Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Revelation, offers a gold mine of proofs

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Revelation, offers a gold mine of proofs

    ...against the notion that Jesus is God. The very first verse rejects that notion:

    Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ Θεός, δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ, τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάνῃ,

    (1) Here God (ὁ Θεός) is distinguished from Jesus . Now if the author was a Trinitarian and believed Jesus to also be ὁ Θεός , he would (at the very least) have been compelled to have written something as follows: Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷὁ πατήρ, δεῖξαι.... " The revelation of Jesus Christ, which the Father gave him to show.."

    (2) The text says that the Revelation was "given" (ἔδωκεν) to Jesus by God. This really is proof that the Jesus of apostle John was not omniscient (even after ascending into Heaven) and therefore not the Almighty God.

    The first verse suggests that for apostle John only the Father is God, and only God (i.e. the Father) is Omniscient. Here is my reading of the chapter for context.

  • #2
    Wow!!! Don't you know that The One True Almighty God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit=The One True Almighty God?? Three but all one and the same just as man is body soul and spirit!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by GISMYS View Post
      Wow!!! Don't you know that The One True Almighty God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit=The One True Almighty God?? Three but all one and the same just as man is body soul and spirit!!!
      That's not the answer to his post.

      The problem is with both Trinitarian and Unitarian understanding. The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are not eternal distinction between three persons of Godhead but is the covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel. Most people on these boards don't even understand basic gospel message that was given to Abraham that he would be the father of many nations in His promised seed Messiah ( in Isaac your seed shall be). Not understanding this basics of the gospel message has lead to many 'isms' in Christendom. People believe in traditions rather than truth

      One statement that is true of Trinitarianism is that F, S and HS is one YHWH (God/Lord). But when they make eternal distinctions between them they err. Even Unis trend to make The Son as a lesser god because they don't understand that The Son stands for true Israel of EL. Scriptures make The Son as subordinate to The Father because He as the representation of Israel can't be equal to The Father as EL. At the same time scriptures lets us know that He is none other than YHWH coming in His iwn Tabernacle.
      YHWH is only visible in His Tabernacle even in the world to come:

      Rev 21:3 And I heard a loud voice from the heaven saying, “See, the Booth of Elohim is with men, and He shall dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and Elohim Himself shall be with them and be their Elohim.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by John Milton View Post
        (2) The text says that the Revelation was "given" (ἔδωκεν) to Jesus by God. This really is proof that the Jesus of apostle John was not omniscient (even after ascending into Heaven) and therefore not the Almighty God.
        I think you meant to say that it says that God gave (ἔδωκεν) Jesus the Revelation. If it had said that the Revelation "was given," it would have been passive (ἐδώθη). Truth is in the details.
        I have permission to post on the Biblical Languages forum, as per email correspondence with Diane S.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by dannyfortruth View Post
          Rev 21:3 And I heard a loud voice from the heaven saying, “See, the Booth of Elohim is with men, and He shall dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and Elohim Himself shall be with them and be their Elohim.
          "Booth"? Why "booth"? Why not render σκηνή as "tent" or "dwelling place," as is so common? If you translate σκηνώσει as "he will dwell," why wouldn't you use the concept of "dwelling" in your rendering of σκηνή? Will God have a booth from which to make an exhibition? Will he be selling wares at a carnival? This isn't a BOOTH. It's a DWELLING PLACE. What benefit could you possibly derive from using the English term "booth" here?
          I have permission to post on the Biblical Languages forum, as per email correspondence with Diane S.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jameson View Post

            I think you meant to say that it says that God gave (ἔδωκεν) Jesus the Revelation. If it had said that the Revelation "was given," it would have been passive (ἐδώθη). Truth is in the details.
            The English statement " The Revelation was given to Jesus by God" means the same thing as "God gave Jesus the Revelation." In both statements God is doing the giving. The same is also true in Koine:

            Ἀποκάλυψις ἐδώθη τῷ Ἰησοῦ ὑπό τοῦ θεοῦ means the same thing as ὁ Θεός ἔδωκεν τῷ Ἰησοῦ ᾰ̓ποκᾰ́λῠψῐν

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jameson View Post

              "Booth"? Why "booth"? Why not render σκηνή as "tent" or "dwelling place," as is so common? If you translate σκηνώσει as "he will dwell," why wouldn't you use the concept of "dwelling" in your rendering of σκηνή? Will God have a booth from which to make an exhibition? Will he be selling wares at a carnival? This isn't a BOOTH. It's a DWELLING PLACE. What benefit could you possibly derive from using the English term "booth" here?
              It's a typical kind of ruse one finds often in lower level theological debates. Offer a really odd translation, pretend that in some sense it's literal and that somehow it supports the theological point you want to make. Then you are good to go, at least in your own mind.

