Did we interpret this correctly?

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by Raven

Berkley

I see and I agree. The Holy Ghost is indeed the "teacher" that he was promised to be! The Truth grows clearer everyday to those who diligently seek Him.Raven

Bro. Raven,

The bolded is SO true! Father in Son, Deity in humanity, GOD in Christ.

I think of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Passed from father to

son. From generation to generation. Father taught son and the son was

expected to teach it to their sons, etc.!

In Isaiah 54:13 and quoted by Jesus in John 6:45, "And they shall be ALL

taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of

the Father, cometh unto me. In the OT God sent His people manna. In the

NT God sent His people (beginning with his family, tribe, Jews) JESUS. He

said the Jews required a sign. The one sign referred to Jonah in the whale

for three days. The new covenant people began in Jerusalem at Pentecost.

With stammering lips and a new tongue would He speak to His people, the

old covenant people made new by a new covenant (a new and living way

with better promises, better everything). Old things passed away, all things

are becoming new. God was now reconciling Himself to the world He had

created, through the body of Jesus Christ, His Son. The Power was about

to be turned on, city by city, beginning at Jerusalem. Could it be that when

the gospel has gone full circle, every city has had their visitation, that the

blinders would be taken off of the remnant of unbelieving Jews (Judah).

The veil removed, in old Jerusalem, where it all began! Old things passed

away, all things made new. Just some senior thoughts from a senior sister!!

Blessings,

Falla39

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by Raven

Berkley

I see and I agree. The Holy Ghost is indeed the "teacher" that he was promised to be! The Truth grows clearer everyday to those who diligently seek Him.Raven

Father (God, Deity, Spirit)came to earth in the body that had been prepared

from the foundation of the world. This body was called the Son of God. God

taught His Son as fathers are supposed to do. (What you plant and is birthed

in YOUR home, you are responsible for.) Providing for and teaching, training

up in the direction or way they should go!


Later, the elder Son (Jesus, half/brother) taught his own half/brothers,(Who

follows their older brothers around? little brothers! (How would I know!)

What is he teaching the younger! All that the Father has said or taught, to

him. He does only the things the Father has told him to do and say. How

did he learn obedience. By the things he suffered! At whose hands did he

suffer? Those who did not believe his words!! He came to his own and

his own received him not. But to as many as received (believed) him, to

them he gave the Power (Holy Ghost)to become sons of God, even as many

as believe on His Name. Jesus Christ the same, yesterday and today and

forever. His NAME shall be called JESUS, for he shall save his people from

their sins. He is our pattern. our example. Let us follow on to know the Lord.

More thoughts from an older sister!

Blessings,

Falla39

[Darcie]

Originally Posted by seguidordejesus

Darcie, have you guys moved to TN yet?

Sorry SDJ just saw this. We are in the process of packing. We plan on leaving next weekend. We are so excited!

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

both trinis and Oneness will use this verse to show Jesus is the I AM, since the pronoun is not in the greek text

Where do students of scripture get the universal application of 'ego emini' (I am) as being strickly or solely applied to God's person?

Isn't the phrase found in various references where the subject is not God?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by tbpew

Where do students of scripture get the universal application of 'ego emini' (I am) as being strickly or solely applied to God's person?

Isn't the phrase found in various references where the subject is not God?

I think it depends on the grammatical construction. Let me use english here to explain the difference

"I am going to lunch"

I am is a pronoun/verb construction with an adverb

Others might have said ego eimi, but they used it in a verb/adverb construction.

I am hungry. I am ready to die. I am persuaded.

Nobody used it in the same form except one place

Joh 9:9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am h

Here though "he" is not in the greek, we know it is the subject as the antecedent shows they are speculating if this is "he"...

ALL other times ONLY Jesus says "I am" without an verb/adverb construction and in this case the subject antecedent is not the question of "who is this" as it was with the above example...

The grammar is a statement of existence "I AM", such as when Yahweh says it (in the english) "You shall say I AM sent you"...no "he"...no verb/adverb statement. It's being used as a name...ego eimi literally means in the present tense "I exist"...

see the difference? One is saying simply "I exist" as a statement of fact and the other is part of a sentence with a verb.

I don't know any reason why John could not have provided a pronoun in the greek. A pronoun would eliminate any chance of this being a reference to Yahweh.."I am he" as opposed to "I AM"...

Notice a similiar construct where the Jews interpreted it as blasphemy "Before Abraham was (existed past tense), I am (existing perfect present tense)"

It was not "Before Abraham was, I am He"...there are other greek sentences with a masculine "definite article" that also acts as a demonstrative pronoun (he, she, it) which in this case is masculine, so we translate it it seems as "he which" or "he who" such as

Rev 2:23 and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works.
So in the other verses "he" is being added and there is no greek grammatical reason to do so. It's supplied by the Translators based on what they feel the meaning is....which also means the translators that translated the verse "I am he" did not feel it was as statement meant to identify him as the I AM in the OT.

There is no other statement in the bible that is every "I AM HE" just as it is with no other modifiers....every case "he" is added to the meaning by translators.

Personally I think it is a weak argument for the Deity of Christ

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Bryan

At a simple glance, "...they understood not that he spoke to them of the Father" may look like it is in agreement with the verse that reads "...if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."

And, most "Oneness" believers that I have spoken with believe this [mis]interpretation.

Now, I am not a scholar, but I read, and had to re-read it again. I don't believe that our interpretation is correct. It now appears to me that the verse "...they understood not that he spake to them of the Father" is an explanation of the previous verse that reads "...he that sent me is true..." and "...I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him..."

Thus, the hearers of the words of Jesus did not understand that the "...he that sent me..." and "...those things wich I have heard of him..."
The "he" and the "him" that Jesus was speaking of is the Father.

That's my conclusion... I prolly lost you, and I know I never had some of you to begin with.

Blessings

someone direct this to bro. epley :-)