And that’s part of the argument, I didn’t make this up FC, we use “I AM” to substantiate God as being the same as Existence. Which should tell you that there’s some aspect to it you’re not accounting for.
You trying to use that as evidence, just comes across to me as an attempt to put your own interpretation of the phrase above that of the Church Fathers, and leaving the full significance of the phrase by the wayside, which I showed by posting its translation from Hebrew.
Equally, I suspect that you still don’t know what is being Claimed by denying God is a being. That you’re somewhere along the lines of RET’s thinking, that this is somehow Deism.
Which makes further references from Scripture pointless. If you don’t understand the claim, what am I using scripture to substantiate?
I had to get you to understand the claim first. But you wouldn’t budge, nor put in any effort to understand. You just kept speaking from misconception, and continued to throw accusations at me.
And “understand” isn’t the same as “agree”, just so we’re clear.
I imagined you didn’t, that’s not the point.
The point is you claiming I’m doing or saying something outlandish, when it’s apart of Christian theology.
It was apart of the early Church, it’s still apart of the “unreformed” Churches. If it’s anything, it’s old hat.
You can disagree with it, fine! I don’t care! I didn’t come here to start a debate on Sola Scriptura or have any debate on theology at all. I came here to offer a different viewpoint to CSbrown (and oddly enough to defend viewing God as love), and when you & Susanne questioned what I said, I was willing to show:
- That yes, this is in Christian theology (Surprise?)
- What it means.
- Why it’s there.
Going further into #2 and #3 was contingent on my sensing you making some kind of effort to understand. Yet what I sensed far more, was just more attempts to use this to leap frog things at me.
Despite my not coming here, for any of this. I wasn’t coming here to try and correct your theology. In the end, all I was doing was trying to show that #1 was right, and that I wasn’t making any of it up.