CDU SPD PDS Jahr Wahlergebnis 53,8 58,1 56,9 41,1 19,1 16,6 10,7 9,8 10,2 16,5 22,2 Entdecken Sie Erst- und Nachpressungen von - Vervollständigen Sie Ihre Sammlung. Kaufen Sie Vinyl und CDs. Johannes , Jesus antwortete ihnen und sprach: Wahrlich, wahrlich ich sage euch: Wer Sünde tut, der ist der Sünde Knecht. Before. Johannes ,2.
Cornell Law School Search Cornell. Code Rulemaking What Cites Me. United States Code U. Title 8 published on Sep The section you are viewing is cited by the following CFR sections.
Additional Documents type regulations. Written comments must be submitted on or before January 30, Comments received by mail will be considered timely if they are postmarked on or before that date.
Summary The Department of Justice proposes to amend the regulations of the Executive Office for Immigration Review EOIR governing the annual statutory limitation on cancellation of removal and suspension of deportation decisions.
Electronic comments must be submitted and written comments must be postmarked on or before November 17, The eternal Yahveh, who truly exists from eternity, was indeed sending Moses, not any nonexistent idol god of Egypt.
He is ever existing and cannot be bound by time. His very Hebrew name suggests His eternality. In fact, future tense renderings only cloud the answer of God and create ambiguity in the receptor language of English.
When this is not the case apparently , we will find that either logical or grammatical errors are to blame for such objections.
And finally, if these errors are not at fault, we will find, as we so often do, that people tend to take passages out of context and thereby create objections which really have no merit.
In it he has made some inaccurate comments regarding Exodus 3: All you need is a Greek-English interlinear like the www. Moreover, we can easily see the fallacy in Mr.
So hopefully with just these few examples it is abundantly clear that whatever the reason for Mr. Furuli went on to argue in his book: So here there is no link to John 8: In most languages there is more than one way to say the same thing.
This we may see by looking at the foundational fallacy in such reasoning. But what happens when we apply this same reasoning to other passages of Scripture?
And are we to believe that when Jesus quoted Isaiah In light of the facts revealed above, that kind of argument can hold no weight whatsoever.
If anything, it actually provides stronger evidence that Jesus was referencing the Septuagint version of Exodus 3: So this fallacious objection has no validity and falls completely apart when put to the test using other passages.
There are two reasons for this assessment. The Septuagint translators could have just as easily translated Exodus 3: So there can be no valid argument trying to disconnect Exodus 3: God Himself made that connection for a reason, and no human being can truly separate what God has put together.
The glorious and life-changing message of the orthodox, Christian Gospel is that God Himself became a little babe in time and space and was born in a manger.
It is a wondrous and beautiful thing to look upon the frailty, helplessness, and innocence of a baby and realize that God did such a thing for us. It is almost incomprehensible!
But this great condescension did not stop there, for it culminated in God Himself making the ultimate, loving sacrifice to save humanity from bondage to sin and death.
Apparently the Jews recognized what He said in verse 58 and, because they could not fathom God taking on humanity in Jesus, decided that Jesus should be stoned for some undisclosed offence.
So in the context of the other passages of Scripture where Jesus is accused and threatened to be killed or stoned to death, it is quite reasonable to view the attempted stoning by the Jews in John 8: In fact, as we have discussed above, the context requires that this is why they attempted to stone Him.
This is because although He had said many aggravating and truthful things about them in chapter 8, they did not attempt to stone Him for them. But such reasoning is fallacious on two counts.
The issue with blasphemy is claiming an attribute of God that exclusively belongs to Him, such as the ability to forgive the sins that people commit against Him.
Jesus, for example, claimed to be almighty God by forgiving the sins of another man who had sinned against God Mark 2: This, under normal circumstances, was grounds for blasphemy because only God can forgive those who sin against Him Psalms By using faulty biblical hermeneutics the art and science of interpreting Scripture , some have attempted to argue that Mark 2: But these passages are speaking of forgiving sin in different contexts and therefore cannot be seen as identical.
Jesus in Mark was forgiving a sin that the man had committed against God. But stop and think for a moment. Does it make sense that if someone sins against God that a mere human being can stop God from forgiving the person?
