Impossible Questions For Trinitarians

[BradtheImpaler]

jgredline,

Do you pray to the Virgin Mary?

Never have and never will

Don't you realize that, among Christians, you are in the minority?

:-D

 

[R7-12]

R7-12
Here is what I do know about you.

Going by your prevoiuse post you belong or are affilated with the Cultec sect
http://www.logon.org/

You believe / claim / say that Jesus was a created being. JW, Mormons, beleive the same thing.

You have said you are a unitarian. Thats obviose

Anyone of those three would make you a Gnostic ( you seem to beleive you have this knowledege no one else has) which in tern makes your teachings cultish. You keep saying that no one can answer your questions. True many of your questions can't be answered because you twist and make up scripture just like you did in John 1:1

What you know about me? WHAT?!?!?! Is that what this forum is intended for? Is it to categorize and label and judge people according to personal understanding and bias? You can’t know me. You can only know about the doctrines I adhere to that I tell you about. Just as I can only know those things about you which you reveal. That gives no one the right to become judge over another.

jgredline, it is not about ME! It is not about YOU! It is about the TRUTH!

I will work out my salvation in trembling and fear between myself and Almighty God. You deal with your situation as you see fit – that’s your business! But if we get on a public forum to discuss spiritual principles based on the Bible, should we not leave it at that?

Why do you wish to examine my position in Christ before God? YOU CAN’T! No matter how you or anyone else may see it, you will always be proven wrong in many, many ways – because there is only one God and one Lawgiver and one Judge! That is the truth of the matter and that fact shows that none of us are qualified at this time to judge another. And none have been given the position or the power or authority to be my judge or anyone else’s judge other than Jesus Christ by delegation of the Father.

So enough with the assassination attempts already.

Now, get a few things straight. My beliefs are not those of the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Mormons. If I have provided links to a particular website because of well written articles then leave it at that. The fact that I may be a subordinationist Unitarian has NOTHING to do with Gnosticism, and the fact that you would judge me as one based on that alone shows profound ignorance on your part concerning what Gnosticism is. Truth be told, the basic doctrines you hold are reflective of Gnosticism. Just ask me to explain this to you – I will gladly show you.

You said,

True many of your questions can't be answered because you twist and make up scripture just like you did in John 1:1

Prove it! Please provide actual, verifiable evidence that I twisted or made up Scripture like John 1:1 as you say.

You have made a serious accusation here which thus requires you to provide evidence to support your words. If you cannot, you will be seen as a liar and a false accuser because of your own conduct and not because anyone will have called you that. You have placed yourself under potential judgment in this situation and only you have the power to rectify it. I suggest you choose to do the right thing. Are you able to discern what that is?

There is a question that this whole thread was started on and it has yet to be answered.

It is now evident that it cannot be answered because the Trinity is impossible and unbiblical.

That’s just my opinion and that will not change until simple relevant questions can be properly answered according to Scripture.

R7-12

 

[R7-12]

jgredline,

I took the opportunity to return some of your own words,

I have been reading many of your heretical posts and my friend you need to repent of your false doctrine and sin and diligently seek the truth. Have you noticed that you are in the majority in most of what you believe? Are you familiar with the command not to be a part of this world or love the things of this world? You need to take a look around and ask yourself, “What in the world am I doing here?â€Â

In a post on another thread I wrote,
It would be beneficial for all and just plain satisfying to see people on both sides of any given issue, raise the standard of defense when responding. What I'm talking about is not resorting to personal attacks or cheap pot shots, but instead, directly answering each valid question with respect and a well thought-out response based on Bible texts, rational thought, and honesty - at all times.

Indeed, I see many truths presented and defended on this subject on multiple threads but no valid refutations given by those who disagree. So what faith is being effectively defended in most cases on this topic?

It's self-evident.
(end excerpt)

Simple questions cannot be answered by Trinitarians so they resort to personal attack. It’s their intention to dehumanize and discredit by labeling and name-calling and judging those who have beliefs that differ from their own. That is not defending the faith; it is defending what must be a lie because it cannot be defended by Scripture. If you disagree then please prove it by defending your view from the Bible, using Bible Scripture. You can start with the question that opened this thread.

Every time you choose to attack instead of defend, you further expose your position and make evident where the spirit of truth is or is not.

The behavior is really very shameful.

Take a moment to look into the law of liberty which is a mirror that will show you what manner of man you are. Then you can turn and become a doer of the word and be blessed (James 1:25). Why do I say this? Becasue,

If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless (James 1:26).

R7-12

 

[Rick the holypig]

jgredline,

Do you pray to the Virgin Mary?

Never have and never will

Don't you realize that, among Christians, you are in the minority?

:-D

there are very few christians in the CC & their making Mary almost Godlike is a new lie that was started in the last 200 years. if you take all of christianity from the Apostles on, the new lies believed by some in the CC would be a small %. but stiill not as small at the few that believe the lies of hell about Jesus not being GOD. they would be as small as a pimple on a whale's butt. Hummmm pimple on a whales butt - kidda fitting picture for the Oneness cults.

When lies about Mary entered the Catholic Church

Immaculate Conception of Mary..................1854 A.D.

Assumption of the Virgin Mary.....................1950 A.D.

Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church..........1965 A.D.

 

[R7-12]

Everyone,

I would appreciate it if this thread wasn't used to debate which doctrines of the RCC are false or when they were introduced.

That is way off topic here and should have it's own thread started for debate.

Please refrain from introducing issues that are not directly related to the subject at hand.

This thread was started for a particular purpose and I would just like to see it stay on course.

Thank you in advance,
R7-12

 

[thessalonian]

jgredline,

Do you pray to the Virgin Mary?

Never have and never will

Don't you realize that, among Christians, you are in the minority?

:-D

there are very few christians in the CC & their making Mary almost Godlike is a new lie that was started in the last 200 years. if you take all of christianity from the Apostles on, the new lies believed by some in the CC would be a small %. but stiill not as small at the few that believe the lies of hell about Jesus not being GOD. they would be as small as a pimple on a whale's butt. Hummmm pimple on a whales butt - kidda fitting picture for the Oneness cults.

