man or a prophet is not an option given verses like John 8:58. Anyway, I’ll say it again, Trinitarians don’t argue that John 8:58 proves that Jesus is God, but that is shows that Jesus claimed to be God. The fact that the source you quote doesn’t caught on to this distinction means that either (a) they don’t have a solid grasp on what they’re suppose to be arguing against, or (b) they are intentionally being deceptive.

Since we are dealing with Hebrew here, the passage taken in a vacuum, devoid of context, can be translated “I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE.” However, when it is taken in it’s full context, it becomes clear that translating it that way doesn’t make sense. The proper tense of verb “hayah” (to be) must be implied from the context in which it is used. Notice that what God says in 3:14 is a direct answer to the hypothetical question "What is his name?" (Exodus 3:13) Given the tense of this specific question, if God were to answer, “I will be who I will be,” It wouldn't make much sense (“What is his name?” vs “I will be who I will be” – present tense vs. future). This is why it is translated "I AM WHO I AM" (or "I AM THAT I AM") Also take notice of the fact that when the Jews translated the Old testament from Hebrew to Greek (the Septuagint)--which place over two centuries before the Gospel of John was written--they translated Exodus 3:14 in the present tense "ego eimi ho on" or, I am (not will be) the one who is" which means they understood this also well.

Second, by saying, “However, the literal and proper translation of this verse is…” the author seems to imply that the literal translation of “hayah” is also the proper one. This is very misleading because Hebrew is not English. In Hebrew the proper tense and thus the proper translation may need to be understood from the context and not the word usage. This was pointed out above with “hayah” in Exodus 3:14. The literal translation of “hayah” was not the proper translation because in order for it to be translated literally, one must ignore the context, and if the context is ignored the proper tense cannot be known. The author should know this. If he doesn’t, he has no business writing his article. However, if he does know know this, then he is deliberately being deceptive.

The author, here, makes it a point to tell us that John uses the Septuagint Old Testament. But I'm confused, why is this important? If John is just recording the the life of Jesus, why is it important for us to know which Old Testament he read? It’d be like a close friend of mine, writing a book about my life, and having someone point out "the author of that book also read the works of Aristotle!" Who cares? That's a sidenote. The quote then goes on to point out that the Greek words found in John are not the same Greek words found in the Septuagint. Again, why is this important? Since when did the argument become: John 8:58 uses the exact words found in the Septuagint version of Exodus 3:14? Last I checked, the argument was that John 8:58 refers to Exodus 3:14, not that it mirrors it, and certainly not the Septuagint! Also, the author is being deceptive here. He makes it seems as if 3:14 says “ho on” while John 8:58 says “Ego eimi” While this is correct, it’s not the whole story. Exodus 3:14 in the Septuagint says, “ego eimi ho on” and John 8:58 records Jesus as saying, “Ego eimi” In other words, Jesus refers to Exodus 3:14, but he doesn’t quote it (or at least He doesn’t quote it in full, just as he doesn’t in other places like Matthew 4:4 or Luke 4:18-19.)

So the argument so far goes like this:

Premise 1: Exodus 3:14 in the Septuagint says “ego eimi ho on”
Premise 2: John 8:58 says “ego eimi”
Conclusion: Therefore John 8:58 cannot be referring to Exodus 3:14

As an argument, this is completely unconvincing. Excpecially when you look at John 8:58 in context and understand what the Exodus “I AM” title means (which I did not do here) But even without going into those historical and theological details, the argument is still rather weak. For one thing there are many example’s of the New Testament referring to the Old without quoting it in full. Take Luke 4:19 or Mathew 2:6 for example. For other thing, it's counter-intuitive. So just why is it, exactly, that John 8:58 can't refer to Exodus 3:14 Cat?

“No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known” (John 1:18)

First off, John 1:18 (quoted above), which makes use of ho on, is ignored. Second, this whole topic is really a non-issue. Even if we ignored John’s use of “ho on,” in 1:18, all the author is essentially saying here that is every time “ho on” is used, it refers to the Father. But what does that have to do with anything? The argument here is that Jesus, by saying “ego eimi,” is referring to Exodus 3:14. But Jesus doesn’t say “ego eimi ho on,” so there’s really no point in looking at the usage of ho on, unless one’s trying to make his case look stronger than it really is.

 

Jatom
​

​

That's an old post, so I think a commented on it, check it out. And here is my otha comment on this matter
​

​

What you quoted wasn't written by me, I quoted that, but when that proves that he claimed so what does that mean? You will use it as a proof of his divinity? Anyway, isn't big deal =D
​

​

I already commented on that if ya remember, and my conclusion was it doesn't make him god.
​

​

Are ya talking a bout the Jewish one if so they know Hebrew.
​

​

Maybe when ya translate it to English it doesn't make sense =), plus whether it makes sense or not according to that Jewish site that is the literal and proper translation, btw I think I can say the same thing concerning I AM if we will use it instead of I existed (if I'm wrong clarify that)
​

​

​

It may change the real meaning and the veers, affects on it or maybe influence etc Links: (1) (2)
​