There is simply nothing in the entirety of Scripture to support such an outlandish idea, and thus Mark 2: More than likely, what John So, only God can forgive sin that is committed against Him only, and if someone claims that ability then it is grounds for blasphemy.
The other instance where Jesus is accused of committing blasphemy, John Even though it is true that in the Greek text of Definite nouns often do not have a definite article in the Greek New Testament.
This we may see by looking at the following passages in Greek: When Jesus claimed that He and the Father had the equal power to keep believers sheep from being snatched from the one Hand of the apparent two Persons or beings , the Jews viewed that as blasphemy John Jesus then responded by quoting the Old Testament passage in Psalm But they were fallible and sinful human beings, as the rest of Psalm 82 indicates.
However, Jesus was claiming in verses to be far greater than those in the Psalm. Jesus was not saying He was somehow lesser than those He referred to in the Psalm.
We must remember that Jesus often used the technique of arguing from the lesser degree to the greater, and that He was apparently doing the same thing in John For example, Jesus said in Matthew 7: The same thing can be seen in Matthew 6: So apparently in John If Jesus is both the Son of man and the Son of God, this must mean He has two natures, a human nature and a unique divine nature John 5: Jesus was both God and man while on earth in order to effectively accomplish redemption because only God could bridge the gap of sin that separated humanity from Himself.
If Jesus had not been truly God and truly man and made the claims that He made, it is obvious that He should have been stoned for blasphemy.
But since His claims were true, the charge of blasphemy in His case was indeed false and unwarranted, being placed upon Him by those who simply refused to see the glorious power of God for salvation that was being revealed to them.
They denied who Jesus truly was and claimed to be because, as Jesus once put it so eloquently, they were in error, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God.
But in context, the blind man in John 9: The use of those words by Jesus and Yahveh mark them as distinct and different, and it is a fallacy to compare what They said with what others said in contexts that are not even similar, let alone identical.
There is simply no weight to any arguments of this nature. In contrast to the man-made idols of Egypt surrounding Israel, Yahveh was the only true and ever-present God of eternity.
This is why such a rendering is ultimately theologically bankrupt and cannot adequately express the true meaning of the Hebrew verb of existence in Exodus 3: He was telling the Jews that He was Yahveh in the flesh.
It is who used them and in what context that gives them special theological significance, along with what they mean moreso than how they are to be translated.
There can be no rational denial of this. It does not accurately convey the ever-present existence that the actual Greek present tense indicates.
In final reflection on the text of John 8: From weak grammatical arguments to logical fallacies to Scriptures taken out of context, all of these and more have been done in a fruitless effort to disconnect what God has apparently connected.
The more people try to come up with sophistic arguments and assertions to disprove that Jesus was claiming to be the Yahveh of Exodus, the more it would seem to me that the texts are connected.
Why try to separate what is not truly connected? Appropriate rebuttals if needed will be posted here in link or text form as the need arises.
Those reading this essay are encouraged to send the author any information they may feel is pertinent to this discussion at the email address link below.
The main thing that must be understood from this essay is that the power of God unto salvation is the gospel of Jesus Christ. The expression I am, though in the present tense, is clearly designed to refer to a past time.
We divide time into the past, the present, and the future. The expression, applied to God, denotes that he does not measure his existence in this manner, but that the word by which we express the present denotes his continued and unchanging existence.
There is a remarkable similarity between the expression employed by Jesus in this place and that used in Exodus to denote the name of God.
The manner in which Jesus used it would strikingly suggest the application of the same language to God. The question here was about his pre-existence.
The objection of the Jews was that he was not 50 years old, and could not, therefore, have seen Abraham. Jesus replied to that that he existed before Abraham.
As in his human nature he was not yet 50 years old, and could not, as a man, have existed before Abraham, this declaration must be referred to another nature; and the passage proves that, while he was a man, he was also endowed with another nature existing before Abraham, and to which he applied the term familiar to the Jews as expressive of the existence of God I AM; and this declaration corresponds to the affirmation of John, that he was in the beginning with God, and was God.