When lies about Mary entered the Catholic Church

Immaculate Conception of Mary..................1854 A.D.

Assumption of the Virgin Mary.....................1950 A.D.

Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church..........1965 A.D.

Rick, first of all we don't consider Mary to be anywhere near God. She is the creature, not the creator. As for the above doctrines starting in Catholic teaching on the dates you have listed, you are quite wrong. They can be traced to much earlier dates. The dates you have listed are the dates they were proclaimed as dogma but they can be seen in Catholic writing throughout history.

By the way where do you get the last one? Mary has always been proclaimed Mother of the Church.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9812frs.asp

By the way, how would the dogmas listed make Mary to be a God? Perhaps you can defend what you say. :-? Perhaps not. :roll: We shall see.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

there are very few christians in the CC

Well then, which Trinitarians should I believe are true Christians?

& their making Mary almost Godlike is a new lie that was started in the last 200 years

In 431 at the Council of Ephesus she was pronounced, "Mother Of God". I would say that title made her at least a little godlike?

if you take all of christianity from the Apostles on, the new lies believed by some in the CC would be a small %. but stiill not as small at the few that believe the lies of hell about Jesus not being GOD. they would be as small as a pimple on a whale's butt. Hummmm pimple on a whales butt - kidda fitting picture for the Oneness cults

"Oneness" DOES believe that Christ is God. Do some more studying, then come back :bday:

 

[Rick the holypig]

Everyone,

I would appreciate it if this thread wasn't used to debate which doctrines of the RCC are false or when they were introduced.

That is way off topic here and should have it's own thread started for debate.

Please refrain from introducing issues that are not directly related to the subject at hand.

This thread was started for a particular purpose and I would just like to see it stay on course.

Thank you in advance,
R7-12

yah but all your oneness cultish posts have been disproved 10 times over & you keep repositing them & saying no one has disproved what you post. like the lame mistranslation of John 1:1 that you posted & that I riped apart with the real Greek translation. so you & your lies are getting real tired so why not debate a topic that people will admit then they have been handed their hat.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Everyone,

I would appreciate it if this thread wasn't used to debate which doctrines of the RCC are false or when they were introduced.

That is way off topic here and should have it's own thread started for debate.

Please refrain from introducing issues that are not directly related to the subject at hand.

This thread was started for a particular purpose and I would just like to see it stay on course.

Thank you in advance,
R7-12

Sorry, I made the Mary comment in response to his inference that you are wrong because your viewpoint is in the minority. Ergo, if the majority is always right, then he, as a non-Catholic, is also in the minority. It wasn't intended to bring Mary into this, it was just an example.

 

[R7-12]

Hey BradtheImpaler,

No problem, I understand.

Thank you for your kindness and your courtesy, it is very refreshing around here.

R7-12

 

[R7-12]

Rick,

yah but all your oneness cultish posts have been disproved 10 times over & you keep repositing them & saying no one has disproved what you post. like the lame mistranslation of John 1:1 that you posted & that I riped apart with the real Greek translation. so you & your lies are getting real tired so why not debate a topic that people will admit then they have been handed their hat.

I’m not a Oneness believer.

It was upon this false assumption that you claim my posts have been disproved, therefore you are in error.

It is also upon this same false assumption that you characterize the correct rendering of John 1:1 as a lame translation, therefore you are in error.

It is also upon this same false assumption that call me a liar and judge what I say as lies, therefore you are in error.

If you are getting tired of what is being said on a thread I began for a purpose, then start your own thread. You can be rude there.

You have been handed your hat.

R7-12

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Hey BradtheImpaler,

No problem, I understand.

Thank you for your kindness and your courtesy, it is very refreshing around here.

You are welcome, sir. And I apologize for the error in judgement of using Mary in example. I should have realized that the mere mention of that topic would cause immediate fireworks between Catholics and Protestants and possibly bury your thread in the ashes of their antagonism towards each other.

(Catholics/Protestants - notice how well infidels get along : )

 

[Rick the holypig]

Rick,

yah but all your oneness cultish posts have been disproved 10 times over & you keep repositing them & saying no one has disproved what you post. like the lame mistranslation of John 1:1 that you posted & that I riped apart with the real Greek translation. so you & your lies are getting real tired so why not debate a topic that people will admit then they have been handed their hat.

I’m not a Oneness believer.

It was upon this false assumption that you claim my posts have been disproved, therefore you are in error.

It is also upon this same false assumption that you characterize the correct rendering of John 1:1 as a lame translation, therefore you are in error.

It is also upon this same false assumption that call me a liar and judge what I say as lies, therefore you are in error.

If you are getting tired of what is being said on a thread I began for a purpose, then start your own thread. You can be rude there.

You have been handed your hat.

R7-12

you remind me of OJ. Everyone knows what he is & what he did but he still says he is innocent. you post have been torn to chunks by everyone & yet your ego still will not allow you to admit that you have bean handed your hat. but then you are a legend in your own mind.

this is how I see your posts.

you - this is the truth

person A - no your beliefs are wrong because of the following points

1)
2)
3)

you - see no one can prove me wrong

person B - OK you are also wrong because of

4)
5)
6)

you - See I knew I was right because noone has dared to respond to my post.

one of your mindless stooges Yah R7-12 see noone has the guts to refute you!

 

[jgredline]

R7-12
Here is what I do know about you.

Going by your prevoiuse post you belong or are affilated with the Cultec sect
http://www.logon.org/

You believe / claim / say that Jesus was a created being. JW, Mormons, beleive the same thing.

You have said you are a unitarian. Thats obviose

Anyone of those three would make you a Gnostic ( you seem to beleive you have this knowledege no one else has) which in tern makes your teachings cultish. You keep saying that no one can answer your questions. True many of your questions can't be answered because you twist and make up scripture just like you did in John 1:1

What you know about me? WHAT?!?!?! Is that what this forum is intended for? Is it to categorize and label and judge people according to personal understanding and bias? You can’t know me. You can only know about the doctrines I adhere to that I tell you about. Just as I can only know those things about you which you reveal. That gives no one the right to become judge over another.