Re-read his point
​

John recorded Jesus' alleged words in Greek. Ego eimi ("I am"), used by John's Jesus, is not the same as ho on ("The Being, The One Who Is"), which is used in the Septuagint's rendering of Exodus 3:14
​

​

Accordingly he wasn't referring to that name =)
​

​

?
​

​

So you choose the Septuagint to make your point, selectivity =)
​

​

Isn't Jesus who is saying so, is he? you, me, everyone can say whateva he wants about Jesus. And read it in context. That wasn't a name but I Am who I Am as a whole is one name?
​

​

​

*Peace and love* ​

Yours Sincerely,​

Cat Stevens​

 

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures​

Exodus 3:14:​

At this God said to Moses: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to YOU.’” ​

​

*Peace and love* ​

Yours Sincerely,​

Cat Stevens​

 

Right I read your response before I linked to my old post. I don't think you fully understood what I was saying

That's why I referred to it as your "source." I also said things like "The author goes on to say," because I know it wasn't from you.

I'm not sure what you mean here

I agree, and that's what I was trying to point out. Like I said in the first paragraph of my last post:

What you're saying is that we think John 8:58 makes Jesus God, but that’s not what we're saying at all. John 8:58 shows that Jesus claimed to be God. I also repeated this later on in the same paragraph:

Get it? Why is this important? If Jesus claimed to be God then He couldn't have been a prophet. Why? Well, if a mere prophet claimed to be God than that would make him a blasphemer, not a prophet. I mean, would we think so highly of Abraham if he ran around claiming he was God? Of course not! We'd say he was a wacko who wasn’t playing with a full deck, or that he was a few bricks short of a full load, or two tacos short of a combo—that sort of thing. So, if Jesus did claim to be God, then it makes no sense to say He was a prophet. Your three options would be (1) Jesus was a liar (2) Jesus was crazy or (3) He really was who He said He was. Make sense? For right now, I really don't care if you don't think that Jesus really claimed to be God--we can handle that later--all I want to know is if you understand this argument—that if Jesus claimed to be God, then it makes no sense to say that He was a prophet. This argument can also work for other claims Jesus made as well.

I'm not questioning whether they know Hebrew or not, (though I do wonder). The problem is they are making errors, like trying to translate Exodus 3:14 as "I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE." On top of that, their arguments don’t even make sense. They state their opinions as if they’re fact, but offer nothing to back it up. Etc.

First off, as I mentioned in my last post, the Jews who translated the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek (the Septuagint), knew Hebrew as well. When they translated Exodus 3:14 to Greek they translated it in present tense just like Hebrew scholars today do (scholars who know Hebrew as well).​

Second, as I mentioned in my last post, the literal translation of "hayah" (to be) which is found in Exodus 3:14, is not always the best translation. This is because the tense of the verb comes from the context, not from the word itself. In English we can say "I am going to the store" or Cat is going to the store" In Hebrew there are no special words for "am" or "is", and the proper tense of the word is implied from the context. Therefore, if your interpretation is literal, you'll miss the context, and the context is essential for the “proper” translation.

You also point out the New World Translation which says,

“At this God said to Moses: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to YOU.’”

​

I’m a bit curious to know if you knew that this is the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible. The same version that adds the word “other” four times to Col 1:15-17 in an effort to deny the divinity of Christ. The word “other” is not found in the Greek, nor is it implied, yet, there it is four times. And this coming from a committee that claimed, “Our endeavor throughout has been to give as literal a translation as possible..." yeah right… Anyway, I’m beinning to wonder if our time would be better served if you could answer a few questions, and we can be on to better things:​

​

1. When translating forms of “hayah” should one consider the context in which it is used or should they just translate it literally? Why or why not? I’ve given my answer and reasons.
2. If you think the translation should be literal, ignoring the context, what do you think of the fact that in Hebrew there are only two tenses (the perfect and imperfect). How can one, short of looking at the context, know which words to use when translating into, say, English?
3. How should “ehyeh asher ehyeh” be translated? Why? I gave my answer and reasons.

Can you do this without quoting an endless supply of websites? I’m far more interested in what you have to say. ​

No, it's in the present tense.

​

I think you missed my point. If John is simply recording the words of Jesus here, then which Old Testament he read is irrelevant. If I sat down to record the words of Catsevens, whatever books I'd read would be irrelevant since I would be recording your words, not the books’.​

As far as what you say about the words not being the same, I'll re-post what I said before. Take notice of the sections I’ve bolded:

There’s more to be said here, particalrly on the Greek words “eimi” and “ho”, but I want to make sure that you understand this part first.

No, this is your argument. In fact you just posted,“John's Jesus, is not the same as ho on ("The Being, The One Who Is"), which is used in the Septuagint's rendering of Exodus 3:14.”​

Not sure what you’re saying here, but under point no. 3 of post #20 you posted:

This is false, “ho on” is used as reference to Jesus in the book of John. John 1:18

Is the context of this verse the same as Exodus 3:14? Did God ask for Moses’ name and did Moses reply, “I AM WHO I AM; Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you”?