Someone call the cops! I just killed Socinianism! (Response to Proveyourfaith on Jn 8:58)

Proveyourfaith has made his share of ludicrous statements:

The author of Hebrews was a modalist (despite the modalist heresy not yet being invented when it was written)

The writings of the Early Church Fathers have been edited by the Catholic Church to make it look like they were Trinitarians(despite them making statements that Trinitarian apologists have had to explain and contextualize to their Arian opponents)

Jesus meant "before the Church was" in John 17:5 (????)

His latest statement, "Jesus was claiming that he'd be resurrected before Abraham in John 8:58, and THAT'S why the Jews wanted to stone him," UTTERLY takes the Ludicrous Cake....and it's time to rip it apart...and kill Human Jesus Theology in the process.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Socinianism
• John
• 8:58
• Human
• Jesus
• Theology
• Proveyourfaith

[TheGenuineChristian]

Well, msm1876, at least I agree with you on Jesus pre-existing his humanity. ProveYourFaith is wrestling the NT in a loosing battle. God's breathe (2 Timothy 3:16) is much stronger than Jeff's.

[msm1876]

@TheGenuineChristian Amen, and amen...anytime you need an ally against the lunacy of Socinainism...you know where to find me.

[thelambsservant777]

Actually msm, the same kind of arguement can be used not in your favor. ego emi is not I was, past tense, but PRESENT tense. Scores of Trinitarian scholars have noted that Jesus could have been MUCH more clear IF He were to be claiming pre existence not to use the present tense ego emi, the tense is wrong for that. And even the notion that Jesus would have "cleared up" the understanding of the Jews is flawed. Jesus did not give understanding to all or even most.

[msm1876]

@thelambsservant777 He just isn't claiming pre existence...he's claiming to exist in the PRESENT TENSE, which you just noted...before something ancient (Abraham) came into existence. That's a dead echo of the language used to ascribe deity to YHWH in Psalm 90:2 in the LXX.

And if he was saying anything other than he existed long before Abraham was born by saying this...he was little more than a provacateur.

[krononomikon]

@krononomikon They don't seem to realize that He's calling the One Who originally said them....... *drumroll* .......the Father! ;)

[krononomikon]

@ABurningHill7 Indeed!

1) The reasons, He says, why He says those things, are because the Father says them

2) The reason He says them, He says, is because the Father has given Him authority

3) Then people look at how He says things the Father says, and say it's because He was an eternal and co-equal PERSON! *slaps forehead*

[krononomikon]

@msm1876 As far as I saw it, the whole relative, overlying theme of both John and that section of scripture is Jesus as being Messiah. I am he, I am he... God calls you gods, so why kill me because I say I am "he" (Messiah), before Abraham was, I am he... John 17:22-26, 1 Corinthians 2:7, 1 Peter 1:20

[ABurningHill7]

Thats why he said only those who have ears to hear will be able to hear. Those, who like Peter, have recieved the revelation of the Ma'chiach.

Jeff was also saying it could be not for a fact.. but the way I see it is the Father is speaking directly through him. It is the Father speaking to Yisrael through his prophet. Still doesn't mean Yahushua pre existed. He was just speaking the words the Father gave him. As he always stated

[thelambsservant777]

@TheGenuineChristian You are begining to bore me...The Testament of Job is not Scripture #1. #2.Egyptian Jewish sect known as the Therapeutae described by Philo in Vit Cont. Yuri, you are taking something which has its origins in Merkabah mysticism and aside from all this, you are further proving to me you are a kindergardener GK student at best. Sorry man, I do not look to Philo, Neo Platonism, Merkabah mysticism, as proof. You almost sounded smart up till now..

[TheGenuineChristian]

@thelambsservant777

Testament of Job 2:1 “For I have been (ego gar eimi) Jobab since before the Lord named me Job.”

[thelambsservant777]

@TheGenuineChristian Jn.15:27 does not provide the criteria for the arguement in question. I asked about Emi, not Este, I don't deny that the third person is used as a historical present,Im asking about Emi, thats the whole arguement. If John 8:58 is teaching a historical present, it is the ONLY place in the NT. That speaks volumes. You should also understand the difference between aorist infinatives or indicatives that surround Emi, Este, the construction of the two verses are NOT the same.

[TheGenuineChristian]

@thelambsservant777

John 15:27 And you also shall bear witness, because you ἐστε with me from the beginning.

* ἐστε is the second person plural of εἰμί. εἰμί is the first person singular. Both ἐστε and εἰμί have the same tense and meaning.

[thelambsservant777]

@TheGenuineChristian Prove to me where Emi is EVER used to prove a historical present. Good luck with that. Deal with the arguement Yuri, not just statements with no refferences. You know why your quote says "sometimes" and then has zero Scripture for examples to back it up?? Because it is a hollow statement. You cannot tell me "sometimes" without providing the evidence. Looking for the exception with Emi as historical present...no one has done it yet...

[TheGenuineChristian]

@thelambsservant777

First quote is from Ernest De Witt Burton. Second is from J.N. Sanders. Oh, did you think I was going to quote some self-proclaimed "scholar"? LOL.