Yes your correct. I don't know you personally and I offer an appology and ask for forgiveness. What I do question is your doctrine.


[quote:beeba]
jgredline, it is not about ME! It is not about YOU! It is about the TRUTH!

I will work out my salvation in trembling and fear between myself and Almighty God. You deal with your situation as you see fit – that’s your business! But if we get on a public forum to discuss spiritual principles based on the Bible, should we not leave it at that?

Yes Paul tells us to work out our own salvation. What concerns me is that through your false teaching you will lead people astray. Only the true NON CREATED JESUS can forgive sins. A created Jesus can not atone for sins anymore than a bull.

Why do you wish to examine my position in Christ before God? YOU CAN’T! No matter how you or anyone else may see it, you will always be proven wrong in many, many ways – because there is only one God and one Lawgiver and one Judge! That is the truth of the matter and that fact shows that none of us are qualified at this time to judge another. And none have been given the position or the power or authority to be my judge or anyone else’s judge other than Jesus Christ by delegation of the Father.

I am calling your false teaching into question as 2 peter 2;1-3 tells us.

So enough with the assassination attempts already.

Nobody is trying to kill you. Perhaps your feeling convicted?

Now, get a few things straight. My beliefs are not those of the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Mormons. If I have provided links to a particular website because of well written articles then leave it at that. The fact that I may be a subordinationist Unitarian has NOTHING to do with Gnosticism, and the fact that you would judge me as one based on that alone shows profound ignorance on your part concerning what Gnosticism is. Truth be told, the basic doctrines you hold are reflective of Gnosticism. Just ask me to explain this to you – I will gladly show you.

Your teaching are very much Gnostic and believes while not exactly the same are very similar to JW, MORMONS, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE, ONENESS THEOLOGY

You said,
[quote:beeba] True many of your questions can't be answered because you twist and make up scripture just like you did in John 1:1

Prove it! Please provide actual, verifiable evidence that I twisted or made up Scripture like John 1:1 as you say.
[/quote:beeba]

I and others on this thread have proven your interpretaion of John 1:1 false. Read the prevoise post again. I have also included another article at the bottom of this page for you to study and look at.

You have made a serious accusation here which thus requires you to provide evidence to support your words. If you cannot, you will be seen as a liar and a false accuser because of your own conduct and not because anyone will have called you that. You have placed yourself under potential judgment in this situation and only you have the power to rectify it. I suggest you choose to do the right thing. Are you able to discern what that is?

What have I lied about? What I have done is challenge your theology and have proven it wrong as has time through the past 2000 years. What I was wrong about and I did appologize was my statement above. Thats it.

There is a question that this whole thread was started on and it has yet to be answered.

It is now evident that it cannot be answered because the Trinity is impossible and unbiblical.

That’s just my opinion and that will not change until simple relevant questions can be properly answered according to Scripture.

R7-12[/quote:beeba]

Your questions have been answered and the Trinity is easy to prove. You need only to read the bible. I pray that you will change your mind as this is very much a salvation issue.


R17
Here is an article with resources you should read.

Purpose and Meaning of "Ego Eimi" in the Gospel of John
In Reference to the Deity of Christ



by James White

The Gospel of John has come under great fire in recent centuries for its incredibly high Christology. On this basis alone certain form-critics have rejected the book as having any historical authenticity whatsoever, assuming (without foundation) that such a high Christology could only have evolved after quite some time of "theological formulation" and hence placing its writing well into the second century. Fortunately, not all scholars share the same unfounded presuppositions.

The person of Christ as presented in John's Gospel is indeed of an exceptionally high character - John asserts that Jesus is "the Word become flesh" (John 1:14). He says that this Word is eternal, has always been "with" God (pros ton theon) and indeed shares the very being of God (John 1:1). John describes Jesus as the unique God (monogenes theos) in John 1:18. He portrays Jesus saying that He is the way, the truth, and the life - that man's very life and salvation is dependent upon his relationship with Him (a claim nothing short of blasphemy for a mere created being!), and the Gospel climaxes in Thomas' confession of Jesus as his "Lord and God".

Though the evidences of the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ are numerous in this book, one set of these evidences has always fascinated theologians. Jesus utilizes the specific phrase ego eimi of Himself frequently in John's Gospel, and a number of times He does so in a pregnant way, not providing any immediately identifiable predicate. John's recording of these sayings is also significant, as he provides rather obvious settings for these sayings, emphasizing their importance. Is there a significance to this phrase? What is it's purpose and meaning? Does this phrase present yet another aspect of the Deity of Christ? This shall be the topic of the following investigation.
Usage of ego eimi in the Gospel of John

The specific phrase ego eimi occurs 24 times in the Gospel of John. Seventeen of these times it is followed by a clear predicate. 1 Some of these instances would be John 6:35, "I am the living bread" (ego eimi ho artos tes zoes) or John 10:11, "I am the good shepherd" (ego eimi ho poimen ho kalos). 3 times the usage does not fall into a clear category - these would be 4:26, 6:20, and 9:9. In 4:26 Jesus says to the woman at the well, "I am, the one speaking to you" (ego eimi, ho lalon soi) which is strangely reminiscent of the LXX rendering of Isaiah 52:6 (ego eimi autos ho lalon). In 6:20 it seems to be a rather straight-forward self-identification to the frightened disciples in the boat. 2 And in 9:9 we find the man who had been healed of his blindness insisting that he was indeed the man of whom they spoke. This last instance is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them, in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicate.

Given the above usages, we are left with 7 usages that have been described as "absolute". 3 These would be John 8:24, 8:28, 8:58, 13:19, 18:5, 18:6, and 18:8. It is these seven passages that make up the bulk of the discussion concerning the use of ego eimi by John. For the sake of accurate examination, the transliterations of these phrases are provided below:

* John 8:24: ean gar me pistuesete hoti ego eimi
* John 8:28: tote gnosesthe hoti ego eimi
* John 8:58: prin Abraam genethai ego eimi
* John 13:19: hina pisteusete hotan genetai ego eimi
* John 18:5: legei autois Ego eimi
* John 18:6: hos oun eipen autois Ego eimi
* John 18:8: eipon humin hoti ego eimi

John uses this phrase of Jesus more than any other writer. The phrase does occur in Mark 14:62-64 as well, however. It is to be noted that in the above list, the phrase itself comes at the end of the clause in each instance. This will have significance when the Septuagint background of John's usage is examined.

