tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7963497812712175287..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: I said you are godsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72055315984339562492017-06-12T15:31:44.988-04:002017-06-12T15:31:44.988-04:00There are many passages in the Gospel of John that...There are many passages in the Gospel of John that either clearly/expressly teach or strongly imply Christ's preexistence (e.g. John 1:14; 3:13, 31; 6:38, 62; 8:14, 23, 42; 10:36; 13:3; 16:28; 17:4-5 etc. [cf. 1 John 4:9-10, 14]). <br /><br />There are also the numerous times in the Gospel of John when Jesus said that He was sent by the Father (e.g. John 3:17, 34; 4:34; 5:23, 24, 30, 36, 37, 38; 6:29, 38, 39, 44, 57; 7:16, 18, 28, 29, 33; 8:16, 18, 26, 29, 42; 9:4; 10:36; 11:42; 12:44, 45, 49; 13:20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5; 17:3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21).<br /><br />The natural reading of those passages is one of preexistence. It's those who reject preexistence who have to use ad hoc and special pleading fallacies to argue against the natural reading of preexistence.<br /><br />For evidence on Christ's Pre-existence, see my blogpost:<br /><br /><b>Pre-Existence of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels</b><br /><a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/06/pre-existence-of-jesus-in-synoptic.html" rel="nofollow">http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/06/pre-existence-of-jesus-in-synoptic.html</a>ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-42144582386540774672017-06-12T05:39:56.514-04:002017-06-12T05:39:56.514-04:00"I can see Hays hasn't really studied the..."I can see Hays hasn't really studied the phrase 'sent into the world,' because the apostles were also 'sent into the world' as Jesus was... John 17:18. The preexistence goggles are quite thick on Hays. Guess the apostles also preexisted."<br /><br />i) Simplistic. In the Johannine context, the "world" stands in contrast to heaven. Jesus was sent into the world from heaven. In his case, "sent into the world" is shorthand, not just for where he went, but where he came from.<br /><br />ii) Moreover, this isn't the only verse for preexistence. I mentioned it because Jn 10 is the immediate question at issue. But other prooftexts for preexistence include Jn 1:1-3 and 17:5.<br /><br />"And Hays also misuses the anarthrous 'these' in this text which likely means 'a god' due to Jesus' response using Psalm 82 which Hays admits could refer to a lowercase 'god.'"<br /><br />The only singular theos in the passage is v33, but in that case the Jews are accusing Jesus of making himself the God of Israel. <br /><br />"The context of John 10 says nothing about the Shema and the usage shows Jesus is referring to his unity with his God and Father in shepherding the sheep as God gave him that authority."<br /><br />The parable of the Good Shepherd is from a separate scene. Different time, different place.<br /><br />"John 17 shows Jesus claiming the apostles are also to be 'one JUST AS' Jesus and his God are one." <br /><br />i) Different context.<br /><br />ii) Doesn't say the disciples will be one with the Father and Son, but one with each other. The Father and Son form one group while the disciples form another group. Two separate groups. <br /><br />iii) If, moreover, you're going to the parable of the Good Shepherd as your interpretive grid, the Shepherd is categorically distinct from the sheep. The disciples comprise one flock of sheep. That's hardly equivalent to the unity between the Father and the Son.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84848649974895548382017-06-11T23:54:09.057-04:002017-06-11T23:54:09.057-04:00I can see Hays hasn't really studied the phras...I can see Hays hasn't really studied the phrase "sent into the world," because the apostles were also "sent into the world" as Jesus was... John 17:18. The preexistence goggles are quite thick on Hays. Guess the apostles also preexisted. <br /><br />And Hays also misuses the anarthrous "theos" in this text which likely means "a god" due to Jesus' response using Psalm 82 which Hays admits could refer to a lowercase "god." <br /><br />It's clear Hays is ignoring Jesus' response and incorrectly linking Jesus' usage of "en" in John 10:30. I suggest Hays takes the time to read the entire Gospel of John before making these statements that make no sense in consistency or context as shown before with "sent into the world." The context of John 10 says nothing about the Shema and the usage shows Jesus is referring to his unity with his God and Father in shepherding the sheep as God gave him that authority. John 17 shows Jesus claiming the apostles are also to be "one JUST AS" Jesus and his God are one. I think this god of Hays has way more persons than he may like to admit.SHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07869818427031089564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50407598979310351812017-06-10T15:32:02.299-04:002017-06-10T15:32:02.299-04:00I would say his confusion regarding the NT use of ...I would say his confusion regarding the NT use of theos/God is understandable from someone with a philosophical background rather than a NT exegetical background. But Steve has corrected him so many times on this, I can only conclude it is willing ignorance at this point.David Gadboishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18375984671877016361noreply@blogger.com