Certainly not a simple doctrine.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You might be willfully ignorant but don't bring others down to your level, if you are disputing the evidence that I provided, linguistic, grammatic and textual then do so, otherwise, please spare me your projections of ignorance. None of this was my opinion, anyone that looks at the verses can see its factual.

I notice to keep editing out sonship's excellent observation that Chrisitans have far more evidence to support a claim that Jesus was Jehovah incarnate, than you do to support your ludicrous claim that he was an angel.

Originally posted by divegeester
I notice to keep editing out sonship's excellent observation that Chrisitans have far more evidence to support a claim that Jesus was Jehovah incarnate, than you do to support your ludicrous claim that he was an angel.

Can you tell us what an angel is divesgeester? and as for jaywill he is almost as reprehensible as you, infact when presented with rather damning and incontrovertible evidence of John 1:1 and why it was not translated accurately according to the original text he feigned ignorance of Greek. You nor he know anything about the Bible because you are not interested, you are only interested in your own propaganda. You could not even explain two words, 'ego eimi' - your explanation was, because they ran out of red ink - the summation of your understanding.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Can you tell us what is an angel is?

I can tell you what it is not. An angel is not "Might God" as referred to by Isaiah. Of course you will say that their are "lots of Gods", although roigam said that a definition of a God is "something that is worshiped". Interestingly if Jesus is the "Mighty God" in Isaiah and he is something to be worshiped, then that puts your denial of deity looking pretty shaky. He (Jesus) is a "God" and he's something that should be worshiped. Interestingly I wonder if you corrected him privately when he posted at comment.

Originally posted by sonship

Then Peter said ... God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. (Acts 10:34-35 KJV)

Did you read that or is it too simple to believe.

GOD ACCEPTS ALL THOSE WHO WORK RIGHTEOUSNESS AND FEARS HIM.

Nothing to do with Christianity.

We should consider n ...[text shortened]... Israel to the nations. There appears here both the need and the purpose of God that this happen.

'Minimal requirements ?? What I have quoted is anything but minimal. You on the other hand is the chief proponent of the most minimalist doctrine ever devised .. "believe and you will be saved", and saved eternally ... not even God can witheraw from you.. I am the one who constantly says that there is more to it than just belief and that it, as Christ and the Apostles keep saying..

Anyway here is another verse that says what Im saying :

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.


No mention of Christ or Christianity. Reason is simple - Christ is more interested in people living righteously than in their claims of faith professed with their mouth.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You might be willfully ignorant but don't bring others down to your level. If you are disputing the evidence that I provided, linguistic, grammatic and textual then do so, otherwise, please spare me your projections of ignorance. None of this is my opinion, anyone that looks at the verses can see its factual.

"The Jews then said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?

Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being I am.

So they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus was hidden and went out of the temple." (John 8:56-59)

Jesus did not say " Before Abraham I was." He said "before Abraham ... I am."

They understood exactly what this Man before them was saying. He was saying that the God Who spoke to Moses telling him that "I AM that I AM" was there with them also. It was the last straw and they picked up stones to execute Him for blasphemy on the spot. He did not simply say " I was before Abraham ." Rather He said before Abraham He is the I AM of Exodus 3:14.

"And God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM. And He said, Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, I AM has sent me to you." (Exo. 3:14)

Capitalization in the English is quite appropriate.

Originally posted by sonship

[b] "The Jews then said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?

Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being I am.

So they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus was hidden and went out of the temple." (John 8:56-59)

Jesus did not say " Before Abraham I was." ...[text shortened]... t me to you." (Exo. 3:14) [/b] [/quote]

Capitalization in the English is quite appropriate.[/b]

C'mon Jaywill, all one need do is read John 8:58 in context to understand the absurdity of your claim.

John 8
53“Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?” 54Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’; 55and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. 56“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” 57So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” 59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

After Jesus is asked, "whom do You make Yourself out to be?" he repeatedly refers to God as His FATHER: "[Jesus'] glory is nothing"... "it is [Jesus'] Father that glorifies [Jesus]"..."[Jesus knows] [God] and keeps [God's] word".

To hear you tell it, Jesus explicitly states that God is His FATHER out of one side of His mouth and then makes an awkwardly veiled claim to BE God out the other when He could have simply stated, "I am God" as a direct response to their question if that was His claim. To further put it in context, start reading the passage from John 8:42 where Jesus makes additional references to God being His Father.

Furthermore, there is nothing special about "ego eimi". The exact same words are used by the following:

John 9 (The man born blind)
8Therefore the neighbors, and those who previously saw him as a beggar, were saying, “Is not this the one who used to sit and beg?” 9Others were saying, “This is he,” still others were saying, “No, but he is like him.” He kept saying, “I am the one.”

Luke 1 (Zacharias)
18Zacharias said to the angel, “How will I know this for certain? For I am an old man and my wife is advanced in years.”

Do you also believe that "the man born blind" and Zacharias are also claiming to be God?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
C'mon Jaywill, all one need do is read John 8:58 in context to understand the absurdity of your claim.