The main verses that will undergo examination here are 8:24, 8:58, 13:19, and 18:5-6. In the author's translation these passages read as follows:

* John 8:24: "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." John 8:58: "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."
* John 13:19: "From now on I tell you before it comes to pass in order that when it does happen, you may believe that I am."
* John 18:5-6: "They answered Him, "Jesus the Nazarene." He said to them, "I am." And Judas also, the one who betrayed Him, was standing with them. Therefore when He said to them, "I am," they went backwards and fell upon the ground."

Translation of ego eimi

Before the exact meaning or significance of ego eimi in John's gospel can be adequately addressed, the proper translation of the phrase must be determined. There are a very small number of translations that avoid a direct translation of the present indicative ego eimi. Moffat renders it, "I have existed before Abraham was born!" The Twentieth Century New Testament has, "before Abraham existed I was." Kleist and Lilly have "I am here--and I was before Abraham!" C. B. Williams gives "I existed before Abraham was born." Schonfield renders the last clause "I existed before Abraham was born." And the spiritist Johannes Greber (who claimed to get his translation through a spirit medium!) has, "I am older than Abraham." The Jehovah's Witnesses' own translation, the New World Translation, renders ego eimi as "I have been".

Allegedly many of these translations are viewing the phrase as what Robertson calls a "progressive present". Robertson writes,

This is a poor name in lieu of a better one for the present of past action still in progress. Usually an adverb of time (or adjunct) accompanies the verb...Often it has to be translated into English by a sort of "progressive perfect" ('have been'), though, of course, that is the fault of English..."The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phrase" (Moulton, Prol., p. 119)...It is a common idiom in the N.T. In Jo. 8:58 eimi is really absolute."4

There are many instances in historical narrative or conversation where the Greek will use a present tense verb that is best rendered in English by the perfect. John 15:27 would be a good example: "because you have been with me from the beginning." The verb, este, is in the present tense, but the context makes it clear that it is in reference to both the past and the present, or, as Moulton said above, it "gathers up past and present time into one phrase." Robertson correctly notes that this is a common idiom in the New Testament, though he also adds the fact that, in his opinion, John 8:58 is "absolute" and should be rendered as such (which he always does in his works 5). It should also be noted that it is the deficiency of the English that is to blame for the rendering - to place weight on the meaning of the English perfect tense when rendering the Greek present in this way would be in error.

So why should John 8:58 not be rendered in this way? Why do so few translations follow this path? Because to so translate is to miss the entire context and content of what is being said! The vast majority of translators see, as many commentators do, that there is a clear differentiation being made here between the derivative existence of Abraham and the eternal existence of the Lord Christ. That this is understood by the translators of our modern editions can be seen from a look at the translations that render this phrase either as "I am" or "I Am" or "I AM":

King James, New King James, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, Philips Modern English, Revised Standard Version, Today's English Version, Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, American Standard Version, New American Bible, Douay, Young's Literal Translation, Berkeley Version, Norlie's Simplified New Testament, New Testament in Modern English (Montgomery), New Testament in Modern Speech (Weymouth), Wuest's Expanded Translation, Amplified New Testament, New Testament (Swann), Aldine Bible, Four Gospels (C. C. Torrey), Confraternity Version, Four Gospels (Rieu), New Testament (Knox), Concordant Literal New Testament, Anchor Bible, Rotherham, Holy Bible in Modern English (Fenton), Bible in BASIC English, Better Version (Estes), Sacred Writings (A. Campbell), New Easy-to-Read Version, New Testament for the New World.

This writer is not aware of a single version, produced by a team or group of scholars, that renders ego eimi at John 8:58 in a perfect tense. Even those who do not see here a reference to the Deity of Christ (such as Barrett 6) do not change the translation to something else. Rather, many scholars rightly point out the same contrasting of verbs as seen in the prologue of John (between the aorist ginomai and the imperfect en) as well as the same kind of differentiation found in the LXX rendering of Psalm 90:2. 7 They also recognize that the response of the Jews would be rather strong if this was simply a claim of bald pre-existence. The oft-repeated charge of blasphemy as found in John makes this clear. Rather, the usage of a term used of God Himself (as will be shown later) would be sufficient to bring the response of verse 59.

The phrase was so understood by the early church as well. Irenaeus showed familiarity with it as "I am" 8 as did Origen 9 and Novatian. 10 Chrysostom wrote, "As the Father used this expression, "I Am," so also doth Christ; for it signifieth continuous Being, irrespective of time. On which account the expression seemed to them to be blasphemous." 11 The context of this passage is far too strong to allow this to be rendered as a simple historical narrative, resulting in the conversion of the present indicative into a perfect tense. Alford added,

"As Lucke remarks, all unbiassed (sic) explanation of these words must recognize in them a declaration of the essential pre-existence of Christ. All such interpretations as 'before Abraham became Abraham' i.e., father of many nations (Socinus and others), and as 'I was predetermined, promised by God' (Grotius and the Socinian interpreters), are little better than dishonest quibbles. The distinction between was made (or was born) and am is important. The present, I am, expresses essential existence, see Col. 1:17, and was often used by our Lord to assert His divine Being. In this verse the Godhead of Christ is involved; and this the Jews clearly understood, by their conduct to Him."12

Old Testament Background of ego eimi

An extensive discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of this paper. 13 Suffice it to say that the position taken by this writer reflects a consensus opinion of many scholars, that being that the closest and most logical connection between John's usage of ego eimi and the Old Testament is to be found in the Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew phrase ani hu in the writings (primarily) of Isaiah. 14 It is true that many go directly to Exodus 3:14 for the background, but it is felt that unless one first establishes the connection with the direct quotation of ego eimi in the Septuagint, the connection with Exodus 3:14 will be somewhat tenuous.

