The Narrow Path Ministries

Homer wrote:Paidion,

You wrote:

All He was saying is that He existed prior to Abraham. The Jews didn't wish to stone Him for blasphemy. They wished to stone Him for claiming that He lived prior to Abraham. Look at the two verses just prior:

That won't wash. Why would they consider it blasphemous for Him to have simply meant he lived prior to Abraham? If that was all He claimed they would have likely dismissed Him as a nut and walked away in derision.

Consider watching these:


John 10:33
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33uUTmSsPdc

and

John 8:58
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlTCk2rYl34
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYhmDSTYjGI

(

Darin, you wrote:and also that John 10:33 should be translated "a god" as it is in Jesus' response to them)

THANKS DARIN! That had never occurred to me before! I am sure you are right about that.

Paidion wrote:(

Darin, you wrote:and also that John 10:33 should be translated "a god" as it is in Jesus' response to them)

THANKS DARIN! That had never occurred to me before! I am sure you are right about that.

Haha


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You guys are making my point - they were going to stone Him because they understood the implications of His words.

You guys are making my point - they were going to stone Him because they understood the implications of His words.

I'm not sure what your point was. But it was an eye opener to me to realize that on the occasion in John 10:33 the Jews were saying that they would stone Jesus for "making yourself a god" rather than "making yourself God." Jesus' reply clearly shows this.

Because I had always assumed the translations were correct by rendering it "making yourself God," I could never before understand why Jesus would respond with, "Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came —  and Scripture cannot be broken — do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?"

However, since they actually said, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself a god," Jesus' response makes perfect sense.

Paidion wrote:

You guys are making my point - they were going to stone Him because they understood the implications of His words.

I'm not sure what your point was. But it was an eye opener to me to realize that on the occasion in John 10:33 the Jews were saying that they would stone Jesus for "making yourself a god" rather than "making yourself God." Jesus' reply clearly shows this.

Because I had always assumed the translations were correct by rendering it "making yourself God," I could never before understand why Jesus would respond with, "Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came —  and Scripture cannot be broken — do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?"

However, since they actually said, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself a god," Jesus' response makes perfect sense.

And here I thought you were just teasing me.

I’m curious if anyone has watched the videos and what they think about them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from "Brother Kel":

I also have not been able to find any valid reason to believe Jesus was a pre-existent divine being, or person, who descended into the womb of Mary. On the other hand, I have found many factual reasons to believe that the Father of Jesus, the Father only, is the Creator, the One God of Israel, the God of Jesus and his disciples

.

Darin, Do you believe this guy? Unless I misunderstand Him Jesus was only an "idea" prior to being conceived in the virgin Mary, and Jesus is just a man. There are so many scriptures that contradict what he teaches that it boggles the mind.

Darin wrote:I’m curious if anyone has watched the videos and what they think about them.

I watched the first one, and was impressed. He talks like a simple person, and yet with great intensity.

However, like Homer, I think it a huge mistake to deny the pre-existence of the Son of God. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was I am."
The second-century Christians all taught that God had begotten His Son before all ages, the first of God's acts.

Paidion,

You wrote:

However, since they actually said, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself a god," Jesus' response makes perfect sense.

Well, well. Since there is no indefinate article in the Greek we assume that we should supply an "a" before God in our translations? How do these verses work where there is no article before God, and right there in the controversial John 1?

John 1:6 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
6. There came a man sent from (a) God, whose name was John.

John 1:12 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
12. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of (a) God, even to those who believe in His name,

John 1:13 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
13. who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of (a) God.

Seems to me context, along with other scriptures, should determine whether an English translation should supply an indefinite article where there is none in the Greek.