              Comment


              • #8
                Children, Let's look at Revelation 1:4 --

                Ἰωάνης ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ Πνευμάτων ἃ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ,
                Notice that the name of God is not ἐγὼ εἰμί ("I am") as the magicians / confidence tricksters who toy with your mind pretend to tell you, but it is rather ὁ ὢν ("The Being"). LXX Exodus 3:14 is clearly in view here --

                καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων· ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. καὶ εἶπεν· οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς ᾿Ισραήλ· ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
                Here's my reading of Exodus 3 LXX for further context.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by John Milton View Post
                  Children, Let's look at Revelation 1:4 --



                  Notice that the name of God is not ἐγὼ εἰμί ("I am") as the magicians / confidence tricksters who toy with your mind pretend to tell you, but it is rather ὁ ὢν ("The Being"). LXX Exodus 3:14 is clearly in view here --



                  Here's my reading of Exodus 3 LXX for further context.
                  It certainly calls to mind Ex 3:14 LXX. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that everything you do is about your pet theological peeves, the fact that ὁ ὤν is indeclinable here is to me the really interesting fact. No time to go into it now, but the construction at John 8:58 suggests a similar sort of set phrase based in the idea of the divine name, even though John renders more literally with ἐγώ εἰμι.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post

                    It certainly calls to mind Ex 3:14 LXX. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that everything you do is about your pet theological peeves, the fact that ὁ ὤν is indeclinable here is to me the really interesting fact.
                    Because it is being used as a title ( or as a “set phrase” for God’s name).


                    No time to go into it now, but the construction at John 8:58 suggests a similar sort of set phrase based in the idea of the divine name, even though John renders more literally with ἐγώ εἰμι.
                    “John” uses ὁ ὤν as a “set phrase” for God’s name in Revelation. This is incontestable. He get’s this from the LXX Exodus 3:14 where ἐγώ εἰμι is NOT being used in a similar fashion. Here , as everywhere else in the Biblical Greek literature, ἐγώ εἰμι functions normally, as a pronoun and be verb combination of simple identification .

                    καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς ᾿Ισραήλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
                    So the idea that “John” is using ἐγώ εἰμι as a “set phrase” for God’s name is a magician’s ruse designed to deceive .

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by John Milton View Post

                      So the idea that “John” is using ἐγώ εἰμι as a “set phrase” for God’s name is a magician’s ruse designed to deceive .
                      Actually it's an observation based on knowing how the language actually works and based on long reading and study of the text, but admitting that would put you in a poor light, so you have to make the kinds of assertions you do above.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post

                        Actually it's an observation based on knowing how the language actually works and based on long reading and study of the text, but admitting that would put you in a poor light, so you have to make the kinds of assertions you do above.
                        If ἐγώ εἰμι in John 8:58 is a set phrase for God’s name, then the sentence is not only ungrammatical , but also meaningless dribble. It becomes the equivalent of the English : “Before Abraham was The Almighty,” or “Before Abraham was The President,” or before “Abraham was I A M,” etc.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Professor BeDuhn explains why taking ἐγώ εἰμι as a phrase for God's name in John 8:58 can never be grammatical:


                          "The Septuagint of Exodus 3:14 has God say ego eimi ho on, 'I am the being,' or 'I am the one that exists.' Plainly, ego eimi functions here exactly as it does in the mouth of all speaking characters throughout the Bible, as a first person pronoun subject, followed by the b-verb, to which a predicate noun is attached. God does not say 'I am I AM,' he says 'I am the being.' 'I am' sets up the title or identification God uses of himself, it is not itself that title. Separating 'I am' off as if it were meant to stand alone is an interpretive sleight-of-hand, totally distorting the role the phrase plays in the whole sentence, either in the Greek Septuagint version of Exodus 3:14 or in John 8:58."
                          So do not fall for the magic trick, it's not even a very elegant one. The reason more people do not catch it is because it is in Koine. But if we put it into English, the scam is easily caught. Here is a parallel English example:


                          "Before Abraham was, 'The Evil One.' "

                          What does this sentence even mean ? What is the subject of this sentence , what is it's predicate ? And where is the verb which connects the subject to the predicate in the above "sentence" ? As is the sentence seems to be saying something about before Abraham was, but then abruptly ends with a title of the Devil. It's incoherent nonsense.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by John Milton View Post

                            If ἐγώ εἰμι in John 8:58 is a set phrase for God’s name, then the sentence is not only ungrammatical , but also meaningless dribble. It becomes the equivalent of the English : “Before Abraham was The Almighty,” or “Before Abraham was The President,” or before “Abraham was I A M,” etc.
                            Now this goes to show that again you don't know what you are talking about (and BeDuhn shows his essential unfamiliarity with the language as well in your other post). Do you actually think that ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος is grammatical? The exceptional phrasing of John 8:58 puts it into the same category.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by John Milton View Post
                              Professor BeDuhn explains why taking ἐγώ εἰμι as a phrase for God's name in John 8:58 can never be grammatical:




                              So do not fall for the magic trick, it's not even a very elegant one. The reason more people do not catch it is because it is in Koine. But if we put it into English, the scam is easily caught. Here is a parallel English example:


                              "Before Abraham was, 'The Evil One.' "

                              What does this sentence even mean ? What is the subject of this sentence , what is it's predicate ? And where is the verb which connects the subject to the predicate in the above "sentence" ? As is the sentence seems to be saying something about before Abraham was, but then abruptly ends with a title of the Devil. It's incoherent nonsense.
                              I think the background for John 8:58 is more likely the "ani hu" statements of Isaiah, which still makes the link to Yahweh. However, BeDuhn would have been better off exploring why the LXX translators rendered the predicate ὁ ὤν instead of ἐγώ εἰμι, which is a perfectly valid rendering of the finite verb אהיה in Hebrew.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X