The Septuagint translates the Hebrew phrase ani hu as ego eimi in Isaiah 41:4, 43:10 and 46:4. In each of these instances the phrase ani hu appears at the end of the clause, and is so rendered (or punctuated) in the LXX (just as in these seven examples in John). The phrase ego eimi appears as the translation of a few other phrases in Isaiah as well that are significant to this discussion. It translates the Hebrew anoki anoki hu as ego eimi in 43:25 and 51:12. Once (52:6) ani hu is translated as ego eimi autos (basically an even more emphasized form). And once (45:18) we find ego eimi kurios for ani Yahweh! This last passage is provocative in that it is in the context of creation, an act ascribed to Jesus by John (John 1:3) and other New Testament writers (Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:2-3).

The usage of ani hu by Isaiah is as a euphemism for the very name of God Himself. Some see a connection between ani hu and Yahweh as both referring to being. 15 That it carried great weight with the Jews is seen in 8:59 and their reaction to the Lord's usage of the phrase. If one wishes to say that Jesus was not speaking Greek, but Aramaic, the difficulty is not removed, for the identification would have been just that much clearer!

There seems to be a direct connection between the Septuagint and Jesus' usage of ego eimi. In Isaiah 43:10 we read, "that you may know, and believe, and understand, that I am He" (personal translation). In the LXX this is rendered thus: hina gnote kai pisteusete kai sunete hoti ego eimi. In John 13:19, Jesus says to the disciples, "from now on I tell you before it comes to pass in order that when it does happen, you may believe that I am." (personal translation). In Greek the last phrase is hina pisteusete hotan genetai hoti ego eimi. When one removes the extraneous words (such as hotan genetai which connects the last clause to the first) and compares these two passages, this is the result:

* Is. 43:10: hina pisteusete ... hoti ego eimi
* Jn. 13:19: hina pisteusete ... hoti ego eimi

Even if one were to theorize that Jesus Himself did not attempt to make such an obvious connection between Himself and Yahweh (which would be difficult enough to do!) one must answer the question of why John, being obviously familiar with the LXX, would so intentionally insert this kind of parallelism.

Another parallel between the usage of ego eimi in John 13:19 and its usage in Isaiah has to do with the fact that in 13:19 Jesus is telling them the future - one of the very challenges to the false gods thrown down by Yahweh in the passages from Isaiah under consideration (the so-called "trial of the false gods) This connection is direct in Isaiah 41:4, "Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD, - with the first of them and with the last - I am He." Here the "calling forth" of the generations - time itself - is part of the usage of ani hu. The same is true in John 13:19. In the same chapter of the book of Isaiah references above, in verse 22 we read, "Bring in your idols, to tell us what is going to happen. Tell us what the former things were, so that we may consider them and know their final outcome. Or declare to us the things to come..." That this reference to knowledge of the future would appear in the same section that uses ani hu as the name for God, and that this would be introduced by the Lord Himself in the same context in John 13:19, is significant indeed.

Hence, though some would easily dismiss the ani hu/ego eimi connection, 16 or ignore it altogether, 17 the data seems strong that this connection is intended by John himself by his usage.
Johannine Usage of ego eimi - Interpretation

It is not hard to understand why there have been many who have not wished to make the connection that John makes between Jesus and Yahweh. One cannot make this identification outside of a trinitarian understanding of the Gospel itself, as one can certainly not identify Jesus as the Father in John's Gospel, hence, if Jesus is identified as ego eimi in the sense of the Old Testament ani hu, then one is left with two persons sharing the one nature that is God, and this, when it encounters John's discussion of the Holy Spirit, becomes the basis of the doctrine of the Trinity! Indeed, many of the denials of the rather clear usage of ego eimi in John 8:24, 8:58, 13:19 and 18:5-6 find their origin in preconceived theologies 18 that are nearly unitarian, subordinationist, or so enamored with naturalistic rationalism as to be antisuper-natural. An interpreter who is unwilling to dismiss the words of Scripture as simply "tradition" (and hence non-authoritative) or to interpret Scripture in contradiction with itself (as in a violation of strict monotheism in the positing of a being who is quasi-god, mighty, but not "almighty") will be hard pressed to avoid the obvious conclusions of John's presentation. Lest one should find it hard to believe that John would identify the carpenter from Galilee as Yahweh Himself, it might be pointed out that he did just that in John 12:39-41 by quoting from Isaiah's temple vision of Yahweh in Isaiah 6 and then concluding by saying, "These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory and he spoke about Him." The only "Him" in the context is Jesus; hence, for John, Isaiah, when he saw Yahweh on His throne, was in reality seeing the Lord Jesus. John 1:18 says as much as well.

It is self-evident that such a far-reaching and in reality astounding claim as is made by the Lord Jesus in John 8:24, 58 is hard to accept outside of the highest estimation of His person. Indeed, Augustine wrote,

"...the whole unhappiness of the Jews was not that they had sin, but to die in sins...In these words, 'Except ye believe that I am,' Jesus meant nothing short of this, 'Except ye believe that I am God, ye shall die in your sins.' It is well for us, thank God, that He said except ye believe, and not except ye understand."19

But can the usage of ego eimi withstand that much weight? Though being a "scholar" does not guarantee infallibility in judgment, it should at least provide assurance of factual understanding. Given this, the scholars seem to feel that it can.