[quote]John 8
53“Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?” 54Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, [b]My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you ...[text shortened]... s.”

Do you also believe that "the man born blind" and Zacharias are also claiming to be God?

The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

(John 10:33 NASB)

Originally posted by RJHinds

The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

(John 10:33 NASB)

Not sure what point you're trying to make. Can you explicitly state the point of your citing that verse and exactly how it addresses my post?

Originally posted by divegeester
I can tell you what it is not. An angel is not "Might God" as referred to by Isaiah. Of course you will say that their are "lots of Gods", although roigam said that a definition of a God is "something that is worshiped". Interestingly if Jesus is the "Mighty God" in Isaiah and he is something to be worshiped, then that puts your denial of deity looking p ...[text shortened]... d be worshiped. Interestingly I wonder if you corrected him privately when he posted at comment.

So you cannot tell us what an angel is. You cannot tell us why your translators capitalized the text. You cannot tell us why they have attempted to tamper with the tenses by rearranging them in some strange order. You cannot tell us why the text at john 8:58 suddenly ignores normal English syntax. You cannot even tell us why I AM THAT I AM is not even proper English and not even an accurate rendering of the Hebrew.

I say to you divesgeester that you have no idea what you are talking about, do you.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
C'mon Jaywill, all one need do is read John 8:58 in context to understand the absurdity of your claim.

[quote]John 8
53“Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?” 54Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, [b]My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you ...[text shortened]... s.”

Do you also believe that "the man born blind" and Zacharias are also claiming to be God?

Well said and clear to almost every rational person but alas no amount of empirical evidence can convince those that are willfully ignorant. They are uninterested in anything but their own propaganda.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So you cannot tell us what an angel is. You cannot tell us why your translators capitalized the text. You cannot tell us why they have attempted to tamper with the tenses by rearranging them in some strange order. You cannot tell us why the text at john 8:58 suddenly ignores normal English syntax. You cannot even tell us why I AM THAT I AM is not ev ...[text shortened]... e Hebrew.

I say to you divesgeester that you have no idea what you are talking about, do you.

Robbie let me tell you again; I am not moved by your increasing shrill protestations about grammar and capitalisation. If the words where in lower case I would still hold the same opinion.

We ( Christians) have far more evidence to support the claim that Jesus was Jehovah incarnate, than you (the cult of Jehovah Witnesses) do to support your claim that Jesus was an angel. Thank you for that one sonship.

Originally posted by divegeester
Robbie let me tell you again; I am not moved by your increasing shrill protestations about grammar and capitalisation. If the words where in lower case I would still hold the same opinion.

We ( Christians) have far more evidence to support the claim that Jesus was Jehovah incarnate, than you (the cult of Jehovah Witnesses) do to support your claim that Jesus was an angel. Thank you for that one sonship.

I don't care whether you are moved, convinced or not, it is clear you have not the foggiest idea what you are talking about and it makes no sense to convince the wilfully ignorant.

Your faith is based on ignorance divesgeester, I have proven it. If I were you I would think seriously about that for you cannot substantiate anything you claim or profess.

Again I am not interested in your claims, your propaganda or any of your prejudices. I am interested in what the Bible actually says and it has become abundantly clear that you don't know what it actually says and have no way of knowing whether what you profess is true or just some old codswallop. Again that is not a matter for me, I have taken the time to find out whether these things I am saying are true, you on the other hand don't seem to know or care.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I don't care whether you are moved, convinced or not, it is clear you have not the foggiest idea what you are talking about and it makes no sense to convince the wilfully ignorant.

Your faith is based on ignorance divesgeester, I have proven it. If I were you I would think seriously about that for you cannot substantiate anything you claim or ...[text shortened]... out whether these things I am saying are true, you on the other hand don't seem to know or care.

What is clear is that I'm unconvinced about your opinion posted in this forum about capitalisation and grammar. All you have posted is your opinion no actual evidence, no research by qualified academics (outside and independent of your cult), nothing peer reviewed. Just your opinion based on some stuff your cult has pushed your way. So it's hardly surprising that I'm not convinced, moved or otherwise. Repeatedly posting the same "self-certified" opinions and repeatedly demanding that I take note of them is not an argument or debate robbie.

Originally posted by divegeester
What is clear is that I'm unconvinced about your opinion posted in this forum about capitalisation and grammar. All you have posted is your opinion no actual evidence, no research by qualified academics (outside and independent of your cult), nothing peer reviewed. Just your opinion based on some stuff your cult has pushed your way. So it's hardly sur ...[text shortened]... opinions and repeatedly demanding that I take note of them is not an argument or debate robbie.

then you will need to explain why its unconvincing for it appears to me to be rather sound, but wait, you have been asked three times already to comment and so far we haven't been treated to so much as a bean. Your continued references to Jehovahs Witness only emphasizes the weakness of your position. Unable to actually address the issues that were raised you treat us to your willful ignorance and prejudices. Thanks but I think we've seen quite enough ignorance from you for one occasion.