Leon Morris has written,

" 'I am' must have the fullest significance it can bear. It is, as we have already had occasion to notice...in the style of deity." (in a footnote on same page "ego eimi in LXX renders the Hebrew ani hu which is the way God speaks (cf. Deut. 32:39; Isa. 41:4, 43:10, 46:4, etc.). The Hebrew may carry a reference to the meaning of the divine name Yahweh (cf. Exod. 3:14). We should almost certainly understand John's use of the term to reflect that in the LXX. It is the style of deity, and it points to the eternity of God according to the strictest understanding of the continuous nature of the present eimi. He continually IS. Cf. Abbott: "taken here, along with other declarations about what Jesus IS, it seems to call upon the Pharisees to believe that the Son of man is not only the Deliverer but also one with the Father in the unity of the Godhead" (2228)."20

Warfield has written concerning this,

"...and again, as the most impressive language possible, He declares...: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am," where He claims for Himself the timeless present of eternity as His mode of existence."21

The great expositor J. C. Ryle noted,

"Let us carefully note what a strong proof we have here of the pre-existence and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. He applies to Himself the very name by which God made Himself known when He undertook to redeem Israel. It was "I AM" who brought them out of the land of Egypt. It was "I AM" who died for us upon the cross. The amazing strength of the foundation of a sinner's hope appears here. Believing on Jesus we rest on divinity, on One who is God as well as man.
There is a difference in the Greek verbs here employed which we should carefully notice. The Greek for "was" is quite different from the Greek for "am." It is as if our Lord said, "Before Abraham has born, I have an existence individual and eternal." "22

Luther, like Augustine before him, wrote in no uncertain terms:

"The Lord Christ is angry below the surface and says: "Do you want to know who I am? I am God, and that in the fullest sense. Do as you please. If you do not believe that I am He, then you are nothing, and you must die in your sin." No prophet, apostle, or evangelist may proclaim and say: "Believe in God, and also believe that I am God; otherwise you are damned." "23

A.T. Robertson certainly did not see any linguistic problems here:

I am (ego eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesthai (entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between en in 1:1 and egeneto in 1:14. See the contrast also in Psa. 90:2 between God (ei, art) and the mountains (genethenai)."24

And finally, William Hendrickson put it rather bluntly:

"The "I am" here (8:58) reminds one of the "I am" in 8:24. Basically, the same thought is expressed in both passages; namely, that Jesus is God!"25

This writer feels that there is no way that John could have been any more obvious in his intention to invest in ego eimi a significance far beyond the simple function of identification that it can, and does at times, perform. In 8:58 the Jews pick up stones to stone Jesus. The other two times this occurs are right on the heels of claims to deity as well - first in John 5 where Jesus has just claimed equality with the Father both by calling God His own Father in very special terms as well as claiming the same right to work on the Sabbath as the Jews understood to be God's in upholding the universe; secondly in John 10 after Jesus claims that He and the Father are one in their role of bringing salvation to God's elect - His "sheep". In both instances John spells it out clearly that these claims were understood to be claims to equality with God - can 8:58 then be different?

In John 13:19 the introduction of the phrase in correlation with the revelation of future events just as is found in Isaiah, even to the point of nearly quoting the LXX rendering, is far too specific to be overlooked. And in 18:5-6, John repeats the phrase in verse six to make sure that the reader understands the reason for the soldiers' falling backwards. And why would the soldiers fall backwards if not for the awesomeness of the words of Jesus? Some of the naturalistic explanations brought forward for this incident are so ludicrous as to be absurd. John's meaning cannot be mistaken.

If each of these instances were examined solely in a vacuum, separated from the others, without any thought of the entire book of John, one might see how their collective significance could be missed. But this is not the way of scholarly interpretation. These statements are not made in a vacuum - they are placed in a book that is rich with meaning and purpose. It has been well said that John intends the entire Gospel to be read through the "interpretive window" of the Prologue of 1:1-18. Given the teachings of that passage, can one seriously doubt the meaning of ego eimi in the above examined passages? It would seem not.
Conclusion

It could fairly be admitted that an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 8:58 to Exodus 3:14 is unwise. The connection that is much more properly traced is the one given here, that of ego eimi/ani hu as found in Isaiah. The connection between Isaiah and Exodus 3:14 is so obvious as to be undeniable.

We have seen that John uses ego eimi in more than one way - the majority of the time providing a predicate. Even these are astounding in their majesty in regards to the person of Christ. Here Jesus is said to be the way, the truth, and the life; the light of the world; the bread of life; and the good shepherd, each of which it should be noted, has parallels to statements made by Yahweh in the Old Testament. But the bulk of this paper has been devoted to those passages where the phrase is used in a specific sense - in an "absolute" sense.

Upon examining these we have seen that they find their origin and background in the book of Isaiah's usage of the Hebrew term ani hu and its translation as ego eimi in the LXX. We have seen the close parallel between Isaiah 43:10 and John 13:19, both in form as well as thought content.

We have also seen how the context of the passages themselves - the setting and teaching of the entire book of John - makes the identification of ego eimi and its resultant presentation of the deity of Christ inevitable. We have seen how John purposefully emphasizes these phrases, helping us to grasp their significance.

In closing, we might do well to look, then, with this understanding in mind, at Jesus' words at John 8:24: "unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." Jesus here gives us the content and object of saving faith - faith, real faith is that which comes to the real Jesus. A faith that demands a change in Jesus before a commitment is made is not real faith at all. The Jews standing about Him during this conversation most assuredly would not have denied that He was a man - but that was not sufficient for faith. Some had just recently proclaimed Him as Messiah - but that was not sufficient for faith. Some might hail Him as a prophet or a miracle worker, blessed by God - but that was not sufficient for faith. Some today say He was a great moral teacher and philosopher - but that is not sufficient for faith. Some call Him "a god" or a great angel - but that is not sufficient for faith. No, Jesus Himself laid down the line - unless one believes Him for whom He says He is - the ego eimi - one will die in one's sins. There is no salvation in a false Christ. If we are to be united with Christ to have eternal life, then we must be united with the true Christ, not a false representation. It is out of love that Christ uttered John 8:24. We would do well to heed His words.

1. These are: John 6:35, 6:41, 6:51, 8:12, 8:18, 10:7, 10:9, 10:11, 10:14, 11:25, 14:6, 15:1, 15:5.
2. See F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1983) pg. 193.
3. Philip Harner, The "I Am" of the Fourth Gospel, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970) pg. 4.
4. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934) pp. 879-880.
5. See A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1932) 5:158-159.
6. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978) pg. 342.
7. See J. C. Ryle, Ryle's Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.) pg. 573 as well as A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament 5:159.
8. "Irenaeus Against Heresies" in Philip Schaff, The Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers, 14 volumes. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1983), 1:478.
9. "Origen Against Celsus" in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 volumes. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1981) 4:463.
10. "A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity" in Roberts and Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:624-625.
11. Chrysostom, "Homilies on St. John" in Schaff, The Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers, 14:199.
12. Henry Alford, New Testament for English Readers, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1983) 2:547.
13. See Harner, The "I Am" of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 6-36.
14. This connection is either directly made or alluded to by Leon Morris, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1971) pp. 447, 473; by Merrill C. Tenney, The Expositor's Bible Commentary: John, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1981) pg. 99; and by F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1983) pp. 193, 288.
15. Morris, The Gospel According to John, pg. 473.
16. M. James Penton, "The "I Am" Of John 8:58" in The Christian Quest, Winter, 1988, pg. 64.
17. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of John's Gospel, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1943) pp. 614-615.
18. A good example is given by C. K. Barrett: "It is not however correct to infer either for the present passage or for the others in which ego eimi occurs that John wishes to equate Jesus with the supreme God of the Old Testament...Note that in v. 28 it is followed by 'I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me I speak these things...I always do the things that are pleasing to him', and in 13:19 by 'He who receives me receives him who sent me' (13:20). Jesus is the obedient servant of the Father, and for this reason perfectly reveals him. ego eimi does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms." The assumption of the unipersonality of God as well as the ontological subordination of the Son that underlies Barrett's comments and clouds his normally clear exegesis, is striking.
19. As quoted by Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, pp. 531-532.
20. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, pg. 473.
21. B. B. Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950), pg. 60.
22. Ryle, Expository Thoughts, pg. 573.
23. Martin Luther, "Sermons on the Gospel of John Chapters 6- 8" in Luther's Works, Jerislav Pelikan, editor, (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959) pg. 365.
24. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, 5:158-159. 25. William Hendrickson, New Testament Commentary: The Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953) pg. 67.

 

[Rick the holypig]

Rick,


It is also upon this same false assumption that you characterize the correct rendering of John 1:1 as a lame translation, therefore you are in error.


R7-12

If you ever had a greek class or knew greek at all, you would know just how lame that translation is. no wonder you won't post who the non-greek speaking person who made it up. there is not one person who knows greek that would transcribe those words like that. Again as I told you before. you can use the rules of english when translating greek just like you can't use noun, verb rules when translating Spanish to english. If you did a word order for word order translation from Spanish to english you would get junk. Example a hotdog translated from Spanish would be a doghot or First Free Methodist Church would be First Church Methodist Free so in english it would be saying that there are no methodists in the church because it is Methodist Free instead of a Free Methodist Church

your sister cult the Jw's tried this same lie & was handed their hat by Walter Martin & had to admit that just like your sources, they didn't know a thing about greek. so you see you are the one in error about John 1:1 & with that lie all your house of cards just fell over.

Now quick repost the John 1:1 lie & tell everyone who noone can disporve what you say so you can stroke your ego & sleep tonight.

 

[thessalonian]

Brad,

In 431 at the Council of Ephesus she was pronounced, "Mother Of God". I would say that title made her at least a little godlike?

Not in the slightest. It mearly means that she gave birth to the God-man Jesus Christ. That is the only way the Catholic Church views the title. There is no omnipotence of Mary in doing this as it was accomplished through the power of the Holy Spirit. No omniscience as she only knew what the angel told her. No omniprescence is implied in the title. You are quite wrong Brad. But thanks for playing.

 

[jgredline]

Question 1:

According to the doctrine of the Trinity, God is one being in three hypostases, or persons, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ is co-equal with the Father (and therefore omniscient), if this were biblically true how would it possible for the following to occur, as it so obviously does within the Bible narrative?

For Jesus Christ to receive revelation from God? Which is then received by John from Messiah.

Revelation 1:1 says that it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to show his servants things which must shortly take place. And he sent and signified it by his angel to His servant John.

1:1, 2 The first verse announces the subject of the book, namely, the things which must shortly take place. The book of Revelation is primarily an unfolding of the future. This revelation of future events was given by God to Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus, in turn, committed it to His angel, and the angel made it known to His servant John. John’s purpose in writing the Book was to share the information with the Lord’s servants, that is, with all true believers. In doing this, John bore witness to the prophetic word which God had spoken to him and to the testimony to which Jesus Christ had borne witness. In short, John testified to all things that he saw in heavenly visions.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Brad,

In 431 at the Council of Ephesus she was pronounced, "Mother Of God". I would say that title made her at least a little godlike?

Not in the slightest. It mearly means that she gave birth to the God-man Jesus Christ. That is the only way the Catholic Church views the title. There is no omnipotence of Mary in doing this as it was accomplished through the power of the Holy Spirit. No omniscience as she only knew what the angel told her. No omniprescence is implied in the title. You are quite wrong Brad. But thanks for playing.

I won't continue this here out of respect for the continuity of R7's thread, but if you'd like to start another, perhaps you could further explain how someone who you pray to, believe was sinless, who gave birth to one who was "100% God", and is called the "Mother of God" (when you believe that the title "Son of God" infers Godhood) is "not in the LEAST" - "godlike" (small "g" / "like" = similar)

 

[R7-12]

Hi jgredline,

You wrote,

Yes your correct. I don't know you personally and I offer an appology and ask for forgiveness. What I do question is your doctrine.

I accept your apology.

Yes Paul tells us to work out our own salvation. What concerns me is that through your false teaching you will lead people astray.

The truth is the whole world is deceived. This forum is like others that allow for people with differing views to discuss them, hopefully, in a friendly and edifying atmosphere. It is not my intention to lead anyone astray, but rather, to answer questions concerning the Bible as I understand it. You have no greater proof that you are not leading anyone astray than I do. That’s why I repeatedly ask that topics are dealt with according to the scriptures.

Only the true NON CREATED JESUS can forgive sins. A created Jesus can not atone for sins anymore than a bull.

Perhaps looking at what God has ordained from a slightly different perspective will help clarify a few things. The Bible repeatedly says that God is the ultimate judge who has given that authority to Christ by delegation. It is according to God’s will that who is forgiven and justified and glorified is determined. I assume we are still on the same page to this point. Christ’s sacrifice was the payment for our debts; he paid the price of our sins. By his death we can be redeemed. But it is by FAITH that we are saved. It is by the FAITH we have in God that as He raised up Christ from death so shall He raise us up at the coming of our Lord.

The death of Christ has no effect upon he who has not faith, until he repents and believes. So the outcome is not manifest by the shedding of blood but rather, the outcome is manifest by FAITH in the promise of God that BY Christ’s shed blood we can be saved. So to answer your question, not only does Christ not have to be God to be our sacrifice, but the sacrifice needed requires that he not be God.

Please consider meditating on the concept of sacrifice for a while. What does it entail? What are some of the spiritual lessons involved in giving one’s life for another? - In laying down one’s life to pay for the debt that another would have to pay for himself if not for the fact.

Consider the roles of the High Priest, the offerer, the sacrifice, and the Most High God. Ask yourself some of the obvious questions that naturally arise, such as, can a God offer Himself to Himself as the High Priest, as the offerer, and as the sacrificial life required to pay the debt (a whole burnt offering)? Examine the sequence involved strictly from the abstract, in other words, just as concepts. Then fill the roles involved with the ones spoken of in Scripture. Take a look at Abraham and Isaac also.

I am calling your false teaching into question as 2 peter 2;1-3 tells us.

And this is precisely what I am doing concerning the doctrine of the Trinity! Only I am not attacking you or anyone else or trying to dehumanize or discredit or judge, as some on this forum do.

How are we different in this respect? Only by our respective beliefs which we are both entitled to! Therefore, we must appeal to what must be the final authority! – The written word of God.

I wrote,

So enough with the assassination attempts already.

Your response,

Nobody is trying to kill you. Perhaps your feeling convicted?

I wondered if I would have to explain this comment. If you examine the 6th commandment (Exodus 20:13) and look at how Christ magnified the law (Matthew 5:21-26), whenever we verbally attack another person and slander them, we are breaking this commandment. Look at each commandment as the point from which we can understand both extremes concerning each spiritual principle involved. In other words, the command is do not commit murder, on one side we have all the evil that is related to hatred and destruction such as gossip, slander, false accusations, which all move towards, and are epitomized by, murder. On the other hand we move away from that into acts of kindness, helping others, uplifting others with our words, helping someone who is hurt, feeding someone who is hungry, visiting orphans and widows, putting aside our lives for awhile to help some one else, defending a brother, taking abuse to protect the innocent, etc. I think you get my drift. All these are related to the one commandment and likewise all the other commandments involve many spiritual principles. Character assassination is a form of murder.

Your teaching are very much Gnostic and believes while not exactly the same are very similar to JW, MORMONS, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE, ONENESS THEOLOGY

You haven’t a clue about the numerous major differences between my faith and those you compare it to. Doing so is a form of labeling which justifies categorization and judgment. Gnosticism primary include that only the priesthood had the secret knowledge necessary for salvation. It separated the ministry from the laity. Sound familiar? Another major aspect in the teaching included the idea that since sin occurs in the flesh therefore all things material are evil and thus the God of the OT who is responsible for creation is evil. Hence the need for a new and Spiritual God in the form of Christ. If he is elevated to co-quality and co-eternity with the God of the OT, then he has authority to change the law and even do away with it. This is the doctrine of the Nicolaitans who were a Gnostic sect extant in the first century CE.

There are many books on the subject, some helpful, some which confuse, but with enough research, you can come to understand the basic teachings behind Gnosticism. It is the opposite of what I believe and teach.

I and others on this thread have proven your interpretaion of John 1:1 false. Read the prevoise post again. I have also included another article at the bottom of this page for you to study and look at.

I haven’t seen what you claim. What post shows my rendering to be false? Better yet, I will post it again here. Please show me what has been twisted and mistranslated.

ēn arche ēn ho logos
In beginning was the logos

kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon
and the logos was toward the theon

kai theos ēn ho logos
and theos was the logos

What have I lied about? What I have done is challenge your theology and have proven it wrong as has time through the past 2000 years. What I was wrong about and I did appologize was my statement above. Thats it.

I have accepted your apology. What I was referring to here was your statement regarding John 1:1. You have accused me of twisting and making up Scripture. That is untrue. It is a false accusation. I will wait for your response showing how I have twisted and made up Scripture.

Your questions have been answered and the Trinity is easy to prove. You need only to read the bible. I pray that you will change your mind as this is very much a salvation issue.

I don’t know how you can say that. The only question that this entire thread is based on has never been answered. I could just as easily instruct you to read your Bible and expect you to understand the error of the Trinity, but I’m not naïve. That is why this discussion concerning the doctrine was initiated – so that constructive and beneficial dialogue could occur.

I see now that you have explained Revelation 1:1 to the best of your ability. That’s fine but that’s not the question of the thread. Please review the question.

Thank you for the article but I would rather develop discussion between people so that we can progress to the point of better understanding. If you wish, you can summarize the major points of the article and I will respond.

I hope we can develop a better rapport.

Thank you for offering the apology.

R7-12

 

[jgredline]

Brad,

In 431 at the Council of Ephesus she was pronounced, "Mother Of God". I would say that title made her at least a little godlike?

Not in the slightest. It mearly means that she gave birth to the God-man Jesus Christ. That is the only way the Catholic Church views the title. There is no omnipotence of Mary in doing this as it was accomplished through the power of the Holy Spirit. No omniscience as she only knew what the angel told her. No omniprescence is implied in the title. You are quite wrong Brad. But thanks for playing.

I won't continue this here out of respect for the continuity of R7's thread, but if you'd like to start another, perhaps you could further explain how someone who you pray to, believe was sinless, who gave birth to one who was "100% God", and is called the "Mother of God" (when you believe that the title "Son of God" infers Godhood) is "not in the LEAST" - "godlike" (small "g" / "like" = similar)

I thought you said out of respect for R17 you would not continue this discussion